Posted on

The Descendants

Does everyone in Hawaii really wear Hawaii shirts?

“The Descendants” has been in cinemas for what seems forever. So I thought I’d catch it on its way out. Because it’s not exactly the freshest pick I’ll restrict myself to the briefest of reviews.

Matt King (George Clooney) is the titular descendant. The film interweaves two stories: Matt’s dealing with the traumatic impending loss of his comatose wife, and the sale of a large chunk of Hawaii property that has been in his family’s hands for centuries.

After a boating accident leaves his wife in a coma, lawyer Matt is forced to take care of his two daughters for the first time. After his troubled eldest daughter reveals the reason behind her warlike relationship with her mother, this storyline really takes off.

It is this narrative, of Matt forming a new and stronger bond with his children and overcoming the double blow of grief and betrayal that really pull us through the film. To say more would be to venture into spoiler territory….

The second storyline, the selling of a huge swathe of (once tribal) land, is a handy plot device and is wrapped up well enough. Still, I never really felt any real sense of urgency. In this aspect the film is flawed.

Some further notes of criticism: the movie starts with a long, rather corny voice-over by Clooney. In it he explains all manner of back story, which as the film proceeds is explained again by more filmic methods. The first 20 minutes of the film are therefore extremely trying.

In fact, for me the movie only really starts the moment the eldest daughter. Alexandra, becomes part of the story. Shailene Woodley plays this troubled teen and for me was the absolute star of the picture. With the other cast members putting in professional but unremarkable performances.

Over all, a fine film for a rainy evening at home. Oh, yes, almost forgot to answer the leading question: in this movie, yes.

Posted on

(The) Intouchables

I feel like I’m jumping onto the bandwagon here, but Intouchables is easily the pick of the crop so far in 2012.

The story focusses on the relationship between two, seemingly, very different men: Philippe and Driss, played rather brilliantly by Francois Cluzet and Omar Sy respectively. To say there is chemistry between these two actors would be the understatement of the year. Special mention must go out to Cluzet, who only has his face and head to work with, playing a paraplegic.

Philippe is a Parisian millionaire – paralysed from the neck down. He relies on constant care to eek even the slightest bit of pleasure out of life. Before his paralasys he was very much a thrill seeker. This may explain why challenges French African Driss to be his newest care taker/ male nurse. Driss is only interviewing for the position in order to collect a signature for his welfare check.

Driss, very much from the banlieu’s that surround Paris, has learned to live by his wits and says what’s what. His irreverent and humoristic approach appeals to Philippe who – from the off, realises that Driss sees him as a person not just a patient.

The film has a fast pace, and is technically well made. Those who surround Philippe distrust Driss, and he himself has a hard time shaking off the more difficult remnants of his past existance. But Driss manages to instill great pleasure in Philippes life. A subplot involves Philippes love life, and here the tension of being a paraplegic is palpable.

Already in danger of entering spoiler territory I would like to conclude that this is practically as good as film making gets. Perhaps the greatest achievement of this film is that it is never a sickly, treacly or soppy movie. If I could level a slight note of criticism it is that some of the more gruesome aspects of caring for a paraplegic are perhaps glossed over. I felt however that it would have added little to the story and taken us as viewers into a different territory than what the picture is about.

This buddy movie will send you out of the theatre with a heart full of joy.

My recommendation to anyone who loves film: GO SEE!!

 

Posted on

Hunger Games review

Just last week, every single movie in US box offices was considered rotten by the conclave of aficionados gathered through www.rottentomatoes.com But, as the Brits say: the worm has turned. The Hunger Games has saved the day.

Story

In Hunger Games, based on the novel by Suzanne Collins, we follow the fortunes of 16 year old Katniss, living in a distopian future USA: Panem. Every year the ruling class, that live in the Capitol, demand a girl and boy tribute form each of 12 outlying districts. These tributes are selected by lot, and must then fight to the death in an arena: the Hunger Games. There can by only one victor.

