Reviews

74 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Blues: Feel Like Going Home (2003)
Season 1, Episode 1
6/10
Capturing a world we're slowly losing
11 January 2014
Feel Like Going Home is one of seven documentaries produced by Martin Scorsese on the subject of blues music. This particular episode was also directed by the auteur and focuses primarily on the roots of the genre. Narrated in part by Scorsese himself, it follows musician Corey Harris as he interviews fellow musicians and goes in search of the blues birthplace, travelling through the Mississippi Delta and eventually to West Africa from where the music was first snatched away in chains aboard slave ships.

Neither a hard hitting exposé nor critically acclaimed undercover investigation, Scorsese's film is a sort of coffee table documentary, delighting its audience with some great stories and incredible music. It fails to go deep or uncover anything new but might help to bring the blues to a whole new audience.

The first thing that struck me about this film was its look. Scorsese has a reputation as one of the greatest film makers of his or any age and we are used to his highly polished latter work as well as his grittier, earthier beginnings but this film is unlike anything I've seen from Scorsese before. It feels cheap and basic, like one man and a camera, and not a great camera at that. A lot of the footage is grainy and dark and it doesn't appear to be particularly well made in several places. Even the editing is a little slapdash. Although I tried to put this to one side, I could never quite get over it. I understand that the budget must have been low but I'd expected something a little flashier or at least more polished from Martin Scorsese.

The actual content of the documentary varies wildly. Sometimes it's a little dull but often it's incredibly interesting and insightful and always with a terrific musical backing. After a brief top and tail discussion of the blues journey from the plantation to modern rock 'n' roll, the film slowly wanders back in time, through Chicago and down into the Mississippi Delta, the heartland of the blues. Along the way Corey Harris, himself an extremely accomplished musician, if not great front for the documentary meets and interviews the likes of Willie King and Otha Turner. Each blues artist he meets performs, sometimes with Harris accompanying him and tells stories about the old ways and where the music came from.

What's interesting is how the blues developed and was passed down from father to son between Memphis and Vicksburg. From field chants and tales of pain and injustice to The Rolling Stones and Jack White, the blues has undergone many changes but this documentary focuses on what it really is and where it came from. Some of the old time stories are fascinating and evoke an age now long passed. It's obvious that the older blues players are disheartened by the loss of the old ways and one of the best interviews involves fife player Otha Turner. Turner was said to be one of the last fife and drum players still around at time of production and sadly passed on before the film was released.

A large chunk of the documentary concerns the preservation and capturing of the blues before it's lost. Special mention is given to Alan Lomax who travelled the south in the 1940s recording songs which would have otherwise never been known outside the Delta. The film makes its own attempt at some preservation with a delightful performance by Turner which marks its conclusion.

After exploring American blues, Corey Harris travels to Mali in West Africa to uncover the spiritual home of the music. He meets musicians and compares the folk music of this region to his own, discovering many similarities from the beat to the pentatonic scale. Some of the interviews in Africa verge on spiritualism which occasionally took me out of the film but I nonetheless enjoyed the music.

Throughout the film there are fantastic performances as well as achieve footage from some of the best known blues players and lesser known men including John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Son House and Robert Johnson. The music is fantastic but the documentary doesn't go far enough for me. It doesn't delve very deep or uncover much that wasn't already common knowledge but what it does it help to continue Lomax's work and preserve for posterity some of the great figures in Delta blues music and allow their sound to reach a large audience.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Challenger Disaster (2013 TV Movie)
7/10
Uncovering the man, uncovering the truth.
21 March 2013
On January 28th 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger broke up 73 seconds after the twenty-fifth Space Shuttle launch, killing all seven of its crew members. The disaster was, at the time, the most catastrophic loss in NASA history and is still remembered as one of the most disastrous and heartbreaking days in human space exploration. Following the tragedy a Commission was set up to get to the bottom of the disaster and uncover the cause of shuttle failure. On the Commission was perhaps the most famous of the twentieth century, Richard Feynman.

The Challenger (formerly titled Feynman and the Challenger) is a made for TV movie which first aired on the BBC on March 18th 2013. The film focuses on the role Richard Feynman (William Hurt) played in the Commission and the lengths that he went to; to prove what was really behind the Shuttle's failure that January morning. The film intersperses real footage, including that of the actual event with dramatisations of Feynman's quest for answers which are taken from Feynman's autobiographical book What Do You Care What Other People Think? The movie is well researched and generally very well made and features a terrific central performance and compelling story.

I was born just under a month after the Challenger disaster but it was a part of my childhood. My parents had a huge poster on the stairs of one of the houses I grew up in of the crew and the Shuttle which used to intrigue and haunt me. As I got older I became very interested in Space exploration and in my twenties threw off the horrors of High School Physics lessons to become interested in physics. I am to physics what a football fan is to football. I'm fascinated by it and get engrossed in small details but put me on the field and I'd lose the ball faster than the speed of light. I am an enthusiastic amateur. All of the above is a very long and drawn out way of saying that the plot of The Challenger is of great interest to me. Its principle character Richard Feynman is a man who I have some but not much knowledge of and most of my knowledge comes from the odd popular science book, YouTube clips and occasional popular science lecture delivered by the likes of Prof. Brian Cox, Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre as well as the comedy of Robin Ince. I was fascinated then to learn more.

The film introduced me to a Feynman I wasn't expecting to meet. The Feynman I've seen footage of was controlled and firm and had a distinguishable but refined Queens accent. William Hurt's Feynman is much more 'Californian'. His accent is slightly different and his portrayal is more agitated and messy. I don't mean any of this in a bad way though and think it matches the state that the man was in both mentally and physically. Although slightly dishevelled, Hurt has more than a passing resemblance to the scientist he is portraying. What is obvious from the film is that the budget doesn't match that of an average theatrical film. There are corners cut in various places which sometimes detracts slightly from the movie as a whole but luckily the story is strong enough that it rarely gets in the way.

The plot is deeply fascinating and encompasses physics, ethics, finance and politics. All four combine in a tense and agitated melting pot which forms the Commission and it soon becomes apparent that Feynman is coming at the case from a different angle to the majority of the Commissioners. Early on he is frustrated by a lack of pace in the meetings and then he is stifled by the rigours step by step process. Feynman takes it upon himself to dig around and visits various NASA facilities in which he is viewed with suspicion by scientists and technicians scared to be held accountable. This sets up more conflict in the Commission and Feynman finds himself short of allies. He does however find a friend in Air force General Kutyna (Bruce Greenwood) who, like the audience by now, is sympathetic to the Physicist's cause. What follows is a slow unravelling of the facts which without Feynman may never have come to light.

The film treads a thin line between telling the truth and attacking the likes of NASA and Solid Rocket manufacturer Morton Thiokol much as Feynman did himself. Although my limited knowledge gave me some insight into the disaster and subsequent findings I was fascinated to be taken on the journey towards the discovery and felt that the film blended this with Feynman's health issues very well. It was clear from the outset that this was about Challenger first and his health second, something which again mirrors Feynman himself. Even the title of the movie can refer to the craft and the man. Occasionally I found myself questioning cover-ups and discoveries which seemed a little too dramatic and possibly exaggerated but my knowledge doesn't extend far enough to know what was real and what was invented. It is my belief and hope though that the vast majority of what I saw on screen was real. The actual footage certainly was and despite having seen it numerous times, it's still heartbreakingly sad.

Overall The Challenger manages to get to the heart of the disaster and uncovers a man who deserves to be better known than he is. William Hurt is superb and the plot is fascinating in every detail. I had a few problems with realism and dramatic licence and the budget caused some issues but overall I'd recommend the movie to anyone with a passing interest in NASA, the disaster, Richard Feynman or just good detective thrillers. Like most good true stories it made me want to learn more for myself which on its own proves the movie was a success.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
22 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Close to their best
17 October 2012
On December 10th 2007 the seemingly impossible happened. Zed Zeppelin, the world's original super group and one of the few bands in history who could rival The Beatles for fame and popularity at their height, reformed for a one off concert at London's O2 Arena for the Ahmet Ertegun Tribute Concert. The show set a world record for ticket demand with over twenty million people (including myself) registering online for a chance of one of the 20,000 tickets. Like close to twenty million others I didn't get a ticket for a show that myself and other fans had been waiting for, for over twenty five years.

Fast forward nearly five years to October 17th 2012 and the concert was screened for one day worldwide in cinemas ahead of a DVD and Blu Ray release on November 19th. This time demand wasn't so high and I managed to get two tickets for a screening at my local multiplex. While in no way the same as seeing the band, my favourite of all time, live, the two hours I sat in the cinema were amazing. The band showed that despite having barely played together in thirty years and missing original drummer John Bonham whose death in 1980 was the trigger for the band's breakup, that they are still able to rock with the best and sounded close to as good as they have on any other live recording I've seen.

One of the problems with seeing a band like Led Zeppelin at the cinema is that it isn't the sort of environment that you can really relax, sing,air guitar or dance in. It was a little awkward at times as a few people bobbed heads or tapped feet. I didn't feel as though I could properly enjoy the show in that environment and think that it is probably better suited to DVD. I had to resist the urge to sing and clap which isn't the most relaxing thing.

