150W: X-Men

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

X-Men (Dir. Bryan Singer/2000)

Patrick Stewart narrates “Mutation: it is the key to our evolution”, in a role he was born to play as telepathic teacher, Professor X. His ominous voice-over, beginning X-Men, reveals mature and relevant themes, raising the film from action-shlock to an exploration of discrimination. Boldly using extermination camps of Nazi Germany (where McKellan’s ‘Magneto’ learns of his powers) to ground the film in “reality”, X-Men has no problem taking itself seriously – and indeed it should. This particular tale follows Wolverine (Jackman) and Rogue (Paquin) as they realise they’re not alone in their skillsets of adamantium-claws and power-borrowing. Singer directs this epic-story, complete with Statue of Liberty finale, with tact, homing in on personal relationships between the ensemble cast, including Storm (Berry), Cyclops (Marsden) and Jean-Grey (Janssen). Other than one politician, humans are outsiders; powerless to the mutant war. For an action-movie, these are audacious, ground-breaking themes making X-Men a must-watch.

Rating: 8/10

100W: Unbreakable

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts of a broad range of films...

Unbreakable (Dir. M. Night Shyamalan/2000)

A dark Superhero film rooted in reality, whereby X-ray vision is instinct and superhuman strength is unbreakable bones. A patient and tragic story as David Dunn (Willis) tries to find his place in the world following his lone survival from a train crash. We watch to see if Dunn is truly “Unbreakable” and meet Elijah Price (Jackson), who suffers from a breakable bone disorder. An urban world soaked in luxurious deep-blues and Milk-Tray purples, Unbreakable effortlessly convinces us that heroism exists in this modern world. Comic book heroes and villains have never been so gracefully depicted on the cinema screen.

Rating: 7/10

Curb Your Enthusiasm: Series 1 (Created by Larry David, 2000)

Introduction

So I had initially watched this first season a few years ago - Sarah joined me for three episodes before deciding she thought it was trash. Myself on the other hand watched the entire first season deciding, at the end, that I wanted to watch everything. I sold it - on the basis that I wuld buy the boxset and Sarah, the perfect woman and equally glutton-for-punishment, purchased the entire series for my birthday. Great times for me, not so much for Sarah who - again - after three episodes, decided, again, she hated it (despite liking Larry David in 'Whatever Works').

The Same Old Story

I think the awkward-situations-with-strange-character television shows can never be 'got' upon the first viewing. You need to understand the character in whatever context - understanding their traits and the inevitable outcome of situations. Larry David's character is constantly wound-up, but the comedy is not only in his reactions (he simply gets so angry!) but in the progression of the story. After two episodes you realise that the intelligence of Curb Your Enthusiasm is how the programme is set-up and plays out. Every single thing that happens in the first ten minutes will come back to haunt Larry. The irony in how, as you watch these first ten minutes, you can understand Larry's choices and the difficult (sometimes just obvious...) decisions he has to make. The way you can relate to him makes this set-up that much more intrinsic - but like the best comedy (and horror), you cringe throughout as you know it will go wrong, you know someone will get upset and you know Larry will take the fall... you just don't know how. Akin to horror, whereby you know the ghoul is around the corner you just don't know when it will appear and what it looks like (I think Hitchcock said something similar about horror in publicity for Psycho).

Some example perhaps. In the very first episode as Larry's very flippant comment referring to his wife as 'Hitler' has huge ramifications through Jeff's parents, the situation escalates through - as Larry simply digs a deeper hole. In fact, thats a great way to enjoy Curb - 30 minutes of Larry David digging himself into a hole. What I loved about re-watching the first episode is that, even knowing the style of the programme, the problems that arise continue to happen - in some cases with no consequence. So, again, in the first episode, Larry David, having insulted and fallen out with Richard Lewis's girlfriend turns down the dinner invite the four were due to have and, instead, goes to a meal with Cheryl and, as they sit down to eat, Richard Lewis and his girlfriend sit on a table at another section of the restaurant. You watch this and think "Oh God, what will happen now?" and nothing becomes of the situation. In fact, it simply adds to the awkward environment for the sake of Larry David. Larry David alone feels awkward and can see what could happen - but knows he can't do anything about it. This is funnier still, as we the audience are constantly in that position, whereby we simply see the situations play out and know something will happen - but can do nothing to stop it...

