fightrunner.co.uk

Lars and the Real Girl

You can’t deny this movies originality. You won’t see anything else quite as quirky as this, I guarantee.

The plot revolves around a socially inept, awkward young man called Lars(Ryan Gosling), who, failing to bond with any real people, buys himself an expensive sex-doll. He dresses her up and calls her Bianca, fabricating a back-story for her, then introducing her as his girlfriend. They met on the internet(Which isn’t strictly a lie).
Realising his delusion, the community come together around him and support him through his episode. Pretending along with Lars that Bianca is a real person.
There is no seedy side to this film, if that’s what you’re thinking. No, Lars is a gentleman and requests that Bianca stays in his sister-in-law’s(Emily Mortimer) spare room until the pair are married.

There are some genuine laughs to be had at Lars, but he’s such a sweet character that you can’t help but sympathise with him.
The supportive community accept Bianca in full. Even offering her a job as a, wait for it, shop window model. They invite her to parties, tell her how nice she looks. In fact, it’s a little too good to be true. How come there are no unruly drunks shouting abuse at him? How come there are no delinquint kids hurling rocks at the weirdo? Obviously, he doesn’t come from my neighbourhood.

The movie was nominated for an oscar and is held sacrosanct among the Indie movie Community, but I, personally, thought it floundered after the halfway mark. It started off with subtle comedy entwined with the emotional storyline, but it quickly scrapped that in favour of pure sap.

For the last fifteen minutes you’ll be willing it to end. All the plots are nicely tied up, but still it trundles onwards.

The acting is brilliant from top to bottom. Gosling plays the timid man with an understated dignity. He may be whacko to everyone else, but in his own world he’s proud of his plastic love.
Paul Schneider is great as Lars brother, torn between his love for his brother and the ridiculousness of the situation.

I feel bad giving this a low rating as it is such a fresh story, and fresh stories are rare these days, but it needs trimming and the jokes peter out too early.

Sorry Lars.

Verdict 6/10

The Wages Of Fear

Recently, I’ve beeen reading the book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind. A book charting the rise of the Director as Auteur through the 1970’s. Following directors such as Martin Scorcese, William Friedkin and Francis Ford Coppola as they changed Hollywood’s perception of the role of the Director. One thing that was continuously mentioned was the influences of the European New-wave directors; the very reason many of the new Hollywood Film-makers chose their proffession.

One such director is Henri-Georges Clouzot, A parisian director worshipped by fans such as William Friedkin. The Wages of Fear was Clouzot’s masterpiece and would later be remade, albeit unsuccessfully, as The Sorcerer by Friedkin.

The film starts slowly, giving us a taste of the boredom felt by our main characters; a group of down-on-their-luck unemployed adventurers. They hang around the saloon in an unspecified South American town, scraping the pennies together for their next meal. Their desperation is evident as the first whiff of work fills them with hope.
To stop an oil-well burning out of control, the manager offers them a job transporting nitroglycerine 300 miles to collapse the well. The job is almost certainly a suicide mission, as the slightest bump could turn their truck into fireball.
Four are chosen as the best drivers and set off in two trucks across mountainous terrain and rugged roads. If it weren’t treacherous enough, they must skillfully navigate past oil slicks, landslides whilst battling with their own nerves.

The first act sets up with the knowledge that these men will do anything for money, sacrificing friends and lovers. The lengthy middle act( The journey itself) shows us the difference between perceived courage and real courage. Jo (Charles Vanel), the big man about town, slowly comes apart as fear works on him. It’s up to the fearless Mario(Yves Montand) to carry the load and his quivering companion.

The other truck is driven by the unlikely pairing of Luigi and Bimba; an odd couple who gradually warm to each other. The stone-cold Bimba coming out of his shell and befriending his portly companion.

The final act reminds us that having no fear has its own consequences, which I won’t get into, for fear of spoiling the film.

There are some twists that will jolt you from your seat, as you hang on the edge of it during the second act.

I initially had fears that I wouldn’t like this film. That maybe it hadn’t aged well. They were totally unfounded. Agreed, the first act does stretch on, but you’ll appreciate the calm before the storm.

For anyone who liked the greed thread through There Will Be Blood(This means you Cal), this is a must see. For anyone else It’s a must see for a whole load of other reasons.

Rating 10/10

A masterpiece.

Have just finished watching Jumper and i have to say Kev, you nailed this one on the cranium. This is a film of astounding averageness, bland and completely forgettable. My take on it is that it would make an excellent pilot for a TV, but as big screen potential blockbuster fayre it does quite cut it. It has the feeing of unrecognised potential but a formuliac and bland scrpit let it all down badly.