Before I go any further I have to make it clear that I may be biased in my review of this concert film as Led Zeppelin is my favourite band. Even so and trying to be as objective as possible, they put on one hell of a show. The film is shot in a fairly conventional manner with close-ups of faces, instruments and the like, spliced with wide shots and some nice super 8 style camera work which is reminiscent of the likes of The Song Remains the Same and the Led Zeppelin DVD. The old looking footage gives a 70s vibe which obviously matches the music. For the most part the camera-work is crisp and looks great in HD. There are plenty of interesting angles and cuts too which add to the visual enjoyment. Unlike Scorsese's Rolling Stones film Shine a Light which seemed to spend as much time on the audience as the band, Celebration Day focuses almost solely on the on stage action with just a couple of cut aways to the audience.

Musically the band sound incredibly tight. The three surviving members last performed together in 1988 and this was their first full length concert since John Bonham's death. Age and time coupled with a falling out between bassist John Paul Jones and singer Robert Plant and guitarist Jimmy Page appears to have had little effect as the band sound great. Robert Plant's voice is almost indistinguishable from his 1970s self save for a few missed high notes. Jimmy Page is still one of the greatest guitarists of all time and played the concert despite breaking his little finger just a month before the show. John Paul Jones, always the quietest member of the group and the one who seems least at ease on stage played incredibly well on both bass and keyboards. Drummer Jason Bonham, son of John was excellent and has all the ferocity of his father. He slotted straight in despite this being the first gig he'd played with the full band. Not a bad debut gig! It was nice to witness the genuine looks of pride and glee on the faces of the original members as the looked a Bonham Jnr playing his father's parts.

In their eleven year existence Led Zeppelin created some of the most iconic rock music in history with the likes of Whole Lotta Love, Kashmir, Rock and Roll and Dazed and Confused amongst the most popular and enduring songs in rock history. Stairway to Heaven of course transcends even those songs and is frequently voted the most popular song of all time, rock or otherwise. As well as the stalwarts like Kashmir and Stairway the band also perform some of my personal favourites such as No Quarter, Misty Mountain Hop and Trampled Underfoot, a song that always reminds me of my dad. For Your Life is also performed on stage for the first time ever but unfortunately there is no space for more of my favourites such as Communication Breakdown, When the Levee Breaks, Heartbreaker, The Immigrant Song, Gallows Pole or Ramble On. The problem with having such an extensive back catalogue is that there will always be songs that are missed but there could be few arguments that the chosen set was anything but spectacular.

Overall Celebration Day is the sort of thing which is probably more enjoyable at home where you can sit back, enjoy a drink or a smoke and properly rock out to the music. Even so I really enjoyed seeing my favourite band on the big screen and would recommend the forthcoming DVD to hard line fans as well as anyone who just thinks that Zeppelin are some old band what sang that long song. There's enough to satisfy fans and newcomers alike.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
41 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Holy Motors (2012)
9/10
Huh?
30 September 2012
Holy Motors must be the strangest, maddest and most bizarre film I've seen since at least Love Exposure and possibly ever. In a statement about the nature of both acting and the digitalisation of the world, Leos Carax's film stars Denis Lavant as a man who travels through Paris in a white limousine that is driven by Edith Scob. Along the way he stops for various 'appointments' for which he adopts an entirely different character complete with makeup, mannerisms and speech. Throughout the course of the day he becomes a beggar woman, motion capture artist, assassin, disappointed father plus many more.

The film's message or statement is open for interpretation and after telling my girlfriend what I though I asked her the same, to which she replied "I thought it was about weird stuff". The film is enjoyable however you view it and whether or not you read into any hidden messages or not. The themes that I personally believe the film is tackling may be totally different to the person next to me but it doesn't matter. Holy Motors is a thrilling, darkly comic and bonkers film that is worth tracking down.

Due to the film's premise, subject matter and country or origin, we got the chance to travel to our local Art House Cinema, Cornerhouse in Manchester. We saw the film in their small room which contains just 58 seats but when the lights went down the cinema was full. After an ominously bizarre opening we see Denis Lavant leave his seemingly loving family and mansion behind and head for a waiting limousine. If this were any other film you'd likely expect he was a businessman or some sort but it isn't long before his driver takes him to his first 'appointment'. Before this opening appointment the camera swoops around to show the remainder of the limousines' interior which instead of being filled with sofas, TVs and fridges is stocked with all manner of props, wigs and makeup cases. In no time Lavant is transformed into his first character, an old beggar woman of the sort you see around The Eiffel Tower. After several minutes of being ignored on the street he is back in the limo and off to his next appointment. The second and third appointments are for me the highlights of the film. One is an incredibly beautiful look at motion capture, shot in a darkened room with UV light and features incredible visuals, choreography and the most contorted woman I've ever seen. The third is the strangest and funniest vignette and sees Lavant dressed as a sort of tramp/Quasimodo figure and having interrupted a fashion shoot, steals the model before taking her to his underground lair. The film reaches a crescendo at this point which it is never really able to match. At the time I thought to myself "I'm looking at Eva Mendes dressed in a Burqa, singing a lullaby to a naked man with an obvious and exposed erection. Where can they go from here?" The answer is that they reel the film in slightly and take the audience to more emotional and heartfelt places.

Denis Lavant's performance in this film is simply incredible. I haven't seen a better acting job this year and I'd be surprised if I do. If the film wasn't so strange and commercially off-putting he would be a shoe-in for the major awards next February. Even so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an Oscar nomination if the Academy is feeling brave. Lavant literally transforms himself about nine or ten times, playing totally different characters each time. It's not just the sheer number that is impressive though, it is the quality of the performances which really stands out. He is truly awe inspiring in this film.

The film's message and themes are as I've mentioned open to interpretation. Personally it felt to me like a satire on the nature of acting and how these days with the likes of camera phones and CCTV an actor can never switch off. We don't know who is watching so we are always performing. Equally it could be interpreted as stating that we show different sides of ourselves to different people. I know that I'm a totally different person with my girlfriend as I am with the people at work for instance. It seems likely that the film is trying to talk about a variety of issues and themes and perhaps other people will pick up on different aspects of the strange world that it creates. That and Lavant's performance are its two major strengths.

Some people will inevitably be put off by Holy Motors premise, style and quirkiness but if you stick with it and allow it to wash over you it's a brilliantly weird film that will be popping up on lots of Top 10 lists come December.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
120 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Easy Street (1917)
5/10
Disappointing but showing future promise
30 September 2012
Comedy wise this is probably the most disappointing of Chaplin's Mutual films that I've seen so far. In the entire film I only laughed out loud once and generally there were very few funny moments anywhere. What the film does contain though is another tender story about overcoming the odds, hard work, temperance and love which is something that Chaplin was becoming the master of at this stage of his career.

Easy Street itself looks to be modelled on the sort of South London streets that Chaplin would have grown up on himself. They don't look very American to me and it's only when a late chase takes us outside of the confines of Easy Street that it becomes obvious that we are in America. Like much of Chaplin's work, Easy Street is routed in a Dickensian world that predates film altogether. The crime and violence on Easy Street may well have been a satirical response to pre Prohibition America where if history is to be believed the masses drank until they passed out or were knocked out. The saving grace of the Policeman and the Christian Mission is very appropriate to the era.

What is nice about Easy Street is that Chaplin's character is without selfishness. In many of his early films he was the reluctant hero or came to be the hero through mistake or after he had attempted to con or rip people off. Easy Street shows a further departure from this and towards his later incarnation as the victim/underdog of his future films. It's a shame that in Easy Street though Chaplin wasn't able to balance the character, story and comedy and that the latter suffers. The basis of an excellent film is in place but like most people I watch a Charlie Chaplin film to laugh and I didn't do that in this film.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Looper (2012)
9/10
Intelligent Science Fiction Thriller
24 September 2012
Looper is a film that goes to extraordinary lengths to leave every base covered in its quest to avoid plot holes and inconsistencies and in my mind it deals with the problems associated with time travel very well. One thing I liked is that the older Joe is aware of everything the younger Joe is about to do which gives him an edge if they were to do battle. I also liked that the older Joe in true Bruce Willis style bypasses the whole idea of trying to work out how and why what is happening is happening by saying he can't be bothered to work it all out. As well as the older Joe having the advantage of memory over the younger Joe, the younger Joe in turn has his own advantages which become apparent. There were several times when I thought I'd worked out what was going to happen or what a particular character's arc was going to be but the film cleverly manipulates its audience, leading them down alleyways only to jump out at them from behind and spin them around. There is a nice early twist which gave me a smile and plenty more to keep you guessing right the way to the end. In the end it turns out that time travel plays second fiddle to another phenomenon which I was pleased by as there was no mention of this in the trailer which I've been trying to avoid for several weeks. The plot is multifaceted with each character having their own reasons for being where they are, when they are and doing what they are doing. It is a dense plot which explores several different ideas and concepts both personal and scientific.

As well as confidently dealing with a complex script which would have been very easy to either make too complicated or too full of holes, Writer/Director Rian Johnson (Brick) also creates a very believable future and fills it with people and events which feel plausible. Cities have continued to expand upwards and outwards but they themselves are filled with tent cities in which a large vagrant class live. Life is cheap and hard in this world in which the have's and have not's are much more separated than today. There is enough in the film to make to world feel as though it is our near future and the technology on display feels as though it is a few logical steps along the road. I especially liked the ingenious solution to running cars after the inevitable the oil crisis and there's also a great line about China in there which had a lot of people laughing.