Long-Running Themes

Having only recently started the second series, you have only a handful of long-running storys. On the whole, anyone can simply watch one episode and just see the sword fall on Larry David, but certain themes seem to continue on. 'Sour Grapes', Larrys film is constantly brought up - without anyone actually seeing footage from the film - whilst the bracelet Larry and Richard Lewis fight over recurs, as does the fight itself. These are small aspects that don't affect your watching of each episode - but from watching the series back-to-back, its a nice little pay-off.

Its Not Over Yet

Most people, I have found, who like Curb Your Enthusiasm watched a random episode from the later series and then 'got into it', going back to the first series. I watched the first series first and therefore decided to get into it before having watched it (it could have gone wrong, but when you pay for something you watch it the whole way through!). Fact is, friends - Richard and Jo (from 'The Beautiful Game?' blog) - both watched a few episodes and became increasingly frustrated with the bad-acting of Larry David - and the extreme personalities of some of the side characters (the shoe guy from the second episode, the wife of Gil in the episode Porno Gil). I can appreciate this, but I think Larry David's 'acting' is more of just his character - so I personally simply 'accepted' that it was who he is. The side characters are often seen as ridiculous by Larry David- their eccentricities being the reason for Larry's exceptional frustration. I have a funny feeling that Larry's acting gets better in the following seasons and the episodes become more refined and defined int time.

Personally, I think if - like me - you enjoy The Office (More specifically, the British version) - then you should give the first series of Curb Your Enthusiasm a chance and, like the best of these, one episode is not enough. Once you have 'got' the style, set-up and characters, you'll never look back.

Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000)

"Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts."

Introduction

I can't remember the first time I watched this. I think it was Uni - between 2002 and 2005. I didn't own it. Having watched the film, I once bought the triple-disc version and then, upon trying it out in the DVD, found the disc was ruined. I brought it back and they had no other ones available so i got a refund. I never bought it in the end and i don't intend to. It is one of those films people tell you,"you must watch it" as if it ranks next to Casablanca and The Godfather. It doesn't rank that highly ... and I doubt it would be in Top 10's of 2000 ... wouldn't get into a Top 20 if it came out in 1999 (what a year that was!) but its worth a watch. One of those films I only wish Hitchcock could have watched and I ponder what he would have thought - a good yarn anyway, but I don't think it is a 'classic'. Like Dial M for Murder is a good Hitchcock but it is by no means his best. But, because I have been praising the back catalogue of Danny Boyle recently i thought I would rip apart a movie that, personally, I think some people like a little too much.

Opinion

So we have this completely non-linear storyline but not in any random sense of the word. The lead character, Lenny (Guy Pearce), has short-term memory-loss so we go back in time via the small segments of memory loss. While we do this, there is a running parrallel story shot in black and white which is in chronological order - opposed to the colour sequences that are, memory-segment-by-memory-segment, going back in time over the course of, say, a day. About twenty four hours ... maybe a little more (he sleeps twice so ... two days?). So, in this reversed-chronological colour strand we additionally see flashbacks to a guy called 'Sammy Jenkins' who is quite important...

That does make sense, but you may find that you need to watch the film to understand how the last paragraph makes sense. This construction of the story is a fascinating presentation - leading to a special-feature on some DVD's to watch the film completely in chronological order or in the combination of non-linear strands - as intended. We know Lenny's wife was murdered and he lost his memory in the process and he is on the hunt for the killer. We meet other characters also. Two characters who look remarkably like characters from Zion. No other than Cypher-Joe-Pantalioni and Trinity-Carrie-Ann-Moss playing Teddy and Natalie respectively.

As a fan of TV-series 24 it is perhaps not-surprising to note that this film was made a year before the TV-series as you begin to realise that in each segment, akin to each episode of 24, there is a little bit of action - in most cases ending with a cliffhanger - before moving on to the next bit. This keeps you constantly asking 'eh? whats going on? woo hoo! action! drama! oh, phew, questions answered ... [end of segement] ... eh? whats going on?' etc. So, poor old Guy Pearce has some really bad-luck getting himself involved in many little scraps. I am sure, anyone who initially had the idea for 24 could have watched this and seen the scope for how much action and drama and cliffhangers that can be put in place throughout a lots of sequences set over a short period of time. Nevertheless, this is a lot more personal and rough - as Lenny is on his own and has no CTU or FBI to assist him. The fact that he is alone means his trust in everyone else is jeopardized. This, I believe, is the crux - the real centrepoint - of the story. (While talking about 24 for the character Jack Bauer, that is his biggest issue: "you have to trust me!")

