ANOTHER YEAR NEARLY OVER...

How quickly the time flies! I'm fast approaching another trip away and so once again, I've decided to list the relatively restrained total of 42 films I've seen this year and dish out 'star' ratings (out of 5) to give you a hint of what I've enjoyed and what was a total waste of money in 2005.

I have to say, it has been a strange cinematic year with lots worth seeing but few outstanding flicks. Despite a number being unmissable at least once, there are precious little that I would definitely want to see again, but here goes:

Ratings:
5 stars: Unmissable!
4 stars: Definitely worth seeing
3 stars: Decent film
2 stars: Disappointing
1 star: Pants
No stars: Why was this released?

In date order - five star films highlighted in bold

The Aviator (***)
Million Dollar Baby (****)
Vera Drake (***)
Closer (***)
Ray (***)
2046 (**)
Ae Fond Kiss (****)
A Very Long Engagement (*****)
Somersault (**)
Kinsey (***)
Hotel Rwanda (*****)
Constantine (***)
The Downfall (*****)
The Assassination of Richard Nixon (***)
Sahara (***)
Bullet Boy (***)
The Sea Inside (****)
Mean Creek (****)
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (****)
Kingdom of Heaven (****)
The Jacket (****)
Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith (*)
Millions (***)
Mysterious Skin (***)
Mr & Mrs Smith (***)
Sin City (*****)
Batman Begins (****)
Maria Full of Grace (****)
Kung Fu Hustle (*****)
War of the Worlds (***)
Silver City (***)
Fantasic Four(*)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (****)
The Island (**)
Crash (****)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (***)
A History of Violence (****)
Serenity (****)
Domino (**)
Lord of War (****)
Primer (*****)
Broken Flowers (****)

A LONG TIME AGO, FAR FAR AWAY...

It's been nearly twelve months since my last post and I'm back primarily to answer the question I've been asked a number of times in 2004 - are you still seeing one film every week?

The answer is yes but I have been too busy with other things to continue the reviews. In a way I'm glad I haven't had to analyse the films I've seen this year and write about them every week, but a friend said that in 2003 she used the site to decide what to see and many people have asked me, "have you seen anything good recently?"

So here is the list of the sixty (yep, 60!) films I've seen in 2004, with a crude 'star' rating (out of 5) to give you a hint of what I've enjoyed and what was a total waste of money:

Ratings:
5 stars: Unmissable!
4 stars: Definitely worth seeing
3 stars: Decent film
2 stars: Disappointing
1 star: Pants
No stars: Why was this released?

In date order - five star films highlighted in bold

Mystic River (****)
Lost in Translation (*****)
American Splendour (****)
Last Samurai (***)
Girl with a Pearl Earring (****)
Big Fish (***)
Elephant (**)
The Dreamers (***)
Infernal Affairs (****)
Valentin (**)
Zatoichi (*****)
Northfork (*)
Starsky and Hutch (***)
The Station Agent (*****)
Fog of War (****)
Shaun of the Dead (*****)
Open Range (****)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (*****)
Bus 174 (****)
Carandiru (***)
Kill Bill Volume 2 (*)
The Barbarian Invasions (**)
Van Helsing (*)
Twilight Samurai (***)
Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring (*)
Bad Education (**)
The Day After Tomorrow (****)
Japanese Story (****)
Shrek 2 (***)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (****)
I'm Not Scared (****)
Spiderman 2 (*)
Nathalie (**)
King Arthur (*)
I, Robot (***)
Infernal Affairs 2 (***)
Bourne Supremacy (*****)
The Village (***)
Motorcycle Diaries (*****)
The Terminal (***)
Hellboy (**)
Supersize Me (***)
Carmen (**)
Open Water (****)
Collateral (****)
Dead Man's Shoes (****)
Hero (*****)
Bubba Ho-tep (***)
Before Sunset (****)
The Manchurian Candidate (****)
Mr Smith Goes To Washington (*****)
House of Flying Daggers (*****)
Bad Santa (****)
Finding Neverland (****)
Coffee and Cigarettes (**)
Shaolin Soccer (no stars!)
Old Boy (****)
The Story of the Weeping Camel (***)
The Incredibles (****)
I Heart Huckabees (***)

So here, as promised, is my Top Ten - and Bottom Ten - for 2003:

TOP TEN

1. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
2. Donnie Darko
3. Spirited Away
4. Cypher
5. 21 Grams
6. City of God
7. Finding Nemo
8. Intacto
9. The Hours
10. Intolerable Cruelty

BOTTOM TEN

53. Rules of Attraction
52. About Schmidt
51. Tomb Raider 2
50. The Hulk
59. The Italian Job
48. Kill Bill Volume 1
47. Gangs of New York
46. Swimming Pool
45. Nicholas Nickleby
44. Respiro

I am sure that is bound to be contentious but there it is. As for this site, it will continue in the New Year with less regular reviews. Thanks to everyone for reading.

Kevin xx

LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING
Wednesday 17 December 2003
Stratford Picture House, London E15 VISIT

It is a reflection of what director Peter Jackson has managed to achieve since the release of Fellowship of the Ring back in 2001 that many people will leave 'Return of the King' and feel a moment of sadness, as I did, at the realisation that the trilogy is over. That's it. Unless Jackson somehow manages to secure the rights to 'The Hobbit', the story ends here.

