Change Your Image
JerusalemFace
Reviews
Watchmen (2009)
Mesmerising and monotonous in equal measure
Based on the graphic novel of the same name, by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, 'Watchmen' is set in an alternative 1985 and follows a bunch of ex-masked heroes, as they... try to save... the world? Themselves? You see, it really isn't as straight forward as you might think, so if you're looking for a fast and fun popcorn movie, look elsewhere. Watchmen isn't your average super-hero movie. Hell, it isn't even a super-hero movie, full-stop!
Possibly a strange comparison this, but 'Watchmen' reminds me of 'The Golden Compass', a film which I had awaited the release of for years. If you're not aware, it's based on Philip Pullman's first novel in the 'His Dark Materials' series of books, which is a work of literary genius. The books are dark, mysterious and subtle, and the film is... colourful, mainstream and over-the-top. After watching the film, I was overcome with disappointment, and yet, I still enjoyed it, because despite the many flaws with the film, you could still make out a cracking, wonderfully original story underneath it all.
I'd never read the 'Watchmen' graphic novel, and yet I was left with a similar after-taste after watching this film adaptation. I was bored and mesmerised in equal measure; this is a film which is both insanely pretentious and self-indulgent, and yet rich with the extraordinary imagination and originality of the novel. All of the good parts of this film are a direct result of the novel on which it is based (and which, on a positive note, this film has caused me to start reading), and all of the apparent flaws, are down to the director's taste.
So... the director: Zack Synder... you may be familiar with his work on '300', which I found to be quite ridiculous; a fantastic example of style over a substance; and yet some may argue it changed the face of movie-making. Once the opening 20 minutes of '300' had passed, and the feeling of awe and wonder at the visceral and exhilarating action had subsided, I quickly became bored and confused. Does everything really need to be in ultra slow-motion? Even the bits where it's just a bunch of guys walking? (Mind you, I suppose it did bump it up to the length of a normal feature film).
Sadly, his patented style is still abundant and present in 'Watchmen'. And whilst it is perhaps more justifiable to use this method of film-making in a story as complex and epic as this, it actually detracts from the gritty and stark realism the novel was always meant to imply. 'The Golden Compass' made the same mistake. It's ironic that in trying to make a story more cinematic, and whilst being almost completely faithful to the chronology of the story itself, Snyder has removed the very essence of what makes 'Watchmen' so very poignant. The question, "what if super-heroes really existed?" simply never occurred to me whilst watching this, because I was so utterly removed from the alternate-reality Snyder has created. Sticking to Alan Moore's less stylistic vision of America, and more humanistic exploration of the characters, would have engaged the audience far more, and thus forced them to ask the questions the novel clearly evoked.
The soundtrack, despite the presence of some great tunes, is often bemusing. Philip Glass's 'Pruit Igoe' is beautiful and gets me every time I hear it; Simon & Garfunkel's "The Sound of Silence", however, is far too obvious to accompany a funeral scene. Moreover, using Bob Dylan's "Times They Are a Changin'", whilst again a little "on-the-nose" to accompany the opening montage where the audience literally see the 'times-a-changing', is nevertheless an inspired choice; using Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" during an excessively prolonged sex scene really isn't. Speaking of which, both the seemingly endless nature of the sex scene itself, and the choice of music to accompany it, further exemplifies Snyder's unrelenting need to overstate everything.
Don't get me wrong, there are some things Snyder gets right. For one, he doesn't pander to the Hollywood formula, and the 'Watchmen' we get to see on screen is just as unconventional and controversial as the version you can read on the page. Nothing in the Watchmen world, from the characters to the story-arcs is straight-forward; nobody is wholly good nor wholly bad; nothing is black or white; everything, like life, is pretty grey. At times the convoluted plot may leave you feeling a little disorientated, and perhaps this is why Hollywood usually rigidly sticks to the tried and tested formula we're so used to seeing, but Snyder and Warner Brothers should be applauded for having the bravery and tenacity to deliver a movie unlike any other.