The writing and direction are superb but another strength are the acting performances. Joseph Gordon-Levitt wears heavy makeup and prosthetics to make him look more like Bruce Willis and although this is occasionally a little distracting, it looks unnervingly good at times, especially closer up which is odd. The effect is actually better in close up than when JG-L is in the middle distance. Underneath the prosthetics though Gordon-Levitt delivers a fine performance, adopting a few of Willis' telltale mannerisms and affectations but avoiding pure mimicry. He appears confident and at ease in the dense lead role, carrying off a mixture of hard edged killer and caring young man while switching from one to the other with ease. Bruce Willis equally is very good but we have seen this kind of performance from him many times before. Nevertheless he is on good form here. The chemistry between the two leads was great and really helped with the believability of them being one person. Emily Blunt was another actor who performed very well and in a departure from her more familiar roles. She adopts a convincing American accent, drops a few F-Bombs and looks comfortable holding a gun. She brings to the fore the feminine caring side when it matters though. Probably the standout actor though despite the three A Listers is Pierce Gagnon, a very young child actor who is incredible in a pivotal role. He and Gordon-Levitt have some funny and tense scenes together which work very well.

Overall there was little I didn't like about Looper and it has gone straight into my Top 10 films of the year so far as well as being probably my favourite Sci-Fi since 2009's Moon. It treats its audience with respect and isn't afraid to keep you them of the loop for a while as it teases them with false and sometimes seemingly false information. It is well designed and acted and features a wonderfully multifaceted and intelligent story which rewards patience and concentration with a fantastic ending.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
365 out of 625 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dreadful
22 September 2012
I have a vague recollection of the film's title and my girlfriend assures me that we wanted to see it so she borrowed it from a friend. I wish she hadn't bothered. The plot is OK but doesn't go deep enough and the acting and dialogue seem like they were done by people who understood the concept but had never actually seen it practised.

The dialogue features several moments which made me laugh out loud due to either its ridiculousness or poor phrasing. The film really could have done with another draft or perhaps utilised someone who could write as a script editor. What doesn't help is that some of the acting is so stilted and flat that it shows up the poor dialogue even more. The five friends are all terrible in pretty much every scene even though a couple are recognisable faces who have appeared in the likes of 30 Days of Night and Stardust. Other acting credits include the likes of The Bill and Home and Away… Anyway, it's pretty terrible. Lead actress Melisa George who is Australian has a totally unplaceable accept which ranges from English to American to Irish. A few of the other actors were slightly better but I didn't think anyone gave a particularly good performance.

The cinematography was beautiful at times and features several long tracking shots of the Scottish Highlands. There are also some nice camera angles and good shots of abseiling and mountain climbing. One problem though was that there was a slow motion shot about every two minutes and it was completely unnecessary. Sometimes a slow motion sequence can add to a scene but here it was used just for the hell of it. Maybe the film was running a little short so they wanted to increase the run time at no extra cost? Whatever the reason, it was pointless and there was only one scene (by a river) in which it added anything to the movie.

Even though the dialogue felt like it was produced by getting babies to point at words, the acting was painfully bad and there was enough slow-mo to fill to feed Mega-City One for a week, the worst thing about the film is that is wasn't scary. I didn't jump or feel unnerved once and I'm the sort of person that cowers behind cushions during most horror films. The film worked slightly better as a thriller but only because the sight of people running around and shooting at each other is generally exciting. The film isn't even creepy. Movies such as Wolf Creek make you scared of the area they are set in and but I didn't ever get that feeling here. I just thought "ooh, Scotland looks pretty". A further problem is that in the third act the action heads into a small Scottish town which just so happens to have some sort of Cirque d Soleil style parade happening on the High Street, complete with topless dancers and the cast of Cats juggling fire. Come on! During this time a house somehow sets itself on fire...

A Lonely Place to Die won Best Film at the Actionfest Film Festival in Asheville, North Carolina and I can only assume that the other films were all three hour long, fuzzy, black and white shots of turds because this is a dreadful, poorly acted, childlike scripted, plop of a film.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
ParaNorman (2012)
5/10
I Expected More
15 September 2012
The first of three hotly anticipated horror/comedy/stop motion kids films we'll see in the coming weeks and coming three years after Laika's success with Coraline, ParaNorman begins with a flourish which sets it up to be an interesting and funny family film. Unfortunately it runs out of steam after about fifty minutes when the jokes dry up and the predictable plot takes over from what had been a fun, film which takes a surprisingly candid look at death.

The world of ParaNorman is very well animated and in a similar style to Coraline, only this time in colour. I'm a huge fan of stop motion but I like the Ray Harryhausen or Arden style where you can actually see thumb prints and the design process. It's an odd criticism but for me the animation is a little too neat and smooth. One of the great benefits stop motion has over GCI or hand drawn cartoons is that it is extremely adaptable and movements should show that. When animation and effects are of the standard of ParaNorman it makes me wonder why stop motion puppets were used in the first place.

The opening half especially is littered with witty jokes and references to the likes of Dawn of the Dead, The Exorcist and Friday the 13th for the parents while the kids could enjoy sight gags and the odd joke which only the children in the audience found funny. The 'stopping a curse with a band of unlikely heroes' plot was a bit naff and provided nothing new or particularly exciting except for one thing. I really liked the zombie's arc and though I won't spoil it, it's the narrative highlight of the film. There is one other surprise line late on which got some laughs and will no doubt draw some attention from the Christian Right but everything else is formulaic and re-hashed. I don't know if it is a response to the film or the fault of a Saturday lunchtime screening but by the half way mark it wasn't only the children in the audience who were starting to fidget and a father and son in the row in front both fell asleep and snored loudly through the final third. Both my girlfriend and I also needed a nap when we got home. That's not really a ringing endorsement.

The cast is large and talented and you will be able to recognise several well known actors but due to the nature of the script no one really stands out. An area I did enjoy was the soundtrack/score. Music was used sparingly in the film but when it was it worked really well. There was a sort of Nicolas Winding Refn style electro score which was surprising to hear and I was also delighted to hear rapper Dizzee Rascal's Fix Up, Look Sharp get a brief airing. The credits roll over The White Stripes Little Ghost which I'd happily listen to any day.

Overall ParaNorman is a film with a strong beginning, poor middle and dull end. It is funny at times and the animation is good but I'm expecting more from Frankenweenie and Hotel Transylvania.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dredd (2012)
8/10
Above Average Action Movie
14 September 2012
I've never read a Dredd comic and was fortunate enough never to see the 1995 Danny Cannon/Sylvester Stallone adaptation so went in completely cold to the story and characters. I understood that there was some sort of big deal about not taking Dredd's helmet off but that was about it. I also understand that it's one of the UK's biggest and best known comics so it's with great pleasure to report that in a summer of incredible comic book adaptations that Dredd is able to mix it up with the American behemoths and come out the other side as a really solid action movie which mixes the best of the 1980s with a modern twist.

Mega-City One never feels like it's in America and was actually shot in South Africa. It has a kind of sweaty, tropical feel to it which distances it from the idea that we are on the Atlantic coast of America. This isn't a major problem though as it adds to the dystopian nature of the planet and the film. The city feels rough, run down and lived in and the tower block Peach Trees which is the setting for most of the action feels realistic enough to be believable but far enough away from reality to remain part of science fiction. There are many elements from today's blocks and slums which are mixed with fantasy elements to create a realistic and seedy environment of gangsters, dealers and regular Joes that is very reminiscent of real life inner city areas. The visual design of the tower block is excellent and gives it a grimy feel. The special effects work well on the whole but occasionally the blood spatter looked poor. The violence is quite gruesome at times and the film doesn't shy away from showing it. The impact of some of the more violent scenes is shocking, which in an age of desensitisation shows just how violent it is. In a way though I'm glad it was there. It was needed to show both the lengths that the bad guys will go to stop the Judges and the lengths that the Judges will go to bring them to justice. It also showed how much further the desensitisation to violence has progressed in Mega-City One.

The plot is fairly well trodden and predictable but the elements around it make it very enjoyable. This isn't the first time that we've seen an experienced 'cop' take a rookie out on their first job only to get into big trouble and due to an unfortunate coincidence this isn't the first time this year that we've had a plot about law enforcement making their way up through a tower block to face the boss at the top. The plot of The Raid is painfully similar which is a shame because from what I understand, it is purely incidental. Luckily though there are enough genre and action differences that they feel like two completely different movies.

I saw the film in 3D (a rare occurrence for me) on the recommendation of a friend and I'm pleased to report that I will continue to call her a friend because the 3D didn't ruin the film. For me that's a bold statement. It felt like the film was designed with 3D in mind instead of it being a gimmick that was introduced in post-production and I have to admit that it added to my enjoyment of several scenes, most notably those which were seen through the eyes of the drug Slo-Mo. There are still problems of light loss and motion blur but these are not as noticeable as in many films I've seen in the medium before. This is one of the few times which for I would recommend seeing the in 3D.

The acting is quite good. Karl Urban is excellent as Dredd and I couldn't stop speaking in his gruff voice all the way home, much to the annoyance of my girlfriend. He seems a little emotionless and robotic which I think was intentional and made the character who he was. He was also great in the action scenes, dispensing justice in a cool, unflappable manner. Olivia Thirlby gave the wide eyed newbie performance but was able to alter it as the film progressed. She had a much more emotional approach which worked well with Urban's emotionless role. Game of Thrones resident incestuous Queen Lena Headley was brilliant as the 'big boss' playing the counter to Urban's Dredd. Both were calm killers but Headley allowed some emotion to creep onto her composed exterior towards the end. It's great also that two of the three leads in a major action movie were women and not just that but women who weren't merely wife's, girlfriends or eye candy. Their roles had purpose and were well written and performed. I was also pleased to see The Wire's Wood Harris make an appearance, although his role was limited and Domhnall Gleeson, an actor who is showing great promise, is very good in his small role.