We always knew this, of course - with JRR Tolkein's books recently voted the most popular in the UK, many will have reread them or perhaps discovered them for the first time. But knowing how the story ends has never been the most important part of the 'Lord of the Rings' experience. What has made the three films so special has not simply been the special effects or the locations or the acting, although all have been superb. It has always been the story and way it is told that has mattered most. Peter Jackson's greatest achievement is as a wonderful storyteller and the way he has interpreted Tolkein's often complex and frustrating creation has surpassed everyone's expectations.

In the process, he has produced three films that should stop people of my age continually rumbling on about the Star Wars trilogy and how special it was to them. OK, whatever, that was then, time to move on and accept that the 'Lord of the Rings' is better, in another class altogether. It makes me wonder what on earth George Lucas is going to do with the final part of his lacklustre Star Wars 'prequels', now that the standard has been raised so much higher?

Anyway, returning to the review, 'Return of the King' is every bit as brilliant as I expected it to be and, in my opinion, the best of the three films. Perhaps this is in part because there are no new characters to introduce - everyone is assembled for the final battle and over the previous films their personalities have been fleshed out and become familiar. This is particularly true of Viggo Mortensen's restrained portrayal of Aragon, the reluctant King, and of the competitive friendship between Legolas and Gimli, which has developed a comic timing that provides some relief from the blood and the battles.

But what is so genuinely impressive are the battles themselves and the way the special effects have been used so well. One of the truly stand out moments for me - when I leaned back and thought, "how did they do THAT?" - is when the horsemen of Rohan charge into the massed ranks of thousands of Orcs. It just looks fantastic and I can't wait to see it again. The other is the lighting of warning beacons calling for help for the Kingdom of Gondor, with bonfires lit on the top of the most stunning mountain scenery. It really is quite beautiful. In terms of special effects, without doubt the other triumph of this film is the recreation of Gollum, who has a far larger part to play as Frodo and Sam draw nearer to Mount Doom. Crucially, Jackson has managed to make the character feel like a genuine part of the cast, rather than a digitised extra, and one with can sympathise with (at least some of the time). I imagine there will be schoolchildren doing Gollum impressions and saying "my precious" all over the country for years to come, which is more than can be said for, I don't know, say The Phantom Menace's Jar Jar Binks!

So is it my film of the year? After so many, I thought it would be harder to choose but there really is no contest. 'Return of the King' deserves to be called an epic in a way that few films can claim, no matter how much they try. In my view, the trilogy as a whole is the first cinematic experience to come close to grand scale and emotion of one of my favourite of all films, Lawrence of Arabia. So on this one I'm with Christopher Lee, who has threatened to resign from the Academy if 'Return of the King' does as poorly at the Oscars as The Two Towers did last year. Film of the year without question.

So there it is. I did it. Eleven months and ten days since Donnie Darko and £255.30 later, I've seen 52 films in under 52 weeks. Twenty one of these were at Stratford Picture House and 10 at UGC West India Quay, so it's a shame there's no prizes for customer loyalty. I've enjoyed seeing films I probably wouldn't have made the effort to see on the big screen and most of all, the discipline of trying to write about them. Overall, it's been a good year for animated films, not such a good year for comic book heroes and I've been surprised by the number of foreign language films that would make it into my top ten.

Actually, that's not a bad idea - a top ten and a bottom ten. But not until I've seen Number 53 of the year, 'Return of the King', this Wednesday.

So, to those who said that as New Year's resolutions go, mine was totally unrealistic and that I'd fail by February, I say this: You forgot how stubborn I am. So who da man now?

And am I going to do this all over again next year?

Kevin xx

TOUCHING THE VOID
Sunday 14 December 2003
UGC West India Quay, London E14 VISIT

Recreating a true story in a docudrama style can be difficult to do without coming across like one of those terrible television reconstructions, presented by Michael Buerk and warning of the hazards of farming machinery or hedge trimmers. 'Touching the Void', however, in its portrayal of a disastrous and almost fatal climbing accident in Peru in 1985 really is quite brilliant.

Based on the book by mountaineer Joe Simpson, it recounts how he and climbing partner Simon Yates attempted to ascend the unclimbed face of a mountain in the Andes. Having successfully reached the summit, unexpected conditions of ice and snow lead to Simpson falling and badly braking his leg during the descent. Rather than leave him for help that would never arrive in time, Simon Yates tried to lower his friend to safety but further bad luck left Joe dangling in mid air over a cliff, likely to drag Simon off the mountain. Yates was then forced to take the devastating decision to cut the rope holding them together, letting Simpson fall into a crevasse. And yet against all probability, both men survive. Moreover, Simpson has staunchly and continually defended Yates's actions against the highly critical reaction of the climbing community in Britain.

Both men recall their ordeal in interviews that intersperse the drama and what makes this film so moving is the contrast between dramatic events on screen and the matter-of-fact, almost phlegmatic way they describe their incredible survival. Simpson's experience in particular is a staggering achievement, one that few would have endured, simply because there were so many times when the situation seemed utterly hopeless. What makes 'Touching the Void' so great is the way it brilliantly captures just how desperate Simpson's position really was. Particularly harrowing is his account of the terror and despair he felt, lying in agony, alone and in darkness on a ledge inside the crevasse. It makes his stubborn refusal to give up hope, including his decision to lower himself further into the depths of the ice to find a way back to the surface of the glacier, all the more remarkable and inspiring. Only once does Simpson's voice falter, when he describes the overwhelming fear of dying alone that gripped him after crawling down the mountain to the base camp and believing that Yates had already gone, thinking him dead. Throughout, it is impossible not to place yourself in Simpson's position and imagine what your own emotions and fears would be, or to try and understand the extent of the guilt that Yates describes after thinking he has sent his friend to his death.