Ultimately, it is the originality and complexity which will divide audiences and is what left me with mixed feelings. Technically, everything is close to flawless; the actors portray the wonderfully diverse characters with aplomb, the special effects and production design are simply fantastic, and I found the plot to be both engaging and thought-provoking. But the whole experience falls short of delivering any kind of lasting emotion and it is this lack of connection with most of the characters, that creates a somewhat puerile atmosphere.
Like, 'The Golden Compass', though, I believe that the strength of the source material shines through in the end and, despite its many flaws, 'Watchmen' is too unique and rich with detail to be ignored. Be warned, it's at times violent, subversive and perverse but this is a more courageous attempt at mainstream film-making than pretty much any other, and for that, is completely deserving of your attention.
The Golden Compass (2007)
Entertaining, but missed opportunity
His Dark Materials: Northern Lights, the original name for the book, in the UK. What a poignant, mysterious title for a book. The Golden Compass? Well, it doesn't quite have the same impact, does it? The use of the American name of the book for the film really didn't bother me at first, but as early warning signs come, it doesn't get much more obvious than this; we should have guessed from the off that this was going to be a very different beast to the book.
As a huge fan of Philip Pullman's epic trilogy, I had been eagerly anticipating this film adaptation for at least a year. I had fallen in love with the books a while back; not due to the fantastical elements, but due to the way it introduced this fantastical parallel universe to the reader in a slow, subtle, familiar way and made it feel real and tangible. The books are gritty, rugged and at times violent, and the stories' themes are philosophical and even spiritual in a way. It grieves me to say that the film misses the point; concentrating instead, on the fantasy, the action and the giant talking polar bears (panserbjorne).
The story is the same: it follows the exploits of a young orphan girl, Lyra, who lives among scholars at Oxford's Jordan College, in a world parallel to our own, in which every human is joined to a physical manifestation of their soul (daemon). One day Lyra hears hushed talk of an extraordinary particle which is rumoured to possess profound properties that could unite whole universes. But there are those who fear the particle and would stop at nothing to destroy it. Children are also being kidnapped left, right and centre, and Lyra's best friend, Roger, is among them. Catapulted into the heart of a desperate struggle, Lyra is forced to seek aid from witches, gyptians, and formidable armoured bears, to help her save her friends from these evil experiments.
But the soul of the story is all but gone. Gone is the mystery; the slow, developing understanding of a person's bond with their daemon; and the gentle, calm introduction to each character and their entwining relationships. Granted, such a complex story was always going to be difficult to adapt, but surely restricting it to such a short-time span (114 minutes) to tell the story just increases that difficulty. By ripping out the very things that made the novel so spell-binding and original, we're left with an ultimately quite hollow, shallow and self-conscious movie, which is more interested in showing off it's (admittedly breathtaking special effects) than telling an interesting story.
The problem isn't that I've read the books. The problem is that this film is very nearly a complete disaster, even as a film unto it's own right; there is no character development, some of the dialogue is awfully contrived and the pacing is all over the shop. Virtually everything from the book is in there, in fact; it's just every scene flies by at a ridiculous pace. The characters are given no time to breathe or grow and concepts such as the daemons, Dust and the magesterium are explained to you via convoluted exposition rather than simply shown to you. The result is a rather detached feeling and thus you never care about any of the characters, which is a crying shame, considering the source from which the stories came.
Oddly, despite nearly being a disaster, the film could have gone the other way - some of it teeters on perfection even. For one, it is visual eye candy, with the design departments each paying extraordinary attention to detail in their creation of Lyra's world and it is not their fault that Weitz's (or New Line's) vision differs so wildly from Pullman's description. Also, the acting itself from almost everyone is very strong, with each actor portraying the characters from the books superbly. Daniel Craig owns both scenes he's in, as Lord Asriel does in the book; Nicole Kidman's magnetic, seductive beauty is perfect for Mrs Coulter; Sam Elliott charms and delights as Lee Scoresby; and Dakota Blue Richards is every bit the lovable rogue of the Lyra of the novel. (Had there not been the need for her to be so pleonastic, the audience might even have actually cared about her).