The actors do as well as they can with the material with Hayden Christiansen sleepwalking his way through the lead role and Sammy L Jackson well he doesn’t cut it as fanatic of a cult hunting down the Jumpers as there is no real motivation or back story given to his shadowy band of followers. The Love interest is strictly a by-the-numbers Damsel in Distress with zero depth. In fact the rogue jumper in the movie almost seals the show but is criminaly underused throught the piece.

The Action in this movie will also leave you unimpressed and shoulder shrugging as you think it could have been so much better and so much more fun. Like i say i think the best course of action for this movie would be to shift to the small screen as 20 x 40minute episodes would flesh things out nicely rather than 3 x 2 hour movies. This is a HUGE missed opportunity.

Zulu Rating – 5.5/10 So, so Average.

And When Did You Last See Your Father?

This is one of those strange little films that idles on the shelf of our video store gathering dust, never fearing that anyone might pick it up. It’s only due to a serious shortage of decent films that I watched this at all.
It’s a FilmFour movie which is why it probably piqued my interest. I’ve never sat through a FilmFour production without being glad I did. On the main they’re gritty and realistic and wholly entertaining films. This, on the other hand, is the exception that proves the rule.

It’s a story targeted at men who have father issues, which should cover about ninety percent of mankind.
Blake Morrison(Colin Firth), the author and protagonist, recounts his memories while sitting by his father’s(Jim Broadbent) deathbed. A backstory unfolds as we witness Blake in his youth enjoying the love of his parents. As he studies these memories it becomes apparent that his father wasn’t the man he idealised when he was too young to know better. We follow him as he pieces the past together and provides us with the reasons for the huge rift between the two men.
There are some thoroughly heart-warming moments as Blake learns to drive on the beach and when they go on a doomed camping trip. It makes you wish Jim Broadbent was your own dad.

The problem I have with this film(I’m not heartless, I promise) is that it is over sentimental. Films of its kin like Field of Dreams and Big Fish, convey the same message, but they sneak up on you. They conceal their sentimentality behind baseball and fantasy respectively. With this film you’re continuously assaulted to the point where you phone your own father, sobbing. The whole experience leaves you devoid of emotion for the valuable moments at the end when you need them most.

The story is a true one, so I suppose it falls within the catchment of FilmFour, but I think there are other, better versions of this film available.

Verdict: 5/10
Too much sorrow for one heart to take.

If ever there was a case of two different styles of film making on on source material then here is a prime example. The original movie is a product of the communist era USSR and the remake (or re-interpretation) a product of the capitalist Hollywood System. The source material for both films is the same , Polish Sci-Fi author Stanislaw Lem’s seminal work Solaris (1961). The story is one of a psychologist , Chris Kelvin who is called to investigate the strange happenings on a remote space station orbiting the plant Solaris which is causing the crew to have strange visions and hallucinations. Kelvin is then forced via the visions to confront his pain full past and to learn same harsh lessons.

The original directed by legendary Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky clocks in at 165 minutes and is a formidable watch. My feelings after this was the mental equivalent of boxing 12 rounds with Mike Tyson and winning on points. This is a very slow moving movie and there is a lot to take in so many themes and undercurrents and amazing cinematography and the haunting music. What strikes me most about this is how it matches the tone of Lem’s book which given that Lem’s book was written in communist era Poland and this movie was filmed in the USSR it is easy to see how the movie would retain the feeling of the original book and the communist backdrop for the filming adds a dimension to his film giving it a gritty hard edge. The fact that the film is in Russian also to me adds more to original feel of the movie as (Apologies Poles and Russians) the Russian language to me sounds so close in tone to polish. The detraction from the book is a major one this movie prefers to focus on the earth-bound story of the Chris Kelvin rather than what is happening on Solaris. The major surprise is the quality of production here, given it was made against the backdrop of communism the production value is surprisingly high.

And so 30 years passes and huge changes occur in the world, the fall of the USSR and 9/11 to name a few. And a new version of Solaris hits the cinema this one had high expectations Steven Soderbergh directing, Stanislaw Lem writing the screenplay and one James Cameron producing. The big attracting for this movie would be the actor employed as the main lead, George Clooney. This version stays more faithful to Lem’s vision with all the story apart from a few flashbacks taking part on the troubled Solaris station. The cinematography here is dazzling the backdrop of Solaris ever present in every shot dominating the events of the station. But then there is the main problem – Mr Clooney. I like George Clooney i think he’s a great actor but this is a horrific case of bad casting as he just does not convince in the role of Chris Kelvin as he cannot pull of dark brooding and troubled , it does not match. And sorry to say it this is a story that does not suit an American production maybe a British director could have pulled this off but for whatever reason the American accents just do not match a dark brooding philosophical sci fi novel written by a Polish author during the communist regime. This is not a bad movie just a wrong movie for the location and actors.