As well as the intense emotional and physical experiences of the climbers themselves, the film wonderfully captures both the raw beauty and underlying menace of the mountains and how small and insignificant Simpson and Yates were by comparison. At every level, 'Touching the Void' is just completely compelling (if emotionally draining) drama. It thoroughly deserves a wider audience and, given that it is partly funded by Channel 4, may be on the television in the near future. Personally, I think the majesty of the Andes requires a big screen, so thoroughly recommend you go and see it now.

A great way to reach 52 films in 2003!

MASTER & COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD
Saturday 29 November 2003
Stratford Picture House, London E15 VISIT

There will be those who see the somewhat misleading trailers for seafaring epic ‘Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World’ and mistake it for yet another Hollywood action adventure, another Bruckheimer film perhaps, one that jumps from battle to explosive battle with homicidal glee.

If that’s the type of movie you’re looking for, then you’re likely to be disappointed. Although there are dramatic, bloody battles bookending ‘Master and Commander’, the film is equally effective at showing the reality of combat – brief moments of absolute terror between long periods of mind-numbing boredom and routine. Set in 1805, almost entirely within the claustrophobic confines of Royal Navy frigate HMS Surprise, the film tells the story of an arduous journey hunting one of Napoleon's illusive privateers, the Acheron. It is this journey, not the battles themselves, that leads to growing paranoia amongst a deeply superstitious crew and that tests the resolve of Captain "Lucky Jack" Aubrey (Russell Crowe), a man unaccustomed to failure.

Central to the story is the relationship between Jack and his old friend Stephen, the ship's doctor. Stephen, is a man of reason, a pre-Darwinian naturalist keen to visit the Galapagos Islands, someone who doesn’t quite fit in when the officers dine and talk tactics and swap stories. When suspicion falls on one of the lieutenants, a weak and unpopular man who is believed to be a ‘Jonah’ bringing bad luck to the search for the French vessel, the doctor is exasperated when even the captain starts to believe it. However, he is more worried at Aubrey’s obsession with finding the Acheron and the lengths he is willing to go to destroy it.

Director Peter Weir lets this unfold at a thoughtful pace, fleshing out the central characters and allowing the story to build to a rousing conclusion, one that unites the captain's hidebound belief in duty with the doctor's passion for science. Russell Crowe is impressive as Captain Aubrey but Paul Bettany gives the strongest performance as the doctor, whilst there is also an excellent supporting cast, particularly the young actor who plays Lord Blakeney, a 12-year-old aristocrat who has recently joined the crew as a midshipman.

Overall this is an engrossing film with just a few flaws. Sometimes the pace is just a little too slow and Weir’s efforts to present the doctor as an outsider are a little heavy handed. Crowe’s accent does occasionally wobble a little and it was somewhat disconcerting to see the wide-eyed Hobbit stare of Pippin from Lord of the Rings amongst the crew (the actor, Billy Boyd, may find himself forever typecast thus). But ‘Master and Commander’ is nevertheless definitely worth seeing, if unlikely to feature in my ten favourite films of the year.

INTOLERABLE CRUELTY
Friday 7 November 2003
UGC West India Quay, London E14 VISIT

If ever there was a film genre staggering on its last legs, it has to be the romantic comedy. There have been so many woeful inadequate specimens that I have managed to avoid over the last year, with one in particular I am told, Le Divorce, especially appalling. It’s not just they’re not a patch on the great romantic comedies of the 1940s, like His Girl Friday or Bringing Up Baby. It’s just that films like Le Divorce are usually not particularly funny. Or remotely romantic.

So after consistent brilliance with films like Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou and Millers Crossing, a romantic comedy seems a strange choice for the Coen brothers’ eccentric brand of writing and directing. But the now familiar hallmarks of their earlier films – the snappy dialogue, the moments of unexpected weirdness – are not the only reasons why ‘Intolerable Cruelty’ turns out to be one of the most enjoyable films of the year. There’s also the confirmation that George Clooney has become the undisputed heir to Cary Grant, the star of the golden age of screwball romantic comedies.

Clooney plays Miles Massey, a brilliant, amoral but bored divorce lawyer and the creator of the “Massey pre-nup”, a prenuptial agreement so watertight it has “an entire semester at Harvard” devoted to it. Tired of the apparent inevitability of matrimonial law, Massey relishes the rare opportunity not to settle but to win everything for his adulterous client Rex Rexroth, caught on camera by a private eye hired by wife Marilyn (Catherine Zeta-Jones). The Rexroths’ day in court, one of many highpoints in the film, is absolutely hilarious, especially the outrageously camp ‘Baron’ who reveals Marilyn as a gold digger who sought out a ‘stupid man’ to marry and to fleece. But even though Massey wins, leaving Marilyn with nothing, he is still not satisfied, not least because he has fallen in love with her. So when months later Marilyn appears in his office with a new fiancé, Billy Bob Thornton’s Texan oil millionaire, requesting a Massey pre-nup for her and her prospective husband, Massey is even more confused. What is this new angle that Marilyn is playing?