As far as entertainment goes, the whole film is actually pretty high up the scale; captivating and engrossing the audience throughout, who barely have time to catch a breath. It's a damn good spectacle, that's for sure. It's just an utter shame how great this could have been on many levels, and how as it is it's only a little better than your average family adventure film. Children from about 8-14 WILL love this, but it doesn't have the depth or layers of, say... The Lord of the Rings (the comparison was always inevitable), to not only entertain, but to excite, thrill, shock, scare, move, and even inspire viewers of all ages, like it could have done.
As far as summaries go, you need just watch the film, which is over in an instant and in fact runs very much like a summary of the book. It's worth watching for the entertainment value but you'll probably have forgotten about it by tomorrow.
It sounds like a pretty scathing review, but I still think the quality of the story shines through in the end, and most people will find something to enjoy on some level. It is certainly unlike anything you've ever seen: so very good and yet so very, very unsatisfactory.
Must do better.
American Gangster (2007)
Solid crime story, that lacks killer punch.
Based on a true story, this follows the exploits of Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington), a real- life gangster, and Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), the cop who tries to catch him.
The movie's opening is (possibly purposefully) convoluted and the feeling of bewilderment is heightened by the fact that 25% of the characters in the film seemingly have a speech impediment. However, it is the second half of the film where it really takes off; thrusting the viewer into the action, in exciting style.
The performances all round are brilliant. Crowe gives his character a believable third dimension, thanks mostly to sacrificing his ego and concentrating on the character's everyman facets; a role that Hollywood actors neglect in favour of the more enticing, fancy, confident, showy characters.
But it is Washington's performance that will steal the plaudits - perhaps unfairly. Whilst he is brilliant as the cold, but family orientated, business man/gangster; he is not stunning. Washington often plays parts similarly, whether he plays a crime kingpin, or a cop; that ruthless nature and unpredictability. Like, say, Tom Cruise, he reacts to situations superbly - as well as any actor out there - but it's always the same guy you see behind those eyes.
The script and direction, whilst mostly superb, is at times a little mystifying. For instance, Lucas is always telling his brothers not to be too showy and bold and brash (in reference to the clothes they wear, and the way they behave), but when a rival doesn't pay him back, Lucas shoots him in the middle of the street in broad daylight, before returning to the cafe to continue eating his breakfast with his family. A tense, stunning scene, perhaps; but I couldn't help feel it was at odds with the rest of the story and the character itself.
It is this lack of cohesiveness throughout that prevents 'American Gangster' from being truly great.
Overall, this is certainly worth watching. It's an engrossing crime-romp, bolstered by a stellar cast and good production values, but the inconsistencies throughout slightly damage the overall quality.
A Lot Like Love (2005)
Below average rom-com with little rom or com. Just about passable, but utterly miss-able.
There aren't many romantic comedies out there that - on top of making you laugh - truly grab you by the scruff of the neck, pull you into the story and leave you thinking about it for some time afterwards. There are a couple (e.g. 'As Good As It Gets'/'Something's Gotta Give'), but there really aren't many. But there are quite a few out there that offer up an hour and a half, or so, of persistent chuckle/tear-inducing (albeit often contrived), entertainment, whilst still prompting you to care about the characters along the way (e.g. 'Pretty Woman'/'How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days', among many others).
Whilst, 'A Lot Like Love' does occasionally provoke the odd smile or snigger of approval and, at times, pulls at the heart strings, it ultimately fails because you don't care about any of the characters. Ashton Kutcher (who plays Oliver) and Amanda Peet (as Emily Friehl) are more than competent in the leading roles as the love interests and it is directed with a reasonable degree of sophistication, but from the moment the two characters meet by joining the mile-high club, early on in the film, you can't help but take an immediate dislike to the two central characters... which, let's face it, isn't a good way to start a romantic comedy.
After this initial 'encounter', they somehow remain in each other's lives for the next seven years. Plausible? Perhaps not, but that's not the problem. In fact, the idea is quite beautiful and a little inspiring - something we all love to imagine in our own lives. So it's a shame that, during the course of those seven years, they only meet up again every time they run out of romantic options in their own lives. They turn to each other almost as a last resort! In a film of this kind, characters are far more appealing when they are comfortable not being in a relationship, but, against the grain of their personalities, they can't stand to be without that 'one special person'. Oliver and Emily are the opposite; insecure, desperate people, who bounce from one relationship to the next; they just need someone... 'anyone'. Is this practical, convenient idea of relationships, now regarded as 'modern love'? Certainly not in my world. And it most certainly shouldn't be in romantic movie world, where stories of this kind should be fairy-tale-like. Perhaps this is why it's called 'A LOT Like Love'.