The aim of the Hunger Games is twofold: to amuse the inhabitants of Capitol and to remind the populace of the districts who’s in charge.

Katniss volunteers to go to the Hunger Games when her little sister is picked, and she is joined by baker’s son Peeta Mellark, who it turns out, has a crush on her. In an interesting twist, Katniss is in no way a weakling or underdog to win the Games, from the outset we know she is a skilled hunter.

The movie is split evenly into two parts, the lead up to the actual games and then the battle royale in the arena itself. All this is brought to us in a haze of media frenzy as Hunger Games is also very much a commentary on our very own media addictions.

To say more would inevitably lead to spoilers so I’ll leave it here.

Cast

Jennifer Lawrence is excellently cast as Katniss Everdeen. A spot-on combination of believable toughness and an understated beauty. The rest of the cast is also well balanced and the filmmakers have resisted the urge to have solely beautiful people in the movie, which is a breath of fresh air. Special mention goes out to Stanley Tucci for his over the top yet believable portrayal of Ceasar Flickerman – the TV host of the Hunger Games.

Style

In the districts it would seem that the world has stopped for ever circa 1934, whereas Capitol is a kind of aquatic Albert Speer fascist dream. The inhabitants of the Capitol all have outrageous looks, a kind of mirror to the current Hollywood jetset with their botox addiction, anorexia and other esthetic obsessions. Costumes in the film are done well, with none of the gary looks of many a superhero movie in sight.

Top marks for the bang on lighting, which added to the constant sense of impending doom. The camera movement was a mix of classic and ultra modern mobility. As I watched the movie a host of well executed details just kept on adding to the sense that this film was made with great care and love, withough going all “fan boy” about it.

Round Up

All in all, Hunger Games seemed to me to be a movie that was put together by a group of people determined to get it right, do justice to the original novels and at the same time provide great entertainment. For me, the movie worked on all levels and I highly recommend it to any and all. The swooning teens that surrounded me in the cinema seemed to get a kick out of it as well, so I predict it will do very well.

One slight note of criticism has to do with the actual subject matter: it did make me slightly uneasy that I was watching a movie of which the main plot consists of teens killing each other. But hey, it’s just a movie right?

May the reviews be ever in your favour, Hunger Games!

Update: march 26th, Hunger Games has biggest opening weekend on record for non sequel with $ 155 million:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17507922

 

Posted on

Hugo – a lecture on cinematic history

Martin Scorcese’s first foray into the world of 3D is a visual feast. It was clearly conceived to be the most modern ode to early cinema imaginable. As such it succeeds. As an involving, even exciting movie experience however, it falls flat.

3D has yet to win me over. But when it is done well, as in Avatar and again in this film, it does have its attractions. The depth of vision, and finely tweaked scenes, sets and action really pull you into the movie, more’s the pity that the lackluster telling of the central tale pushes you right back out again. That’s a shame because I really felt myself wanting to love this film. But like one of the central elements, a wind up automaton, it felt mechanical and cold.

The story of titular character Hugo, a young orphan living in the catacombs and attics of 19th century Parisian Grand Central station is one of discovery: a great adventure. A first point of criticism: if you like your protagonists to be whiny, sniveling and perpetually morose, you’ll get along with Hugo just fine. If you enjoy a bit of rapscallion thrown into the mix, look elswhere.

But this is a minor failing in comparison with the fact that the central adventure, the will and needs of the main characters take a back seat to the actual heart of the movie, which is summed up by a scene in which the viewer is literally lectured on the history of film and its great forgotten pioneer. Heavy handed indeed.

The philosophical tenet, which is also thrown at us like a sack of broken toys, seems to be that the world is a machine with no spare parts. Everyone has a role and if that is taken away, the machine is broken. Luckily, in this cinematic world, all can be fixed! Thank the lucky stars.