To say anymore would be to give away too much, but there are twists aplenty, more very funny scenes involving an asthmatic hitman called Wheezy Joe and Gus the private detective, whose catchphrase “I’m gonna nail your ass” runs throughout the film. As well as the excellent supporting cast, Catherine Zeta-Jones is great, both poised and natural, but Clooney is exceptional, displaying not only effortless charm but also a real talent for comic timing. There are also numerous odd ‘Coen’ moments, such as the terrifying boss of Massey’s law firm whose office has copies of ‘Living Without Intestines’ lying around, or the strange Scottish-themed wedding chapel in Las Vegas. These add enormously to the fun and are a reminder that, although ‘Intolerable Cruelty’ may be the Coen brothers’ most obviously commercial film and perhaps does not have the depth or visual set-pieces of, say, O Brother Where Art Thou, it is still streets ahead of other comedies.

I can’t recommend ‘Intolerable Cruelty’ highly enough – it was a great film to mark my half-century of films watched this year. Make a point of seeing it.

MATRIX: REVOLUTIONS
Wednesday 5 November 2003
Stratford Picture House, London E15 VISIT

And so, after directors the Wachowski brothers tantalised us with their broader and more complex vision of their creation, the Matrix, earlier this year, the trilogy is finally at an end. Whether you liked Matrix Reloaded or felt it was an impossible attempt to match the sparkling originality of the original, there was never any doubt that this year’s two films would have to be judged together - and the final episode had an obligation to deliver. What exactly ‘Matrix Revolutions’ was supposed to deliver – a conclusion, perhaps, or at the very least explanation – was less obvious, but leaving the audience as confused as many were back in May 2003 simply wasn’t an option.

On that level, ‘Matrix Revolutions’ succeeds reasonably well. It plays fewer mind games than Matrix Reloaded because it has to draw so many elements together. The earlier film became increasingly intriguing (some say incomprehensible) with its clever ideas about warring rogue software programs and the notion that Keanu Reeve’s character Neo, ‘The One’ destined to rescue humanity, is not the first, but part of a cycle of destruction and renewal. The story this time is far more straightforward. Essentially, Neo must save Zion before the machines destroy it, aided by the intervention of the Oracle, who seeks to alter the fate of his predecessors, and the presence of Agent Smith, the flaw in the system, Neo’s dark opposite, the ying to his yang. Only the introduction of the Trainman, a new character that is barely developed, looks back to some of the cod philosophy that dominated Matrix Reloaded.

Much of the rest of the film concerns the defence of Zion and the final battle between humans and machines is entertaining, if occasionally burdened by the same mawkish sentimentality that blighted the earlier film. Neo’s big fight with Agent Smith is less impressive, however, and with much of the action largely outside of the Matrix itself, there is a greater reliance of computer generated effects than on intricate fight scenes or gravity defying stunts. In this respect at least, the ‘machines’ clearly win out. As for the ending, it doesn’t quite tie up all the loose threads but at least (and I’m not giving too much away here), it doesn’t have what we might call a Star Wars ending, with our heroes brought together to take a bow before a grateful throng. That would have been too obvious for a trilogy that has embraced so much doom-laden quasi-religious imagery. However, what the final scenes do allow is the annoying possibility of yet another instalment, which after two films in one year seems like overkill, the mark of a cynical eye for future prospects of making even more money.

So overall, I enjoyed ‘Matrix Revolutions’ but still wonder whether there was really a need to add to the first film, which is still by far the best of the three. Let us hope that the no one is tempted to keep going – the lame Star Wars prequels and the less than impressive Animatrix cartoons show the dangers inherent in that particular course.

21 GRAMS
Saturday 1 November 2003
Odeon West End, London W1 VISIT

Showing as part of the 47th Times bfi London Film Festival, ’21 Grams’ tells a terrific and utterly engrossing story that in essence is very simple: the connection between three people whose lives are changed by one terrible accident. Born-again Christian and former convict Jack (Benicio Del Toro) kills the husband and children of Christina (Naomi Watts) in a car accident, providing the opportunity for a heart transplant to a critically ill mathematics professor Paul (Sean Penn). Delivered from death, Paul is compelled to find out who has provided him with a second chance of life but, devastated by the circumstances that have done so, feels he must help the distraught Christina, who seeks vengeance for the death of her family. And why ‘21 Grams’? Because apparently, there is a (scientifically discredited) theory that the body loses twenty-one grams in weight when we die.

But be warned. The tagline on the publicity posters – ’21 Grams: How much does revenge weigh?’ – is utterly misleading, suggesting this is in essence a revenge film, when a far more complex and interesting narrative is unveiled. It is more a meditation on life, death and especially on guilt: Paul’s guilt on the circumstances that have given him new life, Jack’s for the crime he has committed and Christina’s guilt that she lives when her family does not – and that she can no longer even enter her daughters’ bedroom. There is also that felt by Paul’s formerly estranged girlfriend Mary, who has returned to nurse him while he waits for a heart transplant but who seeks redemption for the abortion she had when they separated. Her desperation for a child is later matched by Paul’s desire to exact the vengeance that Christina craves before his body rejects completely his new heart.

The story unfolds beautifully in a non-linear way, much as the director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s previous film Amores Perros did, and early on, there are four scenes back to back, each involving Sean Penn’s character at different periods in the story. At first it seems confusing, but the way the plot is gradually revealed is very satisfying, giving hints to the way the story will be resolved (just as the film Memento accomplished so well). And it is a film full of ideas, on regret, love, lust, religion and redemption, beautifully intertwined in three excellent central performances. Naomi Watts is particularly good as the grieving Christina, although all the actors contribute wonderfully to an intense, emotionally draining experience.