Overall Dredd is an above average science fiction/comic book/action movie. It is well made, features great design and cinematography, and has a good cast but a plot which is unremarkable. The soundtrack, featuring a thumping electronic beat works brilliantly with the on screen action I'd be interested in going back to Mega-City One at least once more.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lawless (2012)
8/10
Well acted and Beautiful
9 September 2012
Lawless is a prohibition era gangster biopic about three brothers from Virginia. Jack Bondurant (Shia LaBeouf) is the youngest of the brothers and lacks the courage, strength or attitude to violence that his older brothers Forrest (Tom Hardy) and Howard (Jason Clark) possess. Forrest especially is a sort of Clint Eastwood figure; strong, silent and deadly. All three are involved in the moonshine business but their trade comes under threat when a new Special Deputy (Guy Pearce) arrives from Chicago to put a halt to their operations.

The film shares traits with Director John Hillcoat's previous film The Proposition. Both focus on men outside the law in semi-desolate locations who must battle across a thin line between right and wrong against corrupt officials. The beautiful but run down locations also help bring to mind Hillcoat's The Road. This film though is more of a coming of age story as young Jack Bondurant fights for respect from his brothers and the gangster who inhabit his world. It is also a tale that blurs the lines between good and evil, right and wrong with the Bondurant boys becoming anti heroes who the audience will be routing for from start to finish.

The great strength of Lawless is its beauty. The film is stunning to look and you never for one minute think that you aren't in depression hit, rural Virginia. The sets are dressed to pinpoint perfection and the costumes look lived in. The cinematography too is beautiful and this really helps to act as a counterweight to another side of the film – its gruesome violence. At times this is an uncomfortable film to watch. The violence is reminiscent of Drive in that it sometimes comes out of the blue but often you are aware that you are being led towards it but are still stunned when it arrives. The film features beatings, stabbings, shootings and slitting of throats but it never feels gratuitous. You always get the sense that it is vital to the story. Something which isn't so vital to the storytelling but is delightful nonetheless is the sight of Jessica Chastain naked (well topless anyway). Some people (not me of course) might say that is worth the price of admission alone.

As well as a great amount of violence, the film also has several moments of great comedy. In the packed screening I was in there was one huge laugh and at least five or six chuckles from the large audience. A lot of the humour comes from Tom Hardy's violent but understated and confused ex-soldier character and the legend that the brothers are immortal. We learn early on that he was the only survivor of his company during the Great War and his traumatic past is clear to see in his character and performance. Hardy is once again the standout actor, something which I'm getting used to writing these days. His grunts, menace and confused looks with regard to Chastain's character made the film for me and his performance in general helped me to decide on the higher grade when I couldn't decided between of two different marks out of ten. Shia LaBeouf also helps to wash away the memories of the Transformers movies with a solid and mature performance and third brother Jason Clark plays the drunken brute well. Another great performance comes from Guy Pearce whose hair, speech and mannerisms seem to come from another world. Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska unfortunately suffer a little from lacklustre female characters as neither have an awful lot to do. Neither leaves the production having tarnished their reputations though. Gary Oldman is excellent but his role is very small. Nick Cave's score works very well with the visuals and ads to the prohibition-hillbilly feel of the film.

I was never bored while watching Lawless and it looked great and was wonderfully acted by Hardy in particular, but it sometimes feels as though there are too many characters vying for too little screen time. I would also have preferred for the focus of the story to have been with Hardy's character instead of LaBeouf's as his arc was more interesting to me. Even so, Lawless is definitely an above average gangster flick and hits the mark with its dramatic and sometimes comedic and violent tone.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
33 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anna Karenina (I) (2012)
9/10
Beautiful, Enchanting and Bold
8 September 2012
Director Joe Wright's adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's 1877 novel Anna Karenina is one of the most visually stunning and artistically bold films I've seen in quite some time. Wright places most of his plot within the confines of a dilapidated theatre and has his actors make use of the stage, stalls and behind the scenes areas when forming the sets of late Tsarist Saint Petersburg. Actors will walk from one part of the theatre to another with sets and costumes changing around them, all with the hustle and bustle of both a real theatre and lively city. It's a stylistic decision which was probably met with scepticism by studio bosses and the like but works incredibly well to bring to life the characters which themselves are so wonderfully written by Tolstoy.

Joe Wright was lucky in a way in that he started off with a fantastic story, written by Tolstoy. This was then adapted by Oscar winning screenwriter Tom Stoppard who handed Wright and his cast a beautifully well crafted script which despite its complexities, rolls of the tongues of the talented cast. I have never read the source novel and have in fact never managed to finish any of the great works of Russian literature (the names don't help) so the plot was new to me. The themes of love, infidelity, trust and city vs countryside-life charge out of the screen and most are tackled very well. One area which I thought was slightly forgotten was the fascinating part of the plot regarding Levin (Domhnall Gleeson). Levin is in love with an attractive and highly sought after young Princess, Kitty (Alicia Vikander). His tale of love, family, hardship and politics feels slightly brushed to one side which is a shame as his arc also points towards the social upheaval which would greet Russia in the coming decades.

The first half of this film was probably my favourite half of any I've seen in the cinema this year. It whizzed along thanks to the dialogue, plot and interesting design. The problems that I have with some period dramas such as dull ideas and duller characters felt a million miles away as I watched, transfixed with a smile on my face. The highlight of the entire film for me was a ball in which some of the central characters danced. This was a scene full of careful manoeuvring, examination and lust as the two lovers become intimate for the first time. Onlookers watch on as Anna and Count Vronsky dance a waltz to an ever quickening pace. Kitty watches with horror as she sees the man she thought was hers slip away. The dancing itself is beautifully choreographed and came as close to art as I've seen dance be. Due in part to the nature of the story, the second half of the film doesn't quite live up to the pace or intensity of the opening half but is nonetheless interesting, dark and impressive.

There are three things which make Anna Karenina one of my favourite films of 2012 so far. The first is the story, the second is the direction and the third is the acting. Every single member of the cast dazzles here with not one actor giving a misjudged or poor performance. The standout for me is Jude Law whose mild mannered and restrained performance is simply incredible. He maintains grace and dignity despite having a terrible spell thanks to Anna and Law manages to convey all of his emotions in a similar understated way to Gary Oldman did with Smiley in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. He also makes the audience feel incredibly empathetic towards his character. For an actress I'm not particularly fond of, Keira Knightly has somehow found herself with two excellent central performances in two of my favourite films of the year; this and A Dangerous Method. She feels like the go-to-girl for this type of role and is excellent although my girlfriend rightly points out that when she smiles, she looks like she's about to cry. Aaron Taylor-Johnson also gives a good performance, despite comedy moustache, as the dashing lover. He is believable as the swarve and arrogant cavalryman but is outplayed by Law in later scenes. It's funny to think that ten years ago it would probably have been Jude Law in the Vronsky role but he has matured as an actor in recent years and can carry off a character like Karenin with aplomb. Another standout is Matthew Macfadyen who plays more of a comedy character but plays it gracefully. Domhnall Gleeson is also superb as Levin.

Despite the great acting this is the director's film. The style is so bold that at first I was worried that it wouldn't work but to keep a city as vast as Saint Petersburg inside one theatre then having the rest of the world to play with outside the city was a fantastic idea which was pulled off with pinpoint precision. There are flaws, for instance it felt slightly too long and some areas weren't given as much attention as I'd have liked (two contradictory statements I know) but overall Anna Karenina is a enchanting film and one of the best I've seen so far this year.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
150 out of 226 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Behind the Scenes
8 September 2012
Behind the Screen stars Charlie Chaplin as a stagehand on a movie set. Chaplin is overworked and under-appreciated and his boss (Eric Campbell) spends most of the time asleep, leaving Chaplin to do the heavy lifting. Meanwhile a young woman (Edna Purviance) is trying to get her big break as an actress but is turned down so dresses up as a male stagehand in order to have at least some involvement in the movies. At the same time the fellow stagehands go on strike for being woken up by a studio boss and plot their revenge… This isn't one of the funniest Mutual shorts but it certainly has one of the better plots. It's multi layered and features side plot as well as the main narrative. It is also an opportunity to see behind the scenes of an early movie set in much the same way as His New Job, Chaplin's first film for Essanay a year earlier. What the film is most famous for now though is its forthright joke about homosexuality, a subject which was barely mentioned in cinema for another fifty years.

The scene in question comes late on when Chaplin discovers that the new stagehand is actually a woman. In a cute scene, Chaplin sneaks a couple of pecks on the lips. The start of a romantic relationship is interrupted though by the appearance of Eric Campbell who not knowing Edna Purviance is a woman, believes the two hands to be gay men. He starts prancing around in an effeminate way which today feels quite offensive. The fact that homosexuality was even mentioned though, no matter how insignificantly, was very bold. The same scene also features probably the defining image of the film, Chaplin's and Purviance's faces squished together, looking forward towards the camera, Chaplin with a trademark cheeky grin.