Both are worth watching but the best way to view the 2 is the original as being you super-size movie and the second being a ‘diet’ version.

Solyaris : 8.6/10 Hard going but rewards on every level

Solaris : 6.3/10 A beautiful looking movie that just falls short

Solyaris Trailer:

Solaris Trailer:

Lets face it on the whole, sequels suck. The majority of sequels just can’t build on the movie we loved first time round in fact most sequels try and go for more of the same but a lot bigger as is evident in horror movies and action movies. But on rare occasions sequels do work they do manage to bring something familiar yet totally new to the story we fell in love with first time round.This section is about the 5 best (in My Opinion) sequels that i have ever seen. Let me know if you agree or otherwise.

5.) Superman II

This does the amazing job of matching the brilliant first movie and developing the characters a bit further from the first movie. Yes there now 2 different versions thanks to the DVDs of Donner’s and Lester’s cut but the original cut of the movie still works best as it fuses the heavy narrative on Donner with the humour and slapstick of Lester. The main thing is here we get to explore the character of superman and his relationship with Lois in way that fits in nicely with plot and does not feel forced.

4.) Terminator 2

James Cameron has a knack for sequels as 2 of the movies in this list are directed by him!. Bigger and better this lives up to Cameron’s motto ‘Less isn’t more, More Is More’. By taking the villain from the first movie and having hm switch sides as a good guy in this one was sheer genius and also delving into Sarah Connor’s mind building on the heroine we saw at the end of the first movie is just another one of many reasons as to how this movie easily lives up to and some cases beats its predecessor.

3.) Empire Strikes Back

Another good rule for sequels is darker is better, this movies tone s far more downbeat than Star Wars but the downbeat nature gives us some of the defining moments of this series: Han and Leia’s Love/Hate romance, The Appearance of Yoda and THAT line from Darth Vader were we find out Luke ain’t the bastard we though he was. And also the sad final scene which has extra resonance as we look in hindsight as it was the last truly classic star wars George Lucas ever wrote.

2.) Aliens

James Cameron. At His Best. Takes a sci-fi classic, revamps it in his own mould and makes what i reckon is one of the best Horror/Sci-Fi/Action movies ever made. keeping the principle from the first movie and having her mmix it with the military was an inspired move as this time round the supporting cast are worth the price of admission, in particular Bill Paxton cemented himself not ony in his role as Hudson but also as Cameron’s handy man.

1.) Mad Max 2 : The Road Warrior.

Probably the best action movie ever made. Starting off shortly after the first move and borrowing from another genre ( The Western town under seige saved by strange loner) thi is the atcion movie at its purest and finest. Stripped of all the symbolism and glossy effects that plague modern day action movies this rocks. again takes whats good from the first movie and mixes it up. Given the amazing car chases from the movie they went one better here, making the second half of the movie one long chase scene and what a chase it is. The new characters compliment the Anti Hero Mel Gibson perfectly. Get this one in the DVD player and turn up to Brian Blessed volumes it will bring a tear to your eye as you remember how great and how fun action movies were.

Jessica Alba and Hayden Christensen are two actors with the same problem young and beautiful, have had minor hits and a lot of misses as no-one seems how to best employ their talents in a 2 hour movie. Jessica Alba got her foot in the door starring in James Cameron’s excellent TV sci-fi show Dark Angel and since then she had a good turn in Sin City an indifferent one in Fantastic 4 and the rest has been miss able. Hayden had his hit with the 2 Star Wars prequels and since has yet to find a niche for himself. Both have gone down the super-hero route (Hayden with the lacklustre jumper, Jessica with the average fantastic 4) and so this movie brings them together to try their collective skills at psychological thriller.

The Story is simple Hayden plays a charismatic New York billionaire Clayton who requires a heart transplant operation but his possessive mother disapproves of his choice of doctor for the procedure and also his choice of lover (Alba). Once the new ticker arrives for Clayton he is put in for the operation but whilst under is aware of what is going on around and slowly his life unravels and he is unable to do anything to fix it.

Now the plot is a little thin and it is due to the impressive supporting cast that it gains any credibility and remains watchable as the two leads score a Par hear neither really injecting anything of note to their roles. That said for the last act of this movie Alba gives us a glimmer of what she is capable of an actress as the plot thickens. But all said this is a very average movie that with a slightly less noticeable cast would have sank. The supporting cast really save this movie with Lena Olin’s turn as the overbearing mother over Clayton having some emotional resonance.

Overall this is a movie that would pass away an evening at home if you were searching the shelves of a video rental during the dry seasons when the top movies are at a premium. But it is a watch one and forget type of experience.

Zulu Rating 6/10 – Mediocrity at its most average