After two hours I did not want this film to end, it was that good, and the same feeling seemed true of the rest of the packed cinema. There are just so many small moments that stand out and are completely gripping. One that sticks in my mind shows a teenager, the last person to see Christina’s family alive, clearing fallen leaves from a yard whilst the audience watches and waits for the car accident that we know is about to occur off camera. As Jack’s car suddenly races past, there seems to be an endless wait before the inevitable screech of tyres. It’s devastatingly effective. If only more directors respected our intelligence enough to allow us to imagine the drama of what we never actually see.

If there is any justice at all, this film will surely be featuring highly on next year’s Oscar nominations list, with Watts in particular a strong candidate for Best Actress. Definitely see this film when it comes out on general release next year.

BASQUE BALL: THE SKIN AGAINST STONE
Monday 27 October 2003
National Film Theatre, London SE1 VISIT

Showing as part of the 47th Times bfi London Film Festival, ‘Basque Ball: The Skin Against Stone’ is a fascinating documentary about the history of the Basque country, a region straddling the border between Spain and France and possessing what is believed to be the oldest language in Europe, Eskuara. Since the death of General Franco in 1975 and the reestablishment of the Republic, however, the region has been more closely associated with Basque nationalist demands for independence and the military campaign that has been conducted by ETA to try and achieve this.

Through a series of interviews with a cross section of the Basque people, including politicians, singers, academics and former ETA members who have renounced violence, director Julio Medem examines the psychology and direction of Basque nationalism and the prospects for peace in the future. Linking these are a series of shots of the beautiful landscape of the region, old archive material on Basque traditions, news footage, a match of the local handball game ‘pilota’ and even clips from "Around the world with Orson Welles,” a British TV mini-series from the mid 1950s. It is a visually absorbing journey and one that successfully opens up and explains why resolving the conflict has proved so intractable.

In Spain, ‘Basque Ball’ has become so controversial that the conservative government has even suggested it should be banned. The documentary makes clear what has upset President José Maria Aznar so much. Outside of the Basque region, Spain’s relationship with the nationalist conflict is much like Britain’s with the north of Ireland in the early 1980s – anyone who advocates ‘dialogue’ is denounced as a supporter of terrorism. In such an atmosphere, for Medem, a Basque director, to suggest that the Popular Party’s entire electoral strategy is dependent on obstructing peace and sustaining ETA’s bombing campaign is incendiary stuff. Sadly, simplistic arguments that “you are either for us or against us” have equal currency outside of Spain and are echoed in America’s ‘war on terror’, which Aznar has so enthusiastically supported.

Two important voices – the two extremes of the ETA militants and the rightwing government – are missing from the documentary, but Medem has still managed to pull together a thoroughly balanced and objective overview of the ‘Basque problem’. Amongst the many giving their testimony, perhaps the most impressive is a young activist, a member of the Socialist party, who lost a leg in an ETA car bomb attack. With perhaps the most reason for bitterness, he continues to argue passionately for talks as the only way forward – and to condemn the repression by police paramilitaries against the Basques under the previous Socialist government. In the current climate, however, with the nationalist party Batasuna banned, Basque-language newspapers closed down by the courts and an ETA cease fire brokered in 1999 at an end, the prospects for dialogue and a negotiated peace process are more remote than ever. In a sense, this makes Medem’s passionate film the more timely.

KILL BILL VOL 1
Tuesday 21 October 2003
UCI Whiteleys, London W2 VISIT

Whilst the reviews for Quentin Tarantino’s long-awaited fourth film have been almost universally positive (except for the inevitable Daily Mail tirades against what is undoubtedly a very violent movie), one has to wonder whether a director other than the revered Tarantino would have got off so lightly for such a sloppy effort.

Divided into chapters, ‘Kill Bill’ begins promisingly enough, with a vengeful former assassin known as The Bride (Uma Thurman) in a furious knife fight with Copperhead, once a fellow member of the Deadly Vipers Assassination Squad that betrayed her and left for dead at the Bride’s El Paso wedding. There is a great moment when their crunching duel in a now decimated suburban home is interrupted by the arrival of a yellow school bus and the return of Copperhead’s young daughter. Not even the disturbing idea of a child watching her mother’s execution can stop the Bride’s mission, however. We then discover that the Bride has recently awoken from a four-year coma to find a metal plate in her head, her unborn baby gone, her body defiled by revolting hospital staff and the threat of death hanging over her. She has no choice but to exact her revenge or face death herself.

The problem is this: Tarantino, who famously decided to split the film into two because he couldn’t decide what to cut, should never have been so readily indulged by his producers at Miramax. It’s bad enough that the limited dialogue, meant as a homage to action films of the Seventies, is laboured and often cringe-making. But once the first chapter is over, the pace of the film just grinds to a halt. What follows is a slow chapter involving the creation of a unique samurai sword in Okinawa, that in turn is meant to be ‘comic’ (it isn’t) and a homage to Hong Kong action films (that is poorly executed). Next comes an explanation of the background of the Bride’s next target, O-Ren Ishii / Cottonmouth, told as a Japanese anime cartoon that is a deeply unpleasant bloodbath and rather an unsubtle reminder that all the violence in ‘Kill Bill’ is meant to be cartoon violence.

There is no denying, however, that the final showdown between the Bride and hordes of sword-wielding yakuza is brilliantly staged – and spectacularly violent, so much so that it will be way too much for many people. It’s just that, once again, this stylised battle drags on for far too long. And then, with more hints dropped and at the moment that the audience finally starts to get interested in what happens next, the film suddenly ends and we have to wait until next April for the conclusion. Let’s be honest – if anyone other than Tarantino had tried this, they would have been rightly panned.