People create stories, they look back on history to stregthen themselves - learn from paste mistakes to move forward. Lenny can't learn from mistakes because he can't remember them! Bless him. But, then again, some people ignore mistakes and problems of their past and move on - ultimately making the same mistakes. (SPOILER! As we find out that Lenny literally makes the same mistake, murder (a pretty big mistake the ol' murder), again and again.)

Structurally, we have some great use of effects as, more often then not, some loud bang (on the door, phone ringing, car crash) or a little note recently written precedes or ends the reverse-chronological segments ... that way we know where we are at the end of each section. But then, the music, is so slow ... these long drawn out strings by David Julyan seem to want to imtate Bernard Herrman but seem to fall down to sound just boring.

To close, if its not bad enough that I have to accept how Lenny has no personality, I have to add to that the slow music. This could be so much faster but seems to drag on. Lenny's monotone voice recounting the events in his memory "my god, remember Sammy Jenkins". YES! I remember him. For Goodness sake. I have had long discussions with some people ... you know who you are ... about the choice of actor for Lenny. On the one hand he is such a boring protagonist (and you would think a tattoo-clad murderer would be quite interesting) and is the wrong actor to play such a role. On the other hand, he has - pretty-much - no memory so, obviously, thats how he feels. That is his outlook. So it adds to the realism. Its groundbreaking, thats for sure but I always feel when I watch this film that it could have been better -a little tweak here, a snag there would help. Its not either screenwriter Nolan or director Nolan's fault, but it is somebodies ... question is ... whose fault?

[I think it is Guy Pearces fault... all that Neighbours training methinks]

Taking Lives (D.J. Caruso, 2004) / Held For Ransom (Lee Stanley, 2000)

"Everything you saw I wanted you to see. "

Introduction

First off, don't worry if you haven't watched the films because I would like to think you never will. The 'quote' I chose is merely in jest. They are really that bad. Anyway, the last few posts were written ages ago and I stalled their 'release' as I was sun-ing it up in Morocco ... checkin' out the souks (markets), snake charmers, deserts and the range of stuff Marrakesh has to offer. Even managed to have a gander at a part of the desert (Ouarzarzate) and beach (Essaouira) whereby Lawrence of Arabia, Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven was filmed. But, alas, this is no travel blog (friends will be able to check out the pictures on facebook soon enough...) and, while at the hotel in Marrakesh we spent the night watching some films on a channel which showed cut films with arabic subtitles. Strangely enough, the aforementioned films were cut - language was not too excessive, nudity was a complete no-go and - I reckon - even a certain amount of violence was cut too. So, in the case of Taking Lives - a serial-killer thriller with sexual-chemistry between the two lead characters - without violence and sex ... turned out to be a weird film without any logic and character depth ... then again, there were enough problems to say that maybe the cut-out violence and sex may have been the only good thing about the film.

What I Reckon...

Both these films were truly awful - funnily enough, the worser one - Held for Ransom - was probably better for the comedic value. We have Taking Lives - an Angelina Jolie, Ethan Hawke and Kiefer Sutherland combo whereby Jolie plays a detective on the hunt for a serial killer who replaces his own identity with his victim. Clearly, money was put into the production and - according to my good friend Richard, whose 'facts' are often suspect - Ethan Hawke chooses films himself on their merits. I can imagine this to be true - Training Day and Linklater's After Sunset and Before Sunrise films are exceptionally well made, and in no small part to Hawke. So, we shall come back to the this question: Why did Ethan Hawke work on this film?

As soon as the film started you know the influence - namely the 1995 flawless thriller Se7en. A film released nearly a decade prior ... you would think if Caruso and co are going to rip-off a movie, they might as well do it well, but they make it so much worse. For one, our first introduction to Jolie is her, lying in a freshly dug grave. I guess she is 'sensing' the killer. Funnily enough, I was reading David Simon's Homicide book during the holiday also so seeing Jolie not play detective and then begin an autopsy clearly is incorrect - and when her and the homicide unit are discussing a recent robbery in Hawkes flat you have to ask yourself this: why the hell does this city not employ Medical Examiners to conduct autopsies and why does the police department not have a robbery unit. Surely they are wasting valuable time focussing in areas that are not their expertise. Well, hey, thats Hollywood.