Although the characters do grow up and, likewise, begin to grow on the viewer, Amanda Peet's character remains a relatively selfish, unlikeable person and, as a result, I felt myself hoping that the guy for once actually 'wouldn't get the girl'! More flaws lie in the contrived script, as predictable set-pieces are usually accompanied by the romantic-comedy-obligatory-speciality-musical-montage to represent the passing of time; which, quite frankly, is a lazy way of conveying the character's feelings in a shorter space of time, than it would usually (and necessarily) take.
Just because the film is advertised as an entertaining, pop-corn movie, it doesn't give it the right to be bad. And, although this isn't all bad, it is a pretty lame attempt, nonetheless. Romantic comedies are meant to be at least romantic or a comedy and this is rarely either and certainly never at the same time (bar the scene where Oliver serenades Emily, with an endearingly woeful effort).
If you love your romantic comedies, then you still may find a little to enjoy, during the odd moment of predictable slush or humour, but everybody else should be well aware as the credits start to roll, there won't be much to laugh OR cry about for the next 100 minutes.
Below average rom-com with little rom or com. Just about passable, but utterly miss-able.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Fun but disappointingly shallow
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Harry who? I must admit I have never read any of J.K. Rowling's apparently delightful Harry Potter novels. I always understood that they were for. well, children. Which was why I couldn't really understand all the hype surrounding the movie. To be honest, it wasn't until a few months ago, when every magazine on the shelf was covered with Harry Potter's gleaming mug, when I decided I better sit up and take notice. And that I did.
Commercials, trailers, previews, behind-the-scenes pull-out guides were appearing everywhere and, all this while, whoever was sitting next to me at the time would be wearing an enormously excited, genuine grin. All I could do was feign interest. and grin. The truth is, I wasn't interested. Just. curious. Then reviews and box-office results started to filter out - it was an immediate success! With everyone! Critics and viewers alike. I had to see it. didn't I? Not really actually. The truth is, if you doubt you'll be interested, you probably won't, or at least you should go in not expecting film of the year. Like I did (lowers head in shame).
This is a children's movie. Which apparently means bad acting, predictable dialogue and lots of standing around and screaming, before running around for another few minutes (Home Alone fashion). Is that what children's movies are all about? Just making a film worse than it could be? Apparently. I keep saying 'apparently', because if that's what the rest of the world think, then I'm not going to argue with them. But hang on, wasn't 'The Lion King' a children's movie? Wasn't the updated version of 'Miracle on 34th Street' primarily for kids at Christmas? The difference between these and 'Harry Potter' is there is something to enjoy for everyone. They work on more than one level. 'Harry Potter' doesn't. The characters are merely bold, stereotyped, completely undeveloped people, acting very, very flatly with little or no enthusiasm.
But hang on, it's a children's movie. SO WHAT?!?! It shouldn't make a single bit of difference to the actual quality. OK, so characters can be excused for lack of depth, but surely this should be made up for in superficial acting qualities like timing and charisma. Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid) manages. Unfortunately the majority of the cast don't and end up looking like people straight out of a British Sunday afternoon children's series.
Should the title character really be so. plain? Am I meant to be behind him, cheering him on, hoping he does well? Sorry, I must have forgot to be. Daniel Radcliffe simply isn't cute enough - he's too mature. I know this is meant to be an example of his strong persona, but it just means I never feel sorry for him or never want him to succeed. He feels too untouchable, like James Bond or Indiana Jones, who to my knowledge, both surpass the age of eleven by some length. This, however, is the director's (Chris Columbus) fault and not Radcliffe's. At the beginning of the film we are shown Harry's Uncle and Aunt and how their outrageous neglect of him has seriously effected him. Or not. In fact, it doesn't appear that he could care less that he sleeps in a cupboard below the stairs. Harry doesn't look starved, over-worked or neglected, he just looks like a normal kid and the only thing frightening about his Aunt and Uncle is that they appear to have both fallen straight out of every single children's series ever made. OK, so they're caricatures, they don't need to be strongly developed characters, but I tired overly quick of their unoriginal personalities as I had seen it so many times before.