If you see volume one, you will inevitably want to see whether the complete story is better than the sum of its parts. Personally, I have my doubts and I’m also sceptical that ‘Kill Bill’ will attract the cult status of either Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. The latter in particular is a sharper, more watchable film. 'Kill Bill' undoubtedly has flashes of inspiration but is largely a mess - one that buckets of blood simply cannot hide.

FINDING NEMO
Tuesday 14 October 2003
Stratford Picture House, London E15 VISIT

There is a reason why grownups enjoy and will go and see the two Toy Story films and Shrek but not Treasure Planet or Lion King, although all are Disney movies. The x-factor is filmmakers Pixar, whose continuing ability to produce visually stunning animation coupled with excellent story-telling and characterisation is once again demonstrated in ‘Finding Nemo’, their latest film.

The simple story revolves around clown fish Marlin, who in a surprisingly downbeat opening to the film loses all his family save one son, Nemo, who is born with a weak fin. Marlin is both fiercely protective and also extremely fearful of the ocean beyond the coral reef. When Nemo rebels against his father’s cautious nature and is scooped up by an Australian scuba diver, Marlin must overcome his fears and, with the help of a forgetful fish called Dory, travel to Sydney and rescue his son from a dentist’s reception fish tank. On the way, they encounters Aussie sharks, surfer dude turtles and the terrors of a deep water angler fish and clouds of deadly jellyfish, whilst Nemo’s fellow captives plot their escape.

As is the case with other Pixar films, the attention to detail in the animation is remarkable, but the greater possibilities that are offered by the patterns of light and water currents of an undersea world have been exploited to the full. Equally impressive are the cast providing the voices, especially Albert Brooks as Marlin and Ellen DeGeneres as Dory. And while ‘Finding Nemo’ may not have as many nods to the adults in the audience as, say, Shrek, with some moments that teeter on the point of sentimentality, scenes like the destruction of the dentist’s office or Dory’s attempts to communicate with whales are as funny as anything that Pixar has yet come up with.

This film will be packed next week during the half-term break so wait until the popcorn has been swept away and the little terrors have left before checking it out for yourself. You’ll never look at a plate of fish and chips in the same way again.

THE ITALIAN JOB
Saturday 11 October 2003
UGC Crawley, East Sussex VISIT

So on Saturday, I’m down in Sussex to visit my brother Mark, his girlfriend Bianca and my delightful nephew Leon, now nearly 20 months old. The little’un was visiting his grandparents, so his parents had an evening off, an opportunity for Mark to see his first film at the cinema since January. Oh, and for me to see my forty-fourth.

On an occasion such as this, what a hard-pressed parent probably needs is a more memorable film than a critically scorned remake of ‘The Italian Job’, but it looked like fun. And in truth, it’s not really a remake at all. With the exception of the red, white and blue Minis, a traffic gridlock and a character who happens to be called Charlie Croker (Mark Wahlberg), the plot of the 1960s classic has been abandoned and relocated to Los Angeles rather than Milan. After a perfect job in Venice, the gang of thieves is double-crossed by one of their number, Frank (Edward Norton), who shoots and kills Charlie’s ageing mentor (Donald Sutherland). The remainder of the film concerns their efforts to steal back the gold taken by Frank with the help of Charlize Theron’s expert safe cracker.

Whilst the action is diverting enough, it’s not all that special and considering that the original was made over 30 years ago, many of its stunts were superior and carried out with greater wit. It’s a wonder the director didn’t choose to steal them to make a better film (the car chase on the roof of the Fiat factory, for instance). But the bigger, more fundamental problem is the standard of the acting. Mark Wahlberg, who has proven again and again that he cannot carry a leading role (Planet of the Apes, anyone?), has none of the charisma of Michael Caine or, say, Brad Pitt and George Clooney in Ocean’s Eleven, a properly executed heist film. Charlize Theron has little to do but look gorgeous, which she does well – but her acting is pretty one-dimensional. Surprisingly it is the supporting cast, Mos Def, Jason Statham and particularly Seth Green, who have the most fun and the best lines.

Unlike Pierce Brosnan’s updated Thomas Crown Affair, this is one of those occasions where the original version of a film turns out to be vastly superior to its modern equivalent. This new ‘Italian Job’ is just an average and largely inoffensive thriller with a tidy ending that is embarrassingly lame when compared to the original’s literal cliffhanger.

Still, it was good to see my brother and his family. Hopefully he’ll get a babysitter when Return of the King comes out on December 19. The trailer looked fabulous.

GOODBYE LENIN!
Saturday 4 October 2003
Stratford Picture House, London E15 VISIT

For some reason, I was expecting from the trailer that ‘Goodbye Lenin!’ would be knockabout, laugh out loud physical comedy but instead it was often dark and thoughtful satire on German reunification and the manipulation of reality.

The film tells the story of Alexander Kerner, an East German whose staunchly socialist mother Christiane suffers a heart attack and falls into a coma after witnessing the arrest of her son in pro-democracy protests in 1989. After eight months, Christiane suddenly awakens but her doctors insist that if she has any chance of survival, she must avoid any excitement. However, since the Berlin Wall has subsequently collapsed and the GDR no longer exists, Alex fears the sudden changes in the world his mother once knew may lead to another, fatal heart attack. He is convinced that if she stays in hospital, someone will inadvertently reveal the truth. So he takes her home and pretends that nothing has changed, recreating the GDR in their flat with the help of his neighbours and setting in train an ever more complex lie that becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.