So, the film starts and the first time we see Hawke he is discussing what he saw as a witness to a murder - though Martinez, a homicide cop, clearly has his suspicions about his credability. Obviously, even at this point we are asking ourselves who is the killer ... go on, guess, who could it be? Especially if you factor in the simple fact that most killers lie ... we shall come back to this movie.

Held for Ransom went straight to DVD in 2000. Starring post-Speed Dennis Hopper playing a kidnapper (Billy-the-kid, where has you dignity gone?) and a much-older Timothy Bottoms (of Bogdanovich's The Last Picture Show) as a girl's step-father. Can you guess the plot? Good looking teenagers are held for ransom by complete hick's. Fascinating how the mighty have fallen! If this was 1972, this would have made alot of money; one year after The Last Picture Show and three years after Easy Rider comes Held for Ransom ... wow ... shame it was made 28 years too late.

Nevertheless, the script was awful with Hopper stating "shut the f*** up" to everyone and anyone who cared to listen. A stupid confrontation as some NYC kid 'stood-up' to a cliche jock. This NYC kid, Dexter (Randy Spelling) is so passionate about it, and the script is so attacking of this jock that you feel a bit awkward - as if you have stumbled into a bit of a personal-attack from the script-writer. Bets on the fact that he was bullied and ribbed at school for being 'only' someone who was creative? To make matters worse, for no apparent reason, towards the end of the film the jock admits to committing a hit-and-run, killing a different pupil. So, if its not bad enough that this American jock is sporty, head of the football team, etc - he is also a murderer to clarify the simple fact that sporty-jocks are basta*ds.

The film is about rich-kids kidnapped by socially-excluded country hicks, and strangely enough there is no comment on society ro anything - its simple. Poorer people envy rich people, and that is why some are violent and commit crime - such as kidnapping. I have a feeling that Lee Stanley not only hates sporty jocks, but is also quite rich - no praise for the working man. Even the 'twist' at the end (c'mon, you're not going to watch it are you?) whereby one of the kidnapees step-fathers (Timothy Bottoms) is responsible for the entire thing to pay off a gambling problem he has. Why couldn't this step-father be her actual father? I assume because how on earth could anybody within that affluent part of society concoct such a plan, let alone have such addictions - the only way such a thing is possible is if they are somehow, shockingly, married into the lifestyle. I am quite content with assuming I am looking into it too much but, if i didn't, I would simply be saying it was sh*t. Full-stop.

The final issue is the cut scenes from both films. My good friend Richard done a little research into Taking Lives and found a few stills from the sex-scene we missed when watching the film - a scene whereby Jolie and Hawke have some sex while the room is decorated in the pictures of the victims of the murders and, to some extent, we assume they both got off a little bit to it. Messed. Up. I felt it was only neccessary (ahem) to hunt down the scene and managed to watch the full sequence on youtube (I'm not going to post the link - find it yourself ...) and, dont get me wrong, I am all for cutting unneccessary sex-scenes from films but this sequence was clearly quite important. Not only have we been watching the relationship brew between Hawke and Jolie for the whole film without seeing any finale to this, we also don't see how screwed up both of them are - passionately gazing at the photographs from the case on the roof of a four-poster bed, establishing the corrupted characters we see at the end. Nevertheless, it does answer the question as to why Hawke 'chose' to be in such a film. ("Yo Ethan, I got a really bad script"/"i'm not doing it"/"it has a sex scene and Jolie is attached" /"oh, ahem, you can never guess what films are successful can you. I had better have a gander at that script then"). Lastly, I reckon even if the film was 'uncut', it would only get 2/10 rather than 1/10 because it ends as Hawke stabs Jolie in her pregnant belly (fake or not, no-one wants to see that!), only for her to reveal that it was all a plan to capture him (see chosen quote... hmmm). To be honest, when he was fighting with her - nearly strangling her, it looked like things weren't going to plan. Would have been a better idea to let the FBI know of her plan.