This is also how the majority of the characters in the film functioned; merely there to serve their purpose and act pantomimic. As a children's novel, J.K Rowling may have described them like this, which no doubt probed the imagination of children into creating such fun and lively characters, but in my opinion, on the screen, it doesn't work.
All of the child actors do a decent job to distinguish their relationships early on, but Chris Columbus' direction does nothing to elevate them above the average mark; and if Ron Weasley (played by Rupert Grint) does that weird little sideways smirk one more time, I'm going to scream.
Nobody in the film has quite enough 'umph' to show us what they're meant to be; Harry and co aren't quite likeable enough and had I not been bombarded with so much pre-performance information I probably wouldn't have guessed that Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) was meant to be the villain. Just to add another nail in the coffin of unprofessional film-making, the children even appeared to nearly forget their lines on several occasions, as their sentences drew to a hesitant end; which, quite frankly, I cannot understand since half the time I knew what they were going to say before they even opened their mouths.
The only child who impressed me was the young Emma Watson who played Hermione Granger; she somehow managed to be likeable and irritating at once. The adult actors don't do a much better job with the aforementioned Robbie Coltrane being the only one who seems to be comfortable with his role; even the usually brilliant, Alan Rickman, disappointed me.
'Disappointed' seems to summarise the whole experience for me. With all the hype surrounding the film it's difficult not to be disappointed. But, oh my, were there many things to disappoint me. In this day and age I expect to see a higher quality of special effects in a film, especially in one with such a huge budget. Remember in the 1950's films where you'd see a shot inside a car and it would be obvious they were actually in a studio and not really on the open road? Well it seems Chris Columbus thought he'd go back to using that effect for the broomstick scenes. Oh no, a troll has broken free from the dungeon! But he's not real, he's a computer image. One so blatantly a computer image that I'm surprised the children fell for it. What? He's supposed to be 'real'? But he looks so cartoony and two-dimensional. OK, well what about the part where they were all playing a sports game on the PlayStation? What was that, it wasn't a computer game? They were meant to be playing a magical sport called 'Quidditch'? Oh right. I'll be blunt again - it didn't look real by a long stretch and it sounded like there was a crowd of 200,000 even though there was obviously only about 200 children in there.
Having said that, the game of 'Quidditch' was actually one of the more exciting parts of the film. It was fast, fun and for once I couldn't guess what was coming next. well, sort of. As the scene progressed, it became more and more like every sport's film ever made where we are forced to feel uplifted and behind the losing side (the good side), but it did go creepily cliché by suddenly cutting to Coltrane's character who was cheering them on: `Yeah, go on, you can do it!' I think his words were, or something else which made him look as equally uncomfortable.
But it didn't really matter, because it entertained the viewer's and most importantly, the kids, and this is what the film was all about. But this is all it did do, which I personally think is a very easy feat. Ironically, for a film all about magic, it didn't quite have enough movie magic; something which, if possessed, can literally turn a bad movie into a work of art (e.g. Star Wars). But it had just about enough to do the business; just enough charm to make me smile; just enough interesting set-pieces for me to never really get bored or look at my watch; just enough. of everything. It did what it had to do and nothing more.
'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (or Philosopher's Stone as it's called in Britain)' is a film which must have something that really hits a magical nerve in many movie-goers, otherwise the film would not have been so critically and commercially well-received. Unfortunately, it missed mine. I enjoyed the experience, but was basically disappointed and frustrated to find not a cinematic masterpiece, but a technically average and underwhelming film. Of this year's main movies, Harry Potter is not one that will live in the hearts and memories of viewers and the bizarre comparison between this and 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' is utterly unfounded. In my opinion, there is no comparison.
An ultimately disappointing experience that was fairly fun and enjoyable while it lasted, but never really went that bit further. One for the kids. Now, I'm off to make a children's film. Which means I'll have a few heroic kids; a mean kid who is fatter than the rest and picks his nose and stuff like that; a bad guy who is actually quite nice and a good guy who is actually quite bad. Sound good? Didn't think so.