In terms of comedy, the film is a little short. There are of course funny moments which include a use of a trap door and a pie throwing finale. For me the funniest scene came when the stagehands were eating lunch. Chaplin was sat next to a man eating onions and to escape the smell put on a knights helmet, lifting the visor briefly to stuff bread into his mouth. During the same meal Chaplin tries to steal the meat which the same man is eating and when discovered, pretends to be a begging dog. There is plenty of slapstick to be found here also with large props producing most of the laughs. One fantastic act sees Chaplin pick up about eleven chairs and sling each one over his arm, giving him the appearance of a hedgehog or porcupine. This isn't enough for the poor stagehand as in his other arm he also carries a prop piano. It's very clever and looks incredibly difficult. The scene felt familiar to me but I don't know if that's because Chaplin repeated the stunt for a later film or because I've seen that clip before.

One interesting thing about Behind the Screen is getting a glimpse of an old movie set. A surprising aspect of this is finding two separate productions sharing the same stage. As noise made little difference to what the final picture looked like it was possible to have multiple movies being filmed in close proximity. Here Chaplin works on a set of what appears to be a medieval palace which is right next to a farcical comedy set in a police station. As you can probably guess, Chaplin ends up interrupting both at various times before completely destroying both towards the end. The final shot itself is also surprising in its violence. Although no blood, body parts or death was seen, it was still not what I was expecting to end a short comedy.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Pawnshop (1916)
7/10
Great slapstick, disappointing plot
5 September 2012
Charlie Chaplin's sixth film for Mutual is one with very high highs and disappointingly low lows. It features a scenario and story which doesn't really go anywhere but also features several moments of slapstick that are amongst his best to date.

Chaplin stars as a pawnshop assistant and gets in a long running fight with fellow employee John Rand. Typically inept at his job, Chaplin is eventually fired only to be taken back on straight away after his boss Henry Bergman has a change of heart. Meanwhile Chaplin's attentions are drawn to Bergman's daughter Edna Purviance who is busy baking in the back of the shop. Trouble appears late on as a thief, Eric Campbell enters the shop intent on taking it for everything it's got.

As I mentioned the plot is a little basic here. There is no character development and the romantic component is only hinted at. Where the film is successful is with its slapstick elements. Two areas stand out for me. The first is Chaplin's long fight with John Rand. Chaplin portrays a peculiar but extremely funny fighting style and his character in general looks like he's off his head on something. The standout though is while the fight is happening; Edna Purviance hears the ruckus and comes to investigate. Although Chaplin is beating Rand to a pulp, when he hears Edna approaching he falls to the floor and into a foetal position, faking pain. Edna immediately starts yelling at Rand for hitting the poor, defenceless Chaplin and while she does so Chaplin repeatedly checks out her bum and turns to the camera with a cheeky grin on his face. It's a fantastic scene.

Other great moments include Chaplin being ordered to wash up and putting the crockery through a mangle and a scene in which he values a clock by taking it to pieces, destroying it and then turning it down as it's broken. Moments like these remind me just how inventive and clever Chaplin was capable of being with his comedy. It's just a shame here in The Pawnshop that the comedy isn't coupled with a more impressive plot.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Count (1916)
7/10
Not his best but still made me chuckle
3 September 2012
Charlie Chaplin's fifth film for Mutual is a somewhat simpler film than its immediate predecessors The Vagabond and One A.M. and is more reminiscent of his Essanay work, albeit it more sophisticated and slightly funnier. Chaplin plays an inept Tailor's assistant who gets fired for burning a Count's trousers. His boss (Eric Campbell) finds an invitation to a party at the house of Miss Moneybags (Edna Purviance) and decides to impersonate the rich Count in order to marry the attractive, rich girl. Chaplin is also at the party having snuck in through the back door and beats Campbell to the impersonation. All hell breaks lose though when the real Count arrives, along with the Police to chase out the impostors.

The Count features lots of funny moments but lacks the knockout blow of the likes of One A.M. or The Bank. It's testament to the quality of Chaplin's Mutual films that I felt disappointed by The Count even though it is far superior to a lot of his Essanay work.

Although there were no huge laughs to be found here I still chuckled a lot. For me the funniest scene was the opener in which Chaplin is taking a woman's measurements. First he measures her ears, then her lips before mistakenly giving her a five foot waste and finishing off by measuring one finger. It was totally bonkers. I also liked his embarrassment with regards to going near any of her more private areas and measured her bottom with a ruler from about four feet away. Another funny scene comes late on in the final chase. Here Chaplin is chased through a house and across a slippery dance floor in a very well choreographed sequence.

There are obvious comparisons to be made between this film and A Jitney Elopement in which Chaplin again impersonates a Count to gain Edna Purviance's affections. Chaplin is able to create humour in both films around the dinner table, a trait that continued into the rest of his career. Personally I prefer A Jitney Elopement to The Count but both films have their merits.

One final thing of note here is Eric Campbell's beard. It is simply extraordinary even by his standards. I've never seen anything like it before. Ridiculous facial hair is something that is evident in most of Chaplin's earlier films but I think it reaches new levels in The Count.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Jus' let 'im go"
27 August 2012
A troubled young boy Cyril (Thomas Doret) lives in a Children's Home after his father decided he was no longer able to cope with caring for him. Unable to accept this, the boy escapes the Home and goes back to the apartment that he and his father shared. Finding him gone, the boy continues to run from the Home's staff before clattering into a woman in a Doctor's waiting room while yelling about his missing bike. Later, the same woman is able to track down the bike and brings it to the Home and the boy asks if he can stay with her at weekends. The woman, a hairdresser called Samantha (Cecile de France) accepts and the boy spends time with her while she attempts to free him from the anger and rage that keeps getting him into trouble.

I first heard about this film last May when it won the Jury Prize at Cannes. I'd wanted to see it at the cinema but being a Belgian film about an angry boy and a bicycle I was unable to find it in the city of 3 million people in which I live. Although I was disappointed not to get to see it at the cinema, now I have seen it I don't feel like I was missing out. While it's an interesting story about two very different relationships, I didn't personally enjoy it as much as the reviews I'd read suggested I would.

One of the problems I had with the film was a lack of back story for the Samantha character. I can understand the film makers' idea to make her more enigmatic or to take her previous history out of the equation but I found it difficult to understand why a seemingly normal hairdresser would want to take on a troubled child whom she barely knows just because he asked her to. What's more, I found it very difficult to believe that she would have kept him after some of the things he does during the film. The boy is a right little s**t. At one point when he rides off on his bike after a fight with Samantha my girlfriend belted out "Just let 'im go". I felt like saying the same. Maybe I'm missing the point that the film is about the woman's attempts to help the boy redeem himself but I just thought that he was an annoying kid with a sad back story.

The father-son relationship did make me feel sorry for the child and it was horrible to see a father treat his son with such disdain. For that reason I can begin to understand Samantha's reasons for taking the boy on but it still felt a little far fetched to me. One area of the film that felt odd was the depictions of the rough youths on the estate. The teenagers never swore which felt strange but gave the film a fairytale like quality which having read subsequent to watching is something the Directors were aiming for. They also saw the Samantha character as a kind of good fairy character but that isn't something I picked up on. One thing the film did create inside was a feeling of worry for the boy. Every time he crossed a road or approached older kids I thought to myself that this was it and he was about to get into some serious trouble. Considering I didn't like the kid, it was clever of the film to still make me worry about him.

I thought that young Thomas Doret's acting was incredible for a boy so young and Cecile de France was infinitely better than in the only other film I've seen her in, the quite frankly very poor Clint Eastwood drama Hereafter. The cinematography was quite beautiful and the two leads appeared to have good chemistry. Overall The Kid with a Bike is a nice film with some nasty moments and a happy ending. It isn't one of my favourite films of the year but it is in no way bad.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One A.M. (1916)
8/10
One man Comic Master Class
27 August 2012
Charlie Chaplin's forth film for the Mutual Film Company is a unique two reeler in which he is almost the only person on screen for the film's entirety. Apart from an establishing scene featuring Albert Austin as a disgruntled cab driver, Chaplin has the film to himself as he struggles to get up to bed whilst drunk. Chaplin arrives home at 1am to find numerous inanimate objects in his way in his quest for a nights sleep.

In this twenty-six minute short a drunken Chaplin is scared by stuffed animals, baffled by a revolving table, constantly defeated by a flight of stairs before being bested by a fold away bed. Chaplin takes inspiration from the drunken character that made him famous in England with the Fred Karno Company, the very same character that drew the attention of Mack Sennett and gave him his break in the movie industry.

The genius of this film comes from Chaplin's ability to keep on finding objects to hamper his attempts to get to bed when you think he won't be able to find anything else. Sometimes you will think he has done all he can with a particular object before going back to it several minutes later. This is the case with the revolving table in the middle of the room. Having chased his whisky around it early on in the film, the actor comes back to it later on in a brilliant scene in which he climbs upon the table and chases after the oil lamp hanging from the ceiling in order to light his cigarette. This was an excellent idea which actually made me feel a little dizzy. Another item which Chaplin constantly goes back to is the stairs. It takes him around ten or so attempts to actually get upstairs, each time being thrown back down due to loss of balance or bumping into something. The way he finally gets up is wonderfully surreal and clever.

One thing I noticed about the stairs was how cushioned they looked. It was obvious that there was a lot of padding beneath the carpet and the rug at the bottom also resembled more of a crash mat than thin rug. It's not surprising that Chaplin chose to give himself a little padding given the number of times he came cascading down the stairs and I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't more than a little bruised by the end of filming. In a later scene I actually flinched when a bed stand came crashing down close to his head at high speed. One small misjudgement in positioning and he could have been seriously injured. Although Buster Keaton gets a lot of credit as being the daredevil of the silent comedians, this film shows that Chaplin wasn't afraid to perform dangerous stunts himself.