For all of Alex’s efforts to insulate his mother from the outside world, its gradual encroachment makes for moments of fine comedy. Most notable is the moment when a Coca Cola banner is unfurled on the outside of a neighbouring tower block and one of Alex’s co-conspirators, an elderly neighbour, says, “what were the comrades thinking!” But the film is interesting too because it suggests that the rapid disappearance of the GDR left many of its citizens not only poorer but also lacking a clear identity, as though they had been taken over rather than welcomed into the new Germany. Alex’s attempts to explain the sudden influx of Western cars and billboards, pretending they belong to ‘refugees from the West’, eventually leads to a staged reunification of Germany, intended to bring the faked reality he has created to a close. But with the help of hilarious fake TV news programmes made by his filmmaker friend Denis and assistance from his childhood hero, cosmonaut Sigmund John, who has been reduced to driving a taxi, the GDR ends not perhaps the hero but certainly not the villain. ‘Goodbye Lenin!’ suggests that for many, particularly the older generation, a gradual transformation of the GDR would have been the way they felt change should have happened.

There are many great moments in this film, some very funny and some really very moving. But there is also one thing I noticed that seemed odd: Denis the filmmaker is shown at one point wearing what looks like a Matrix T-shirt – in 1990? Was this just a cock up or a sly comment by the director on the idea of creating a fake reality? Never mind. ‘Goodbye Lenin!’ is another fascinating film that has subtitles and is still very enjoyable. Make a point of seeing it.

ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO
Sunday 28 September 2003
Stratford Picture House, London E15 VISIT

Welcome to the third and final instalment of Robert Rodriguez’s El Mariachi trilogy, a film so stuffed with ideas, characters and plot lines that it explodes into an utterly confusing, thoroughly enjoyable but ultimately chaotic mess.

This is going to be hard to summarise but I’ll try. Antonio Banderas’ wandering guitar player and gunman, El Mariachi, is offered the chance to come out of retirement by maverick CIA agent Sands (Johnny Depp), in order to kill his nemesis Marquez, who killed his wife (Salma Hayek, in a surprisingly minor role told completely in flashback). But not before Marquez has staged a coup against the President of Mexico on behalf of Barillo, a drug lord (Willem Defoe with an amusing moustache). Barillo, meanwhile, is planning a little plastic surgery in order to disappear for good. There is also a corrupt member of an elite police unit, a retired FBI agent out to avenge the death of his partner, Micky Rourke as slightly effete gangster on the run and everyone gleefully betraying everyone else. And more bullets flying than the Normandy landings.

With so much going on, it often seems that Antonio Banderas, the star of the previous film, has no more screen time than many other characters. Johnny Depp in particular repeats his brilliant performance in Pirates of the Caribbean by utterly upstaging everyone as the supposedly ‘undercover’ CIA operative wandering the streets wearing a CIA T-shirt and hiding a gun in a prosthetic arm. His character has the best and funniest lines and his final battle, amidst the revolution he has created and looking like one of the Day of the Dead masks that are a signature of the film, is just great. It’s a shame that by crowding so much in, some of the emphasis on the action is lost. It is also a shame that El Mariachi, essentially an outlaw anti-hero, suddenly becomes a ‘son of Mexico’ in a moment of charmlessly jingoistic nationalism that says a great deal about the influence of Hollywood on Rodriguez.

As I said, great fun but Desperado, the big budget remake of the original El Mariachi, is a better film. If only Rodriguez had stuck with its simplicity and coupled it with Depp’s forceful performance, ‘Once Upon A Time in Mexico’ would have been a more worthy tribute to those old Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns.

RAISING VICTOR VARGAS
Saturday 27 September 2003
The OTHER Cinema, London W1 VISIT

After the ‘Stop the War’ march, which was inspiring, a friend and I went over to the OTHER Cinema, formerly the Metro, for what turned out to be an inspiring and often very funny film about the lives of Latino teenagers in Manhattan’s Lower East Side. Not a bad day really.

‘Raising Victor Vargas’ tells the story of Victor, who lives in a tiny apartment that he shares with his brother Nino, sister Vicky and his grandmother, an immigrant from Dominica who sees Victor as a bad influence on his siblings. It’s an environment where there is no privacy, where everyone knows everyone else’s business, which is tough on Victor, who insists he is a “very private person.” At the swimming pool, he sets his sights on Judy, the prettiest girl in the neighbourhood, whom even best friend Harold says he has no chance with. But Victor is persistent, although his efforts at first are as vulgar and graceless as the boys pestering Judy every day. She thinks she can use Victor to keep the other boys at bay, but he is determined to win her heart and puts all of his energy into wooing her.

Director Peter Sollett has created a vivid portrait of New York’s poorer streets, sweltering in the summer heat, and this film is full of strong performances from a cast that apparently had little if any experience prior to shooting. At times, the indication that many of the cast were extremely familiar with their surroundings gives the film an almost documentary feel. The stand out acting for me was undoubtedly Victor’s grandmother, who was just wonderful and funny whenever she was on screen, but it is hard to fault any of the actors. Throughout, ‘Raising Victor Vargas’ offers an insightful and unsentimental examination of young love and family relationships. This is by far as it is possible to get from a Hollywood teen movie. And it even has a great soundtrack!

‘Raising Victor Vargas’ is one of those limited-release films that deserves to be given a wider airing. See it whilst you can.

UNDERWORLD
Monday 22 September 2003
Odeon Camden, London NW1 VISIT

Leaving a week before writing this review (OK, not exactly planned, but bear with me) has provided the kind of perspective necessary to ignore the fact that Kate Beckinsale looks fabulous in a skin tight rubber catsuit.