One could say that I am being unduly harsh as the film was made with two audiences in mind, kids and adults, and can therefore never fully satisfy either. But I wasn’t sure whilst watching it all play out whether younger viewers would actually comprehend much of the movie. After all, usually there is a quite tangible mission that needs to be fulfilled for the adventure to come full circle. In this case, the mission is quite abstract and metaforical and doesn’t even involve any real loot! Where is the pot of gold?!

All in all, an easy A for visual splendor, but a plodding C+ for story execution.

Posted on

A Dangerous Method – indeed….

I’m not sure what Keira Knightley thought she was doing in this pic, but if that’s method acting, that’s where the danger lies.
This period piece, written by Christopher Hampton (Atonement, The Quiet American), directed by David Cronenberg is about psychologist Carl Jung’s (Michael Fassbender) affair with his patient Sabina Spielrein – a Russian hysteric portrayed rather manically by miss Knightley. Or is it actually about the relationship between Jung and his mentor Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen)? Or is it really a historic account of the early days of clinical psychology?
The story centers on Jung’s treatment of Spielrein through “talk therapy” the titular “Dangerous Method”. This leads him to a closer relationship with Freud. But it all goes sour as Jung oversteps his professional boundaries at great cost to himself, Freud and Spielrein. Or at least, we are told that it is at great cost.

I, as viewer never felt that very much in particular was at stake. And that is a grave accusation to make against any story.
As I left the cinema I felt quite perplexed about what I had just seen. Yes, the sets were well lit, costumes up to scratch and the camera work was professionally done. But never at any time throughout the picture did I feel involved or more than slightly interested in what I was watching. The intellectual discourses felt staged and off kilter, the acting was – the god awful Knightley aside – okay, but what the film sorely lacked was a central drive or direction. It was more or less a series of events and people talking. There were some laughs, but I was never sure whether they were meant to be.

One pet peeve, for mr. Cronenberg: when doing the accent thing, either have all the actors stick to their respective dialects or none. Who can explain why miss Knightley does her utmost to cling onto an unconvincing Russian accent, Mortensen to a more appealing German lilt, yet Fassbender – portraying a early 20th century Swiss gentleman- gets away with BBC standard English? Perplexing.
All in all, I would advise any and all to skip this one, unless that is you have a particular fetish for watching anorexic women being spanked and pulling monkey faces. I’ll leave it at that.

Posted on

A Dangerous Method, indeed.

I’m not sure what Keira Knightly thought she was doing in this pic, but if it’s method acting, that’s where the danger lies.

This period piece, written by Christopher Hampton (Atonement, The Quiet American) is about psychologist Carl Jung’s (Michael Fassbender) affair with Sabrina Spielrein – a Russion hysteric portrayed rather manically by miss Knightly. Or is it actually about the relationship between Jung and his mentor Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortenson). Or is it really about the early days of clinical psychology? Or is it about repressed sexuality?

The story centers on Jung’s treatment of his patient Spielrein, through talk therapy (the titular ‘Dangerous Method”). His succes leads him into a closer relationship with Freud. But it all goes sour as Jung oversteps his professional boundaries at great cost to himself and

I have no idea. As I left the cinema I felt quite perplexed about what I had just seen. Yes, the sets were all well lit, costumes up to scratch and the camera work was professionally done. But never at any time throughout the picture did I feel involved or even slightly interested in what I was watching. The intellectual discourses felt staged and off kilter, the acting was – the god awful Knightly aside – okay, but what the film sorely lacked was any kind of soul, heart and gusto. It did attract some laughs, but I was never sure whether they were meant to be.

One pet peeve: when doing the accent thing, either have all the actors talking in their respective dialects or none. Who can explain why miss Knightly does her utmost to cling onto an unconvincing Russian accent, Mortenson to a more convincing German lilt, yet Fassbender portraying a Swiss gent, gets away with BBC standard English? Perplexing.

All in all, I would advise any and all to skip this one, unless that is, you have a particular fetish for watching anorexic women being spanked and pulling monkey faces. I’ll leave it at that.

Posted on

Hunger Games?