Held for Ransom on the other hand had a semi-rape scene cut from our arabic-subtitled version. The worst editing in the world too. The girl goes into the lake-area whereby a different hick tells her to take off her clothes and, seconds later he is hit round the head (she has suddenly changed from wearing clothes wearing very little, covering herself) and then, cut again, and suddenly Hoppers girlfriend is holding a gun at them as the two lay on the floor (how did they get on the floor??) potentially making out. What was clearly a long, possibly 10 minute sequence, reduced to seconds of head-hitting and gun-aiming. Looking at the trailer for the film on YouTube, there seemed to be a chase where the girl ran through the lake-area in her underwear - clearly, we missed the best bit. The whole sequence made no sense - but then again, alot of the film seemed pointless.

Another classic bit was when Dexter is shot and Jesse is trying to help him - she takes off his top to find, shock, he has serious burn-scars across his body. We cut to another sequence and then when we cut back to Jesse and Dexter, he starts the scene by saying "stop staring" (for the whole of the sequence prior was she just staring at him? thats weird) to which she doesn't even respond to him, simply kissing him instead. Why does burn-victim = potential-relationship. I mean, I wouldn't hold burn-scars against anyone, but its possible the burns were caused by some thick-as-shit situation which would make me consider whether he/she is the type of person for a relationship.

To finish, never watch these movie unless you are drunk, whereby Held for Ransom is simply so bad, its good. Taking Lives is shit, and if you are buying it for the Jolie/Hawke sex scene - without it, the film is worth buying just to personally destroy - then, (a) you can find it on its own on the internet and (b) why buy a bad two hour film with one sex scene (possibly two? three? I mean they were all cut out in this version) when there is such a thing called pornoraphy, that - if thats your thing - you could simply watch a 2-hour long sex scene.

American Psycho (Mary Harron, 2000)

I watched this film many years ago and remembered it well enough to rate it highly on facebook - but after the recent watch I have had I must stabilise that rating as it really is a fascinating film - primarily as good as it is due to Christian Bale. His performance is remarkable, making you sit awkwardly for the entire 93 minutes of the film. I am always expecting him to suddenly explode - the commercial and materialistic environment eating away at him the entire time. On this second watch I also became a lot more aware of how beautiful Andrzej Sekula's cinematography is. At the same time this film was released American Beauty (D.O.P Conrad L. Hall) showed an equally stale and, in offices, even clinical environment. Even Bateman's (Bale) flat was clean and white - akin to a patients room in a mental unit and this makes the film that much sinister.

Its worth noting that Bateman is aware of his insanity - if anything, he is amazed that no-one seems to care. The first act shows Bateman calling after a waitress stating how he would like to twiddle his fingers in her blood - but no-one seems to notice or care. It is set in the 80's, so i would assume this superficial and materialistic context is what creates these drone-like human characters that surround Bateman. Only "Kristy" - a prostitute used and abused - seems to have an interesting personality emerging in the two sequences she is in. The set-up is 'Patrick Bateman is clearly a psychopath and kills tramps and probably others' ... only when he kills Paul Allen (Leto) and this is followed up by a detective (Dafoe) do we begin to understand where the story will probably go and - even though the case is what keeps us watching - as he brandishes a chainsaw to kill a victim, we realise that it is his mounting insanity and homicidal tendencies that is the problem. This, in turn, leads to a huge shoot-out finale and a confession that concludes the last act. How this plays a part to the end is what makes the film somewhat unique.

[Spoiler now...]
He finds out that nobody really knows who anybody else is, he finds that the apartment whereby he killed most his victims has been repainted and sold on - with only a strange woman who neither shows knowledge of ignorance of what happened in the flat. Did she know? Has it been covered up? Has Allen's family assumed he was the killer and simply hidden everything? All these possibilities are unimportant - the fact is, all the politics and economic factors override the truth: that Bateman is a free man and, because of the lack of personality and unnamed people, he can do, pretty much, what he wants in such a corrupt society. Most people Bateman knows also feels that he is a "dork" - even though we see a much more eccentric character - clearly he does not project such a clever or intelligent image as no-one really knows him at all. I have heard that the misunderstanding of names is a huge factor in Bret Easton Ellis' novel and so this factor in the finale is an important one.

I cannot praise this film enough and I think the next thing I need to do is buy the soundtrack: Huey Lewis and the News, Phil Collins ... all good stuff! I'm sure it was £3 in Fopp last time I checked. One thing which I shall never buy, watch or touch is the DVD of American Psycho 2 starring regular sequel-child Robin Dunne. Plonker. Cruel Intentions 2, The Skulls 2, Species 3 ... my god.