Thinking back, it’s hard to explain exactly what Underworld is intended to achieve, other than the starting point for yet another franchise. The central premise is that there has been a secret war between Vampires and ‘Lycans’ (Werewolves) for centuries and the former are winning. The Lycans are searching for someone whose ancestor had mixed blood, with all the strengths of both species – basically a spin on the plot of Blade and, um, Blade 2. Which brings us to Michael, a human whom Beckinsale’s character Selene ends up falling for but who is bitten and transformed into a wolf. There are innumerable battles in and below the streets of what looks like Prague and Kate gets to show off some moves lifted from The Matrix and, um, Blade 2. And she also has to contend with a vampire father figure who turns out not to be quite as honourable as she first thought. Not unlike, um, Blade 2.

None of which amounts to very much at all. At times the film looks fabulous but at times it has all the quality staging of a 1980s Spandau Ballet video, all purple frock coats and frippery. It’s also worth remembering that there is something slightly camp about vampires, which only Wesley Snipes in the Blade films, through the force of sheer physicality, has managed to overcome. Bill Nighy on the other hand, who was the wonderful newspaper editor in the recent TV drama ‘State of Play’, plays an ancient vampire whose lines drew nothing but mirth from the audience I was with. And whilst Kate Beckinsale mostly hid behind her fringe and looked gorgeous without making any terrible mistakes, the acting of whoever was playing the ‘bad’ vampire Kraven was nothing short of dire.

As a distraction on a rainy evening, ‘Underworld’ was not that bad. But without a great deal more toughness and a better story, one that at least acknowledges the conventions of the vampire flick, it is hard to see this leading to a lasting franchise.

Which is another bold prediction that will probably turn out to be wrong…

SPIRITED AWAY
Sunday 14 September 2003
Odeon Camden Town, London NW1 VISIT

How to describe ‘Spirited Away’, the amazing animation that won an Oscar earlier this year? A Japanese Alice in Wonderland mixed with Wizard of Oz? Although the similarities are there, this doesn’t quite sum up the experience. Whilst this film, loaded as it is with complex imagery, perhaps makes more sense to a Japanese audience, the nervy edge of weirdness that flows through this film is exhilarating. It’s a story composed by a quite extraordinary imagination.

The film tells the story of ten year old Chihiro, who along with her parents gets lost on the way to their new house and ends up in what appears to be an abandoned theme park. They have stumbled, however, into another realm, a land of gods and spirits, so when Chihiro’s mother and father eat enchanted and forbidden food, they are transformed into pigs. Terrified and alone as twilight arrives and the spirits that inhabit the park come out of hiding, Chihiro seeks refuge in the bathhouse where she is befriended by Haku. He tells her that that the witch Yubaba, the mistress of the bathhouse, is obliged by the rules to allow Chihiro to live as long as she is prepared to work. To survive and hope to restore her parents to human form, she must become one of Yubaba’s employees.

What follows is almost impossible to summarise, especially without a more detailed understanding of Japanese mythology. Some things – such as the River God who is so choked with pollution that it is mistaken for a Stink God – is eminently transparent, as is the character of No Face, the spirit that consumes the desires of others but remains desperately lonely and confused. A friend has said that the central theme is simple, about different and competing feelings of love and loyalty, which is also undoubtedly true. However, Chihiro is also hurt by the brusque way her parents dismiss her feelings of loneliness caused by moving away from what she knows. At the beginning of the film, she forlornly clutches a dying bunch of flowers given as a farewell gift by her old friends, and says, "my first bouquet - and it's spoiled." Her encounters with spirits and monsters transform her into a stronger, less despairing and more understanding individual (in a way that is less apparent in Alice or Dorothy in Wizard of Oz).

All of which is less important to a review of the film than the dazzling visual quality of the animation. There are so many moments but when Chihiro runs through the flower garden or the scenes of Yubaba's palace with sunrise through the mist the railway tracks covered in water are just astonishing.

This is a wonderful film. An absolute must-see at any costs.

BELLEVILE RENDEZ-VOUS
Saturday 13 September 2003
UGC West India Quay, London E14 VISIT

Now this is just great. The French animated film ‘Belleville Rendezvous’ is about as far from a Disney cartoon as it is possible to be, with both the characters and the imaginary city of Belleville (itself a caricature of New York, complete with an obese Statue of Liberty) illustrated as grotesques, out of proportion but hugely fun.

It is also the very funny, slightly weird and engrossing tale of Champion, encouraged by his grandmother to become a cyclist, who is kidnapped in the middle of the Tour de France in the 1960s and taken via Marseilles across the Atlantic to Belleville. Granny and Champion’s faithful dog are in hot pursuit (braving the storms in a hired pedalo) and on arrival, they hook up with three sisters, former singing stars of the 1920s, who live on frogs caught be tossing hand grenades into the local swamp. To rescue Champion, they must face the sinister Mafia henchmen of the Godfather, (whose hideout for some reason is in the French House of Wine) by infiltrating their lair. OK, so I said it was a little strange…

But it is also wonderful to watch. Much of the animation is stunning and the final chase through the streets of Belleville is hilarious. This is a very French, very eccentric but extremely enjoyable film that if anything seemed to be over too quickly. And the music is infectious too (I bet after you see this you’ll be humming the tune from the opening scenes for days)

Definitely see this film. It may have almost no dialogue but the many brilliant sight gags make it one of the funniest films I have seen all year.