My favourite scene in the film came late on when Chaplin finally finds his bed. This scene typifies Chaplin's comedy for me. While most comedians may be able to find one or two funny things to do with a collapsing bed, Chaplin takes over five minutes to play around with ideas, each one funnier than the last. Every time he did something new I thought to myself "Right, well that's it. There's nothing more that can be done with that", but each time I was wrong until we get to a fantastic payoff at the end. I loved the collapsing bed scene so much that I actually got my girlfriend (someone who likes Chaplin films when she sees them but otherwise isn't too fussed) to watch it with me a second time. In the end I actually showed her about two thirds of the film and she laughed even more than I did. I even heard her cry "Oh no, his hat!" Then she went back to watching Britain's Next Top Model though so you win some, you lose some.

One A.M. is a film that really surprised me. I was unsure how this one man show could keep the laughs coming but if anything it gets funnier as it goes along. While it doesn't contain the depth of his later work or even the proceeding film The Vagabond, it is a master class in comic timing and also shows off Chaplin's underrated stunt skills.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Departures (2008)
8/10
Moving and funny
26 August 2012
Departures is a film that really messed with my emotions. I went from laughing out loud to being close to tears before an emotional but satisfying ending. It is not surprising that the film won so many awards upon its release and continues to be held in such high regard.

One of the first things that struck me about the film is how beautiful the highly ritualised preparation ceremony is. The body is expertly washed and dressed while at all times remaining covered in a dignifying way. The way in which the body is expertly moved is almost like a dance and the ritual is carried out with mathematical precision. Despite being a very solemn affair, the film's opening scene is also very funny. Taking place two months into the plot, Daigo is seen preparing the body of a young lady for cremation. While cleaning the body with cloths he stops with a jump and surprised expression on his face. Quietly shuffling over towards his boss, Daigo explains that she "has a thing". Confused, the old man takes over before discovering the young lady's "thing" himself and carefully asking one of the relatives if he would like the deceased to be made up as a man or a woman. This opening scene sets the tone of the rest of the film by being both sad and darkly funny.

The humour comes to a stop though around two thirds in when an event that although could be seen a mile off, is still upsetting takes place. Having battled for respect from those who know him, this is when Daigo gets the chance to show what his job really means for people and is one of the most moving scenes in the film, only beaten by the finale. A thread throughout the film is that of Daigo's relationship with his father, or rather lack of. He left when Daigo was very young and this caused a great chasm in his life. I had a feeling that someone in the story was going to turn out to be the father but was proved wrong. A central theme to the film is the family. Daigo's family is made up by himself and his wife but this is shattered when she is unable to come to terms with his job. Instead, his family becomes those he works with, his boss and the secretary. Another family is that of the bath house lady with whom Daigo becomes friendly. All of these families end up clashing either internally or externally, often with upsetting results. Something that is sometimes difficult to understand for a western viewer is the Japanese taboo of death and the funeral business. Although I didn't know this was the case before the film, it is made obvious throughout.

One of the highlights of the film is the score. Much of the music is cello lead orchestral music and sounds beautiful. The score was composed by renowned Japanese composer Joe Hisaishi and lead actor Masahiro Motoki also learned to play the cello for the role. My only problem with the score is that the central piece of music, played over and over again bore a striking resemblance to the music over the Visit Scotland advert that has been playing in the UK for about five or six years.

Departures is a beautiful, funny, heartbreaking and fascinating film with over fifteen major awards to its name. The acting is terrific and it looks stunning. I highly recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in Japanese cinema.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Vagabond (1916)
8/10
Chaplin's most poignant film so far
25 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
A Musician-Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) leaves town following a chase to find himself in a gypsy camp. There he finds a poor abducted girl (Edna Purviance) who he attempts to cheer up with his music. Having witnessed a savage beating of the girl by the gypsy chieftain (Eric Campbell), the Tramp goes about saving the girl and setting her free. While attempting to woo her, a handsome artist chances by and has Edna sit for a portrait. The portrait attracts the attention of Edna's estranged family who attempt to take her away from the Tramp for good.

I honestly can't think of a single Chaplin film during which I've laughed so little but on this occasion that is not a negative statement. Here Chaplin provides plenty of his trademark pathos and creates a film which is much more of a romantic drama than romantic comedy or slapstick comedy.

The film drives to depths of sadness which I simply wasn't prepared for and around a minute before the end I was starring dumbfounded at the screen. Charlie's attempts to maintain the romance are endearing but you always get the feeling that they are futile. There is a level of romantic lyricism which I haven't found in any Chaplin release prior to this one. For the most part Chaplin foregoes comedy in favour of letting the story unfold and only finds time for the odd knock to the head or spitting of water. To me this film really shows the development of Chaplin from the slapstick comedian of his Keystone and early Essanay days, towards the kind of romantic pathos that he became renowned for by the early 1930s.

Another obvious link between his early and latter career are the themes of the film. For me there is a link between this film and 1915s The Tramp and the idea of a beaten and brutalised gypsy girl is explored in even greater detail in 1928s The Circus. Both of those films end with the iconic footage of the Tramp walking away into the distance, happy and content, despite not getting the girl. The ending of The Vagabond seems to be heading down that line but thankfully takes a sharp turn. Given the sadness of the previous five or so minutes I don't think I could have taken any other ending! One interesting point about this film is the Tramp's entrance. The opening shot is of two saloon doors. After a few seconds some feet can be seen approaching the doors from the other side. After just a couple of frames it is obvious that it is the Tramp character from his distinctive walk, shoes and cane. Only those three things are visible until the doors open to reveal the whole man and it shows great confidence in the character's fame. I can think of no other screen character in history that could enter a scene with only their feet showing and the audience would know exactly who they are.

Although The Vagabond is certainly not a film I'd recommend to someone unfamiliar with Chaplin's work, for those with an understanding of his history it is a momentous film. Despite very little actual comedy, Chaplin still plays with his audience's emotions and creates a memorable and poignant film that includes two outstanding performances from himself and frequent co-star Edna Purviance.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Imposter (2012)
8/10
Unbelievable story told in a compelling way
24 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
In 1994 a thirteen year old Texan boy called Nicholas Barclay disappeared from San Antonio. Three years later his family received a call from a Spanish official, claiming that Nicholas had been abducted by a sex slave ring but was now with him in Spain. Despite Nicholas leaving as a thirteen year old with almost Aryan colouring and returning tanned with dark hair and eyes along with a foreign accent, the family accepted the boy who returned as their son. This documentary tells the story of Nicholas' disappearance and the extraordinary events in 1997 when it seemed that he had returned.

The documentary is created using a mixture of talking heads; achieve home videos and convincing reconstructions which are themselves combined with the talking heads. Almost all of the major players in the story take part which is a little surprising as by the end hardly anyone comes out with any sort of credibility.

I went into this film knowing the story having read about it recently in a magazine. I knew very little about the film however and wasn't actually sure if it was a documentary or drama. The film plays its cards very early and it isn't exactly a spoiler, especially given the title, to tell you that the person who returns home in 1997 is not Nicholas Barclay. The real interest for the first half of the film at least, is how on earth this man managed to convince Spanish officials, the American Embassy and most incredibly the family of the missing boy that he was Nicholas. It's almost too unreal to be true. Without giving too much away, the man who claims to be the boy is of French-Algerian descent and several years older than Barclay. He looks nothing like the boy.

The second half of the film looks at the possible reasons behind his success and this is where we get into spoiler territory so I'll say no more. The spoilers though aren't on the same level as the likes of Catfish and the ending is fairly open ended, leaving the audience to judge some of the answers for themselves. I personally came to one of the possible conclusions several minutes before the film announced it but what I believe may not actually be so. The second half interested me immensely and I sort of wanted a definitive conclusion but understand that the film makers can only show what they have.

For such a sad and distressing story there are a surprisingly large number of laugh out loud moments. Many of these are to do with either the stupidity of people involved or the sheer audacity of the impostor. The first laugh came when one member of Nicholas' Texan family was talking about when she first heard that he was in Spain and exclaimed "Spain? But that's across the country!" She later sounded very surprised to find Coke in another country. This is an extremely insular family, even by American standards. Other laughs arise when the impostor talks about how scared he was about being caught and uses the work f**k repeatedly. The film could have descended into doom and gloom given its delicate subject matter but somehow manages to remain almost light hearted. I'm not sure if this is a particularly good thing but it certainly takes the edge off a terrible tale.

As I've previously mentioned it is hard to talk about the film without giving away spoilers so I'll stop here but just finish by saying that The Imposter is a compelling and well made documentary about an unbelievable set of circumstances which has to be seen to be believed. It will have you talking afterwards and there will be a lot of different conclusions made.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Fireman (1916)
5/10
Some nice ideas but not enough laughs
14 August 2012
A Fire Chief (Eric Campbell) is approached by a man (Lloyd Bacon) who asks that the Fire Department ignores a fire at his house so that he may collect the insurance money. The man insures that his daughter (Edna Purviance) is out during the fire so remains unharmed. The woman is not out though when an arsonist sets the property alight and she gets trapped upstairs. Meanwhile the Firemen which include accident prone Charlie Chaplin are at another house, putting out a fire. When the man realises his daughter is trapped he searches for them, finding Chaplin who attempts to save the day and win the woman's heart.