In de VS is Hunger Games de filmhype van 2012. Eind deze maand komt het eerste van drie (wellicht vier?) delen uit. De films zijn gebaseerd op de gelijknamige serie van schrijfster Suzanne Collins. In het Nederlands heet de serie “Hongerspelen”.

Wat is Hunger Games?

Het verhaal speelt zich af in een distopische toekomst – America “Panem”. Vanuit de Capitol regeert een decadente elite over 12 provincies. Om de provincies onder de duim te houden worden elk jaar de Hunger Games gehouden. Uit elke provincie worden twee tributen, tussen 12-18 jaar per lot geselecteerd. Zij moeten in een arena tot de dood moeten vechten. Er kan maar een winnaar zijn….

Dit afschuwwekkende gevecht wordt (verplicht) gekeken door alle inwoners van Panem. In de Capitol is het een waar media-spektakel, er doen immers geen kinderen van de Capitol mee.

De lezer volgt de avonturen van hoofdpersoon Katniss Everdeen, een stoere chick die heel goed kan jagen – wat ze heeft geleerd in district 12. Als haar jonge zusje wordt gekozen als tribuut neemt zij haar plaats in en gaat samen met een districtgenoot, de jongen Peeta, richting de arena en een wisse dood. Om de zaak wat gecompliceerder te maken heeft Peeta een oogje op haar, terwijl Katniss zich net realiseert verliefd te zijn op haar jeugdvriend Gale.

Ik heb met veel plezier alle drie delen gelezen. Katniss is een sterke hoofdpersoon, een aantal van de andere karakters is ook goed uitgewerkt. Er hangt een permanente dreigende sfeer en de plot-twists voel je weliswaar aankomen maar zijn uitstekend uitgedacht. De schrijfstijl, strak en zonder al te veel wollige omschrijvingen, is buitengewoon prettig en leent zich heel goed voor een filmbewerking. Een cynicus zou misschien zelfs zeggen dat de romans in die stijl geschreven zijn om verfilming uit te nodigen…

Wat wel vervreemdend werkt, en wellicht een cultuurkloof blootlegt, is dat de boeken wel extreem geweldadig zijn maar dat de ontluikende seksualiteit van de hoofdpersonen weggemoffeld wordt. En dat terwijl de gecompliceerde love-triangle tussen Katniss, Peeta en Gale wel als een hele belangrijke pijler wordt gebruikt. Ja, er wordt wat gezoend en er zijn hints dat er ook wel iets meer gebeurt. Maar de gierende hormonen van de tieners zijn kennelijk van volstrekt ondergeschikt belang ten opzicht van scenes van stervende kinderen die hun ingewanden in de handen houden. Het zegt wel iets deprimerends over de westerse maatschappij dat het geaccepteerder lijkt te schrijven over tieners die elkaar afslachten dan met elkaar vrijen.

Het eerste deel, waarin Katniss en Peeta het in de arena opnemen tegen strijders uit de andere provincies – en tegen elkaar, heeft een sterk einde, waaruit niet als vanzelf blijkt dat een sequel de bedoeling is. Dat is zeker na de Potter serie, erg verfrissend. Het tweede deel moet dat wel even goedmaken, door wat plotelementen erin te fietsen, wat uiteraard wat kunstmatig aanvoelt. Toch is dit tweede deel voor mij het sterkste van de serie. In het slotdeel gebeuren mijns inziens teveel van de belangrijkste “events” buiten de hoofdpersoon – en dus buiten de beleving van de lezer om. Ik ben benieuwd naar hoe de filmmakers hier een mouw aan zullen passen.

Al met al, kijk ik, net als in de VS vele miljoenen met mij, naarstig uit naar deel 1 van de Hunger Games. Al vraag ik me wel af waarom wij daarop zitten te wachten: willen we een spannende speelfilm zien, of willen we eigenlijk gewoon kijken hoe mooie tieners elkaar afmaken?

Volgens de laatste roddels opent Hunger Games in Nederland twee dagen eerder dan in de VS: 21 maart.