6/10 (3*/5)
Fight Club (1999)
The title is deceiving
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Slick, witty and thought-provoking; Fight Club breathes a breath of fresh air into films. It's anti-consumerism message and controversial ideas are never force-fed to the viewer and are stylishly decorated in lavish camera-work and cleverly interwoven plot twists.
Based on the Chuck Palahniuk novel, the title 'Fight Club' doesn't really do the film justice. There is fighting in Fight Club and a lot of it. Some, extremely gut-wrenching. But this isn't what the film is really about. It's about one 30 year old man's journey of self-discovery. The secret, basement-based group, known as 'fight club' just happens to be an enlightening experience for him. It also has more of an impact on his life than he might have originally anticipated. The title "Fight Club" makes this film sound like it will only appeal to 14 year old boys who love to watch blood flying everywhere as grown adults pummel each other into the ground. And it WILL appeal to this client group for the aforementioned reason. However, the premise of the film is a lot deeper than it sounds.
Basic premise: a group of young men nearing thirty-something rebel against Marcuse's borgeousie consumer society, no longer allowing themselves to be slaves to possessions, nor to the romantic lies perpetrated by the media-rich collective consciousness. The solution to modern ennui is violence, aggression, vandalism, and self-abnegation, abject nihilism. To say fight club is more brawn than brains, is a clear sign of misinterpretation of the very demanding, thought-provoking ideas expressed within the film.
The film begins as the camera sweeps through a computer generated intricate maze of what we later discover is the Narrator's (Edward Norton) brain. The opening sequence alone - the music, the feel and the atmosphere - immediately altered my preconception of the film. This was certainly no shabby slug-fest of a film, which was created in the hope that Brad Pitt and the big-budget alone, would carry it. Neither, for that matter, was it to be a naturalistic and grim portrayal of modern life.
The fact is, while the acting in Fight Club is fairly natural and realistic, the film borrows more from the stylistic method of movie-making and even has a surreal feel about it. The main character, who is throughout unnamed also narrates the film. Fight Club is essentially about this man and follows his characters movements almost constantly and, by narration, we are shown a glimpse of the motivations for his actions and reasoning. However, narration is by no means a rarity in a film. In fact, some of the most highly acclaimed films of all time have relied on this style of conveying the thoughts of the character to the viewer; one of the most successful films of 1999, "American Beauty" also uses narration, as does "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Blade Runner". It seems that narration in a movie works well. And Fight Club is no exception.
As the film centres around this one character, we obviously learn a lot about him as a person and this is the soul of the plot. Edward Norton puts in a disturbingly convincing performance and suits the part to a tee as a very normal 30 year old who has spent his life trying to climb the corporate ladder. After only six films, Norton has already been nominated for two academy awards for 'best actor', after his fantastic performances in Primal Fear and American History X. David Fincher, the director of Fight Club, strongly believes that nobody else could have played the part as well as Edward Norton, who's method acting ways and perfect timing complement the almost poetic script written by the award winning, Jim Uhls.
His character is stuck in a dead-end job and he isn't going anywhere. Fast. He spends his life trying to improve his condominium, buying furniture and clothes he 'doesn't even need'. He seeks perfection, he was almost there, almost 'complete' in a Martha Stuart-type way. He's become a slave to the Ikea nesting instinct and is trying to fulfil his life with materialistic possessions. He'd often flick through pages in a catalogue and wonder `what sort of a dining set defines me as a person?' But as he later discovers, 'self-improvement is masturbation - self-destruction'.
To make things worse, he has insomnia. Norton is brilliant at emulating the pain and anguish he's going through, desperate to sleep. He had sunk so low, that he sometimes prayed for a mid-air collision on one of his many flights across America, which his job demands of him. `This is my life, and it's ending one minute at a time,' he eloquently puts it. After being denied attention from his doctor who rather insensitively tells him to 'lighten up', he finds refuge in support groups. He becomes 'addicted'; testicular cancer, brain parasites, blood parasites, he attends as many as he can. Where else is he offered comfort, love and warmth that only dying people receive?
His insomnia ceases, for the meantime at least, but when another 'faker', Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter), starts attending all of the same groups as well, his insomnia recommences. Her lie reflects his lie and therefore he can't sleep again.. It isn't until he meets Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt) on a business trip that his life makes a positive turn-around. Tyler's laid back and easy going attitude fascinates him and a strong friendship develops, bonded by their contrary ideas and philosophy of life. Together they form 'fight club' as a way of releasing their pent-up aggression and defying the consensus of society. But what originally begins as a (playful) get together at weekends, gradually gets out of hand as Tyler's charismatic personality and influential ideas lead to the construction of a powerful organisation which believes in letting that which does not matter, truly slide.
The director, David Fincher (made famous for his darkly sinister direction of Se7en), uses an almost surreal approach. Every gimmick is utilised by this slightly self-consciously clever flick, which may begin to grate on some people's nerves. The spontaneity of the film's direction is a device used to sustain the interest of the viewer and in my case it worked well. At one point, the camera swoops around the room, as if it were a page in a catalogue, with items of furniture appearing and the price and details materialising on the landscape as he walks through the room. This is an example of the imagination and creativity of the film's direction which really is unique.
In terms of plot, the plausibility of underground pugilistic endeavours working therapeutic wonders is almost nil, but the film only thrives to engage the viewer on a serious level in it's ideas, not in it's presentation of them.
The brutally violent nature of certain parts of the film can only add to the desired impact, but obviously some viewers will definitely be offended by the constant barrage of punches to the completely bruised and cracked face of Jared Leto, who makes a small appearance in the film. The violence is not wholly justified by the subject matter, but herein lies the result of the characters' aggression and frustrations.
With some fantastic acting from all the leads in the film (Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helen Bonham Carter, especially), bold direction from David Fincher and a controversial issue that certainly demands attention, Fight Club oozes both bravery and originality and is absolutely worth seeing.
Fight Club's flaws are few and minor and furthermore neither are they even unconditional: it ends slightly unresolved and there is ambiguity over how serious it is meant to be taken practically. Aspects which in themselves can be discussed, considered and analysed.
In short, well worth seeing, but not for those who are easily offended
"If you wake up in different places at different times, is it possible that you could wake up as a different person?"
Oh yes, and there's a twist too.
Pik lik foh (1995)
Delivers nothing new, but the action is brilliant
Jackie Chan goes back to his roots in this exciting, martial arts, car racing drama. I was kept interested by the film throughout and I rarely got bored due to the adrenaline pumping fight scenes and fairly captivating plot.
Jackie Foh's (Jackie Chan) sister's are kidnapped by a criminal racing driver and Jackie must beat him in a race to get them back. What the plot lacks is intelligence and justification of the ideas. Why did the racing driver kidnap the sister's in the first place? Why does he want to race Jackie? These are things that are never really developed and don't really make much sense. However, what the plot lacks in intricacies it makes up for in intensity and entices the audiences with 'Rocky-esque', uplifting scenes where we see Jackie train to become the best racer there is. It is done in a typical, feel-good way and gets the viewer behind Jackie throughout.
The acting is actually very good and Jackie Chan, Michael Wong and Kar Lok Chin are particularly impressive in their roles as Jackie Foh, Steve Cannon the attorney, and Jackie's racing trainer respectively. However, as usual in Hong Kong films, the Western actors are pretty poor, most notably Cougar (the kidnapper) played by Thorsten Nickel.
As far as the action goes, we see a familiar style reminiscent of Jackie's 'Police Story' days, with some of the best fight scenes you are ever likely to witness, especially a scene where Jackie uses a sledgehammer to fend off his adversaries. The action is presented in such a way where the viewer can actually 'see' what is happening, as a result of clever camera-work, so it is made that more exciting because we know it is real. This is where Chan films always excel; we feel the danger for the character, because we know the stunts are real and not computer generated effects; this adds so much to the exhilaration.
There is not much character development, plot depth or originality, but it achieves to entertain the audience and even at times 'move' them. Definitely a 'must-see' for all Jackie Chan fans and worth taking a look at for those even slightly interested.
A good, exciting, film.
7/10