Amazingly The Fireman was Chaplin's 52nd film but was released in June 1916. Despite his age and lack of years in the industry he was by now a pro and it shows here with clever gags and a nice central idea. Unfortunately the film suffers from a similar problem as The Floorwalker in that it just isn't quite funny enough.

Although not awash with comedy there are some excellent comic turns to be found. A particular highlight of mine was the dual use of the fire engine as a means of putting out fire and as an over-sized coffee machine. The gag works very well visually and adds a little bit of surrealism which I always like to see. Another laugh comes when Chaplin falls backwards on to a man who is kneeling down, scrubbing a floor. The weight of Chaplin on his back sends the man's head straight into a bucket of water. As well as these sight gags there are the little touches which can often go unnoticed. Chaplin had a habit of using a recurring gag where by he would trip and doff his hat to the curb. Here as a Fireman he salutes. It's a nice in joke and twist on one of his favourites.

One interesting point about the film is that it shows a near deserted area of Los Angeles. It's incredible to see footage of the metropolis less than a hundred years ago and compare it to today. There are few streets and fewer houses and just one vehicle in the background of one shot. To me a lot of Chaplin's location work is fascinating for its background detail as well as its focus.

Another aspect of the film which I enjoyed was the reversing of film to create some odd looking and humorous scenes. The film is reversed to create the effect of Chaplin sliding up a Fireman's pole (in the literal sense) and is also used on a couple of occasions to create images of horses walking backwards which looks very odd indeed. This is another example of Chaplin's ever expanding inventiveness. Because of this and other clever ideas it's a shame that he resorts to so much that even by 1916 was tired and well used. The kick up the backside gag is repeated here several times and although it's Chaplin on the receiving end it does feel a little overdone. The plot itself feels fairly formulaic and very similar to previous films.

Despite the problems with the movie such as tired plot and jack of jokes it ends on a high. The final scene is exciting and sweet and brings the proceedings to a pleasant close. Chaplin's climbing and acrobatics are excellent and even though he has an obviously fake Edna Purviance on his back, the stunts are still impressive. Despite being his second Mutual film it still feels as though Chaplin was finding his feet with the company and though exploring new ideas was relying too heavily on safe material.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Red Shoes (1948)
6/10
Beautiful but Boring
5 August 2012
A young amateur ballerina called Victoria Page (Moira Shearer) meets famed ballet producer Boris Lermontov (Anton Walbrook) at a ballet after party, impressing him enough to invite her to join his company. At breakfast the next morning Lermontov also meets an inspiring young composer by the name of Julian Craster (Marius Goring) and he too is invited to join the company. The two talented youngsters begin to work their way up through the company ranks as a romance blossoms between them. There are tough decisions to be made however when it comes to a choice between ambition and love.

I bought The Red Shoes of Blu-Ray about three or four years ago after hearing Martin Scorsese say it was one of his favourite films. Now I've finally seen it I can see why someone would enjoy it on an artistic and technical level but it left me feeling very bored.

The first thing to strike me about the film was its wonderful use of colour. Everything is so bright and vivid and it's incredibly striking. Although Technicolor had been invented in 1916 it wasn't widely used in the film industry until the 1940s. After the success of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, studios began to think of the medium as the future. The use of colour in The Red Shoes is stunning and is definitely one of the highlights of the film for me. I wondered if the colour was made to be so bright and vivid because the directors were working in a relatively new and unexplored medium, just as today 3D films seem to make an extra effort to have things poking out of the screen at the audience. Unlike 3D which is in my view rarely if ever improves a film, the colour in The Red Shoes most definitely enhances the viewing experience.

The plot revolves around a story within a story with Hans Christian Anderson's fairy tail The Red Shoes being performed inside the film. I was never really interested in the characters and I think this is because the film was very predictable. I was always one step ahead, able to anticipate what was coming next. This was true even of the shocking ending which I worked out just a couple of minutes earlier. This isn't a film with twists or surprises. Even so I thought that the ending was done very well and I loved the thirty seconds on stage after the 'surprise'. I thought it was beautiful and moving. One of the problems I had with the film was my indifference to ballet. I've tried to enjoy it a couple of times when I've been to see ballet and although I have huge admiration for the ability of the dancers I can't help but find it confusing and dull. I'd love to be able to say I can follow a ballet but I just can't. As about a third of the film is purely dancing I often found my mind wandering to other things.

Although I'm no ballet fan I did find the performance of The Red Shoes ballet sometimes interesting. The fairy tail element peaked my interest a little and it felt almost surrealist at times. I was reminded of Disney's Fantasia at various moments. The prolonged dance scene half way through was also very well edited. The costumes' were also well designed and the music, although not to my taste, was excellent. Occasionally the film was overacted, perhaps in part due to the cast been predominantly ballerinas first, actors second. I let this go slightly as a lot of the cast were working in their second or third language. Both leads were very good and Anton Walbrook stood out as the charismatic but vicious impresario. Another thing I liked was to see London's Covent Garden as it was in the 1940s. It's an area I've been though many times and looks very different today. The same is true of Paris and Monte Carlo which are also interesting to see over sixty years ago.

For me The Red Shoes is a lot like ballet itself. It is admirable and I wanted to enjoy it but I often felt bored and kind of couldn't wait for it to be over.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
26 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Circus (1928)
10/10
Seventy minutes of comic gold
4 August 2012
A Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) is mistaken for a pickpocket and chased through a circus by the police. Once in the big top he outwits the cops and gets more laughs in doing so than the circus clowns so is offered a job by the ringmaster (Al Ernest Garcia). On his first morning at work the tramp meets a beautiful young dancer (Merna Kennedy) who is hungry after being punished by the ringmaster who is also her father. The tramp falls instantly in love and shares what little food he has. Despite being a hit with the audience the tramp is unaware and like the dancer is mistreated by the ringmaster. No sooner does he become self aware he begins to act with hubris, making working conditions better for himself and his love. The tramp's intentions are soon interrupted however with the arrival of a handsome young tightrope walker (Harry Crocker).

Almost forgotten by Chaplin and his audience for sixty years, more recently The Circus has become known as one of actor/director's defining works. Featuring some of his best comic creations and earning points for the sheer hardship of production, The Circus is amongst Chaplin's better films and ranks as one of my favourites.

Amazingly The Circus is the only one of Chaplin's feature films which does not get even a single mention in his autobiography. It is almost as though he wished to forget it as production took place during one of the most tumultuous times of his career. The film took two years to make, an exceedingly long time for the 1920s and this was due in part to a terrible fire which ripped through the set and also because production had to be halted after Chaplin was served divorce papers by his second wife Lita Grey. Her lawyers attempted to take the film's negatives as part of the divorce settlement and Chaplin was forced to hide them away before continuing. With all that was going on during its production it isn't surprising that Chaplin wanted to forget it. Luckily for us he returned to the film in 1967, creating a new score and even singing Swing High Little Girl over the titles. This was the version I saw. To hear Chaplin, whose voice I've barely heard before, sing over the beginning of one of his best films is a joy.

The Circus features what is probably my favourite 90 seconds of Chaplin's entire sixty year career. While being chased by the police early on he enters a mirror maze and causes confusion inside, ducking and diving out of the reach of the police officer who never really knows where he is. On a technical level this is also impressive as despite there being around twenty mirrors on screen you never once see the camera. After escaping the hall of mirrors Chaplin finds himself and the real pickpocket (Steve Murphy) being chased into an automaton Noah's Ark experience. The following scene is the highlight of the film as Chaplin and the pickpocket are forced to act as automatons to fool the police. Chaplin uses this as a chance to repeatedly hit the pickpocket on the head and is able to produce an automaton style laugh after each whack. The way Chaplin moves and the genius of the idea are both extraordinary. Another scene which had me laughing was when Chaplin was cleaning and took a goldfish out of its tank to clean. The stupidity and surrealism are excellent.

As well as the trademark slapstick and trodden on character there are a few aspects of the film which will surprise even Chaplin aficionados. There are several fairly brutal beatings which Merna Kennedy endures from her father. These aren't brutal in the vein of a Korean thriller but by silent comedy and especially Chaplin standards they are almost horrific. I did not expect to see it but it gave the tramp a reason to stand up and fight back and also created a feeling of hatred towards the villain of the piece. Something else that struck me was Chaplin's stunt work. He isn't usually remembered for his stunts, at least not as much as fellow silent clowns Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd but here Chaplin performs some deft defying aerial tricks. The tightrope scene is simply incredible, especially given the fact that Chaplin was unable to tightrope walk before the film. This scene is also one of the comedic highlights. In an earlier scene, he also shares a small cage with a huge lion. This scene took over 200 takes to get right so there were 200 chances for the director to be mauled. That shows dedication to perfection.

The film was nominated for four Academy Awards at the first ever Oscar ceremony but was taken out of the running by the Academy in favour of giving the film a special award for acting, writing, directing and producing. The Jazz Singer was the only other film to receive a special award during the next five years.

Chaplin gives us a selfless ending which makes sense but it isn't the ending that the audience want. The final shot is almost a direct replica of a shot he used in many of his films but most notably The Tramp and Modern Times. For me The Circus is a joyous 70 minutes of comic gold and quite rightly ranks alongside the likes of City Lights and The Gold Rush as Chaplin's greatest films.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A mess of a film and not worthy of Chaplin's name.
30 July 2012
Charlie Chaplin's final Essanay film is probably his most controversial. Unlike the controversy his films created in the 1930s and 40s, the controversy surrounding Triple Trouble comes from its very existence. The two reel film was created in 1918; two years after Chaplin left Essanay and was compiled by Chaplin regular Leo White. White directed some sequences and took other scenes from Police as well as the ending from Work and some unused footage from the never completed Life. The result is a hodgepodge of half completed jokes, tired scenes and uneven continuity.

The plot (I think) involves Chaplin working in the house of a scientist/Count (Leo White) as a janitor. Having got into his trademark trouble and briefly bumping into a Maid (Edna Purviance) whose role is not expanded, the janitor finds a bed for the night at a flophouse. While there a pickpocket enters and starts stealing from the residents. The janitor attempts to stop him and then for some reason runs away from the police. Later the janitor meets an old friend who convinces the cleaner to help him to steal from his employers.

As you can probably gather from that brief plot description the film makes no sense. One minute Chaplin will be in a scene then wont be seen again for several minutes, turning up for a few seconds in a situation obviously taken from another film. In one scene the thief is directed to the house he needs to steal from but then later on needs the janitor to show him where it is. Chaplin also runs away from the police at one stage despite having done nothing wrong. The whole thing is a mess.

What annoyed me most is that the film takes some of the best parts of other films and drops them in. My favourite scene in Police when Chaplin steals from a thief while the thief is searching him for money is used here. All that was done to hide the fact is a reversal of the frame so that Chaplin stands to the right here rather that to the left as is Police. A scene at the end of the film is lifted from Chaplin's earlier Essanay Work. In that film it made perfect sense and was incredibly funny. Here Chaplin wasn't even in the room in the moments before yet ends up under a load of rubble.

The story and jokes aren't as sophisticated as in the likes of Police, The Bank or A Night in the Show. There are very few actual original gags at all although calling the family of the house Nutt made me laugh as that meant that the janitor worked in the Nutt house. There is very little humour in the Nutt house though and the long, drawn out scene in the flophouse was dull and uninspiring. The set was easily recognisable from Police but the question of whether the footage was taken from Police outtakes or from Life remains unresolved. One of the few saving graces is Wesley Ruggles' cook's facial hair. Chaplin's character actors were renowned for OTT fake facial hair but Ruggles takes it to new heights here with massively over the top beard and moustache as well as the largest and most pointy fake eyebrows I've ever seen. It's incredible.

One nugget of interest comes in the overt use of anti German language. The film was released when the USA had finally entered the First World War and it appears that this film was set in Germany. One intertitle mentions teaching the Hun a new goose step and there is mockery of Germanic names.

In the end it feels wrong to call Triple Trouble a Charlie Chaplin film, although he did include it in the filmography for his own autobiography. (Which if you haven't read, is an excellent book and well worth picking up). The film created even more animosity between Chaplin and the company and can comfortably be considered the worst of their partnership.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Police (1916)
7/10
From snorting with laughter to disappointment in under thirty minutes.
28 July 2012
Charlie Chaplin's penultimate film for Essanay is regarded as amongst the best of his output for the company. The film was actually released after his first film for the Mutual Film Corporation The Floorwalker, over five months after his previous Essanay film Burlesque on Carmen. Another interesting release related fact is that Police released over two years before his finally Essanay film Triple Trouble which was created in part by Chaplin regular Leo White by piecing together unused shots from other Chaplin films including this and the unfinished feature Life.

Police stars Chaplin as a recently released convict trying to make it in a cruel and hostile world. The initial plot follows along the same lines as much of Chaplin's work. There were portions of Police that reminded me of Modern Times and the idea of the Tramp struggling to survive was used by Chaplin time and time again. It has been suggested that Chaplin borrowed the plot from Broncho Billy's His Regeneration for which he had an uncredited cameo and I agree that the character development at least is shared between the two.

Having been swindled by a dodgy God botherer and having no money to pay for a bed for the night, the ex-con is held up at gunpoint by a man who turns out to be his ex-cell mate (Wesley Ruggles). The thief convinces the Tramp to assist him in robbing a nearby house and the two set about breaking in. Once inside they are confronted by the Daughter of the House (Edna Purviance) and chased by a number of Cops (Leo White, John Rand & Fred Goodwins). The Tramp manages to become the hero of the piece late on when he saves the Daughter of the House from a nasty attack.

Police begins very promisingly with some wonderful comic business early on. A highlight came when Chaplin visited a fruit seller and tried numerous apples, taking a bit and putting them back until he found one to his liking. The first time he put an apple back I actually snorted with laughter. I also enjoyed the scene in which Chaplin meets his ex-cell mate and sneakily robs him while the man is searching Chaplin for money. It's subtle and clever.

On a technical level the film is very good. I liked the scene in which Chaplin and Ruggles were shown only in shadow. This isn't something I remember seeing from Chaplin before and felt a bit German expressionist. I also thought that the use of filters was very accomplished. Filters are one of my least favourite aspects of early cinema but here Chaplin uses them well, leaving you in no doubt as to the time or setting of a scene.

I felt that the second half didn't quite live up to the first and certainly wasn't as funny. That being said it was actually more reminiscent of later Chaplin, forsaking jokes in favour of plot and character development. Unfortunately the romantic element just doesn't live up to the likes of City Lights and the film's ending is a little flat.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sunrise (1927)
10/10
Artistically and Tecnically stunning
25 July 2012
Sunrise or sometimes known by its full title Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans is a multi Oscar winning film from F. W. Murnau, one of the most famed Directors of the silent era. Mixing Murnau's traditional German Expressionism with Hollywood techniques the film stars George O'Brian as a rural farmer who begins an elicit affair with a glamorous and sophisticated Woman from the City (Margaret Livingston). The City Woman persuades the Farmer that he'd be better off with her in the city and suggests that he drowns his Wife (Janet Gaynor) and makes it look like an accident. Following a last minute change of heart The Man tries to gain his wife's forgiveness as she herself flees to the city with him in tow.

I'd never heard of this film until a couple of weeks ago when I was searching for Silent Films that I could watch for Eternity of Dream's Speechless Blogathon. I searched the IMDb Top 250 and found that this was one of the few silent films I hadn't seen. And boy am I glad I found it. It is not surprising that Sunrise remains so highly regarded today as it is a truly magnificent film.

The film is much stylised and features some advanced film making techniques. Unlike many films of the era there are few intertitle screens with possibly only ten or twelve during the entire 95 minutes. The images and acting do the talking and Murnau calls upon some interesting techniques to create a visually stunning film. He uses forced perspective on a number of occasions, sometimes in tandem with double exposure to create some quite surreal but beautiful images. The double exposure is something that is prevalent throughout and is often used to create the feeling of several emotions at once, such as when The Man is torn as to whether or not to kill his wife. The overlaying also creates a sense of hustle and bustle when the central characters first reach the city. In keeping with Murnau's German Expressionist past there are several scenes which have an almost fairytale like quality including one early on in which The Woman from the City enters a room to find a family eating breakfast. The table they're sat at appears to be at about 30 degrees off horizontal while furniture at the other end of the room is about 30 degrees off in the other direction. This creates a feeling of being sucked into the room and is also very beautiful.

Something else of interest is the use of long tracking shots. The film actually features what was at the time the longest tracking shot in history at over four minutes and there are several protracted moving shots throughout. Another thing I didn't expect to see was the use of traveling matte (an early form of bluescreen). This was used during a scene in which the couple are walking through traffic and was added to with real cars and bicycles moving between the characters and camera. While it is obviously bluescreen it looked as good if not better than examples I've seen from the 1980s.

The score, so important for a 'silent' movie, is absolutely superb, combining periods of thrilling, dramatic and romantic music as the mood changes. The music is a joy to listen to and at times incorporates music and sound effects from the characters surroundings such as the noise of a carnival and shouts from angry motorists. While technically a silent film, there are the odd moments of human speech but these are all in the form of stock effects like those mentioned above. The film was released just two weeks before the first 'talkie' The Jazz Singer and as a result was at the very end of the silent era.

The plot can be easily dissected into three distinct acts. The opening act is heavy and sombre as The Man is racked with guilt and indecision. The middle third is quite light and frothy in comparison and even contains a scene in which The Man chases a drunken pig. It is sometimes funny and always frivolous and entertaining. The final act takes a sad turn and brings the plot round full circle. The story itself feels quite original and is gripping from start to finish. To me the plot could also been seen as a warning against Urbanisation, something that was creating problems for both town and country in the late 1920s. Symbolically the film could be viewed as a tempting city influence, coming to the countryside and upsetting the balance of things. While this could be the case, it may be that I'm reading too much into it.

The acting is great. Once again I'm surprised just how great because as I've mentioned in previous reviews, although I watch a lot of silent film, I tend to stick to comedy for which acting is not a forte. Janet Gaynor won the first ever Oscar for Best Actress in a Leading Role in 1929 although at the time the award was given for cumulative work and included her performances in Seventh Heaven and Street Angel. Although I think that she was very good, for me the real standout performance was George O'Brian who felt incredibly natural in the role of The Man. As well as Gaynor's Oscar the film also won Academy Awards for Best Cinematography and Best Unique and Artistic Production (a category only used that one time and was the equivalent of Best Picture). Both awards are highly justified in my view.

Overall Sunrise is a highly enjoyable and technically brilliant film which combines some of the best aspects of German Expressionism and early Golden Age Hollywood to form a thrilling and beautiful piece of work which is worth seeking out if ever you get the chance.

www.attheback.blogspot.com
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed