A portrayal of one man's journey to overcome adversity to find new meaning and purpose in life. This may sound a bit trite and dull as a synopsis, but if I tell you it's based on a real life story you begin to understand what an amazing piece of film this is. One time French Elle magazine editor (Jean-Dominque Bauby) is left paralyzed with an inability to move or talk (basically a vegetative state), remarkably his left eye is still intact and the only body part he can use to communicate.
The path in which the film unravels starts by showing you a man going through and struggling with his disability and as we follow the events we begin to feel a part of his condition. As a viewer you are placed in the position of Bauby, as everything we see is from his view point and all his thoughts are heard only by us. It's frightening and unnerving as the camera blurs in and out of focus just as an eye would as he tries to focus at the start of his "journey".
Waking up from a coma and finding out that you are unable to communicate, you would understand ones frustration and the director allows us to fully emphasise a man utter irritation and annoyance by giving us Bauby's internal monologues. As relentless Doctors and experts come to treat his condition, none of them truly know how he is feeling on the inside. We as the audience become Bauby. It's very unsettling and a sense of claustrophobia creeps in as a sense of helplessness overtakes.
Luckily not everything is seen through the eyes of Bauby. We are given glimpses of his life before his crippling stroke. His life as a magazine editor going to photo shoots mingling with models and rock stars is so far removed from his current position. But the film does not dwell too much on his successful career. It's only a stark reminder of how different his life is now to what it was before. Other flashbacks involve his family and lover. Memories of events that have affected him and allow him to analyse his life and how he feels he has lived it so far.
There are pangs of emotional pain that strike throughout the film. The scene in which his father talks to him over the phone is acted with such raw feeling and tenderness it'll bring a tear to your eye(s). The film is also punctuated with beauty and breathtaking imagery as his mind fills our screen as he battles with emotional lows to euphoric highs.
The narrative isn't as sombre in tone as it sounds. There are light touches of humour as we experience everything Bauby does and we feel the same as he does, so when people start to talk to him like an idiot we can only feel the same as he does. Contempt, disdain and indignity. As he learns to communicate through a modern alphabet of the most commonly used letters (it is a slow and arduous task), we too have to endeavor this as well. We are following his journey though it's heartbreaking, the voyage is of life affirming self discovery and a great example of how one man overcomes mountainous odds. With only his determination and patience, Bauby sets out to dictate his life and experiences into a memoir.
A powerful story based on his biography which allows us to explore a man's spirit as he comes out through his darkest hour and he learns what is genuinely valuable and meaningful. Beautifully shot and captured. A dizzying and dazzling yet never overly flashy in technique and style. A heartwarming, stirring and tear-jerking journey which leaves the viewer feeling exhausted yet elated as well.
After the surprise success of the first Iron Man movie, came the obvious and apparent sequel. As with many sequels, the diminishing returns are unfortunately evident. Carrying on from the previous film where Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) has just announced to the world that he is, in fact, Iron Man. A playboy millionaire with a superhero alter-ego. What is very much a refreshing change from the norm of many superheroes characters, is the fact that he doesn't have to hide who he his. No conflict of personalities or change of persona. Or, that is what Stark is trying to portray to the public. Deep down, what he is hiding is a slow and painful death resulting in his antics as Iron Man. The suit that keeps him alive is slowly poisoning him.
Following the rigid format of a typical comic book film, where there is a superhero there must be a villain (or villains).This comes in the form of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke playing a role not to dissimilar to his previous film The Wrestler except with less words and less grunting). A quick intro of Ivan shows how he feels his father (an ex-employee of Stark industries) has been deprived and bereaved of his accomplishments. He feels Stark's father has claimed these as his own. As well as Ivan, there is the (obvious) rival company run by Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), who wishes to develop his own army of Iron Men for financial gain. When Ivan fails at his attempt on Stark's life, Hammer see this as an opportunity to team up with Ivan to develop his technology to advance his own. With Stark hiding his own battle with health and continual conflict with the government over his reluctant co-operation over the Iron Man technology, everything begins to mount up as a climatic battle ensues when Hammer's super Military Drones (controlled by Ivan) to go up against Stark in a battle of man against machines.
What is considerably lacking in this film is the shortage of tension or any real sense of danger. This big screen comic book action adventure just doesn't fulfil your desired expectations. There's a sense of impression that no one is really in peril. It's just the way the film flows. Robert Downey Jr's performance is very relaxed and comes across as if there is no trouble or menace that cannot be overcome with a witty quip/one liner. The final battle fX between the drones and Iron Man are spectacular and eye boggling at times but the same can't be said for the Monte Carlo racing scene. It doesn't capture sense of speed or excitement, with the race cars looking very obvious like CGI instead of the real thing.
Another problem I encountered was the pace in which the lines were delivered by characters in the film. Particularly the exchanges between Stark (Downey) and Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow). The dialogue between the two of them goes at a hundred miles an hour at times and can be very annoying to decipher. Stark comes across like a man high on drugs. Uttering words like they are going out of fashion. The performance to me seem a little lackadaisical and not as genuine as it could (or should) have been.
Humour is scattered around throughout the film and allows the film to live in it's own universe which is probably what I found a little deviating and creates little or no suspense. If you can live with Downey's performance then you'll tolerate the whole flaw the film has created for itself. I feel they haven't allowed enough development in characterisation. Even with his apparent battle and struggle with his impending death, you never feel like he was ever in any danger of dying. If you can't make the hero look like he has any weaknesses then there is no jeopardy or endangerment. The other problem is the villain isn't villainous enough. No matter how menacing you make Rourke look, he never seems to be an even match for Downey's Iron Man.
With this also being a link to the forthcoming Avengers film (a super group of superheroes!) the film is continually referring to characters and plot points towards a bigger picture. It's not a major problem as long as you know your Avengers back story or group dynamics but for others it may look a bit out of place within the film and some of you may wonder what the hell is going on. Who is Nick Fury? Why are they going on about this Avenger initiative and how does it progress the plot? It doesn't really have any bearing except to allow some tentative link for a couple of films to crossover to allow for the up and coming Avengers movie. It's not a massive negative and fan boys would probably love it but for Joe public it may seem a bit disjointed.
A lackluster and laid back sequel which disappoints as well as annoys in places (the middle segment of the narrative almost put me to sleep). A decent enough fX to please the brain dead but the film's overall emphasis on fun and witty one liners doesn't allow any real danger to exist. A failure to expand and develop with a heavy reliant on fX and humour to pass off as progress is a sad state of affairs. A sequel which like many sequel's pales in comparison to the original, which should come as no surprise then. Vapid, hollow and regurgitates old grounds.
Could there been a better time to review a classic than it's ten year anniversary?
Released only a decade ago Amelie has firmly established itself as a timeless classic. Director Jean-Pierre Jeunet's best film so far (his latter films are a bit of a disappointment but check out his earlier works "Delicatessen" and "The City Of Lost Children"), here he is allowed full rein over his expressionistic ideas and visions, brought to live by a simplistic and charming story of a young girl with an imaginative and inventive mind growing up with little or no friends where all she has for company is her fantastical views on people and her unique look on life.
The story starts with a narrator regaling little facts about bluebottle flies before moving onto the main character and her family. Divulging further titbits in an entertaining and statistical manner over her families likes, dislikes and idiosyncrasy (not just about Amelie but every character the camera comes across, we get a little story on obsessive compulsive behaviours ranging from bubble wrap popping to bone cracking). As we follow Amelie on her fabulous journey (the English literal translation is The Fabulous Life of Amelie Poulain!) one event which affects our heroine is the death of Lady Diana. With the news playing in the background Amelie drops a lid, that rolls towards a tile, which happens to be loose and it's there she finds someones hidden childhood memories. That night she decides to track down it's owner, return it to him and if they are grateful she'll continue to do further good deeds. From there on the film goes off on an extraordinary and incredible adventure where she becomes a match maker, a tour guide, a deceased lover and a woman looking for love amongst others.
It's a film that is so beautifully shot with outstanding colourisation and a marvelous use of warm soft Earthy tones of greens, reds and yellows. Paris has never looked so autumnal. The complementary colours of the greens and reds brings out the vibrancy and warmth which gives the film more heart and feeling. It's a quality the film never veers away from and as a failed artist it's not too hard to spot the beauty and artistry of the cinematography. Along with the beautiful music by Yann Tiersen, they combine to add an elegance and haunting beauty to what is already a feast for the eyes let alone the ears.
The breakout performance from Audrey Tautou as Amelie who in nature appears child like and innocence enables her to tug on viewers heartstrings at all the right places. A spot-on capture of someone who is positive and has their heart in the right place though has a sly wicked streak for those who deserve punishment (a comical moment in the film where she teaches a market vendor a lesson or two in humbleness and humility). With a uniformly strong supporting cast (keep your eyes out for Jeunets regulars Dominique Pinon and Rufus) the story ticks along with each characters little foibles creating a world where perfection is not the norm and everyone has their own little obsessive behaviours whether they know it or not.
Cynics of you may not buy into its charms or understand Amelie's take on the world and life. The mixture of fantasy, dreams and reality may not be everyone's taste but it's undeniably wonderful and captures the human spirit and it's faults to a tee. It's an escape from reality and that is what cinema is all about. You don't go to see the mundane and the drab (though in this film even the mundane and the drab are given beauty and purpose). Here, the joys and euphoria come at you in equal measure and one persons act of kindness is surely something that's not too hard to imagine.
This is dedicated to my wife, my very own Amelie as this is one of her favourite films, and like Amelie she has a heart of gold and would do anything and everything for anyone.
Whenever there's a successful book, an adaptation of the story is never far away. Here we have a faithful adaptation from it's own author (David Nicholls is the writer for the film so no one can argue about what is put on screen). The story, for those of you who haven't read the book, follows the lives of two people, Dexter Mayhew (Jim Stugress) and Emma Morley (Anne Hathaway). What differs from the norm, is the fact we only meet Dexter and Emma on this "one day" July 15th (St Swithin's Day) every year, for twenty years starting on the night of their graduation.
We are shown how their relationship develops over time, from going on holiday together to family bereavement to fall outs and reunions. Sometimes they are together and at other times they are not. Throughout the years they start to grow apart, their lives moving in different directions but their initial connection inevitably always draws them back together. They both experience failed relationships and eventually realise their true feelings for one another and they end up together as fate would have them to be.
I'm sure that many fans of the book would cry outrage at the numerous missing sub plots and minor details but the main emotional ethos of the source material remains intact. There is only so much you can expect to fit into an hour and forty feature film.
Full praise goes to Rafe Spall as the one time long suffering ex boyfriend of Emma as he steals every scene he is in. The character is bought to life in a better way than I could have ever imagined. The two leads do command the screen well as they go through a range of emotions with events which affect their lives. An obvious talking point will be Hathaways accent. I'm not going to say it's bad but it does veer in and out of Yorkshire tones. Her Englishness isn't at all terrible but some words do stick out like a sore thumb. It's not a complete mess and does not ruin what is pretty much a very commendable performance.
The use of music to mark the progression of the years is very efficient in allowing viewers to hear as well as see the date on screen via text appearing in an inventive and nifty way. Apart from allowing the actors hair to grow/shorten or go grey, there isn't much the film makers could do to show two people growing older through to their late 30's early 40's.
In some ways the film works as well as the book. The unnecessary flab in the book is trimmed and so are some of the characters which doesn't effect the overall journey of two lead characters. What is lacking I found is the lack of emotional depth that you could get from the book that you couldn't get from the film. The thoughts and feelings can only be portrayed by the two stars but the thoughts are not heard like they are in text. The emotional wallop doesn't translate fully but there are still snatches of tears to be found in the saddest parts of the film.
For the fans of the book, I would have to say not to go in expecting everything you may have read in the novel and you won't be disappointed. The films stays close to the books heart and the journey of Emma and Dexter is brought to life in a worthy adaptation. For those of you who haven't read the book, go out and read it.
A Uruguayan film which claims to be filmed all in one shot and in real time! I was intrigued to see whether the claims were true. As film making has progressed, what is to stop anyone from making a film in one long continuous shot? Well here's an attempt from debut film maker Gustavo Hernandez.
The plot is based on a true story of an event which happened in the 1940s in Uruguay. A father and daughter are called to a cottage/farmhouse to house sit until it's eventually sale. It doesn't take long to find things are not as quiet and serene as they seem. The daughter Laura, (the main focal point in the film) starts to hear some noise coming from the rooms above. She wakes her father who goes reluctantly to investigate and that's when the film kicks into gear. After a few minutes and the non re-appearance of her father, Laura decides to find out what has happened to her father.
What happens next is a series of what I would call "boo" moments, as the film makers try to catch the viewer off guard by springing up flashes of images and dark shadows in the background to instill some scares. As a veteran horror fan it wasn't too successful as it was predictable. What the film does succeed on though is giving the sense of claustrophobia. Having only one view point can be really unsettling, as the camera follows our protagonist from behind and slowly switching views to being in front and occasionally becoming the POV shot, there is no cut away or a secondary view point. The film makers really have tried to make the film flow like an uncut one long continuous shot.
But is the film really filmed with no cuts? Unforutnately no, those of you with an eagle eye will probably be able to spot the "seemless" cuts between the passing through objects or anything dark. That isn't to say that there isn't a lot of technical achievement on show but the claims of the film are clearly not 100% accurate. There is a lot to say about only having one view point as it can seem really restrictive but in turn it can boost the overall atmosphere and tension. The lack of film score also adds to the sense of dread as every little sound is magnified.
The only thing criticism I would level at the film is it's last reveal or final revelation. When you find out what is really happening there's an enormous sense of let down. For all the films technical flair, the film is severely hampered but it's silly turn in events. If you have seen the French film Haute Tension then you will understand what I am talking about. It should have kept on going as a haunted house story instead of what it turns out to be.
An interesting idea, clever uses of light and dark and the generation of tension is admirable. Clearly influences by other low budget horrors like Blair Witch and the video game Silent Hill. A girl walking around a house with only a torch to light the way only conjours up memories of playing the old survivor horror game. Alas, I feel I would have more fun and rewarding experience playing the game than watching this film. A flawed experiment.
The second feature in Richard Linklater's exploration at romantic love in which we are re-united with the characters we were first introduced to, back in 1995, in Before Sunrise. Reprising their respective roles are Ethan Hawke (Jesse) and Julie Delpy (Celine). We are invited to catch up on their lives 9 years later and straight away we feel like we're catching up with old friends.
For those of you who have not seen the first feature, at the end of that film, both promised to meet each 6 months later but the meeting never took place. Almost a decade later we find Jesse (an author now,who's written a book based on his experiences in Vienna) on the launch of his book in a bookstore in Paris. The film opens up with Jesse explaining his theory and his ideas of his own book. By coincidence Celine happens to be in the very same book store. What follows is a brief encounter where they go to have coffee and converse over matters and topics like their lives and the reasoning why they never got to meet up.
As they wander through the streets of Paris they talk about what had happened, the camera slowly follows them as they talk and catch up on events. This one, like the previous effort, the dialogue and performance is main focal point and drive in the narrative. Issues which both character have passions for, are vocal discussed in an expressive and devoted manner like the environment. In the little time Jesse has before he his flight leaves, they connect like they did before as they come to realise that this sort of connection is a rare thing in life. The way in which they talk is so relaxed and comfortable in feels so effortless and never contrived.
With this film being set almost a decade later it differs from the fact they have moved on and their lives have changed but they realise that there is some chemistry and undeniable attraction towards each other. Gone are the ideals of young love and blossoming relationship, here we see two people reconnecting and finding nothing has changed in what they found so attractive about each other.
What is technical, a remarkable achievement, is the way the film unfolds in very long shots which captures the naturalist and authentic performances in the streets of Paris. The dialogue is as ever, free flowing, witty, entertaining, funny and never feels like they're reading from a script. The writing duties on this film is credited to both leads (and director) which shows their acting never feels like acting, past experiences and events in their real lives seem interwoven into the story. With the ever setting sunset, the film captures an illuminating yellow tint which gives the overall tone and feel a glowing radiant beautiful shine. It feels like a metaphor on their relationship. The sun maybe setting but there is a beautiful glow like the heart beating on and love still resonating.
A journey which unfolds in real time and with two likable actors who portray two people in a very honest and romantic way in picturesque setting of Paris. Little nuances from unspoken words to glances and physical touches all adds to the depth of realism. And in the way in which the film ends, well... maybe there's more to their relationship to discover and more to their journey but when it ends, we left with "what ifs" and "what now". A tantalising ending, full of promise and hope.
A gritty, British revenge thriller with a towering performance from Paddy Considine, who single handedly carries the film with an astounding physical and an emotional performance. The film centres around Richard, a military man returning to his hometown in an unnamed Midlands suburban village. He wanders around the town to seek revenge on the tormentors who bullied his mentally challenged brother Anthony (played with great subtly and reserved interpretation by Tony Kebbell). When he comes across one of the local bullies, they soon realise their time is up, as Richard has nothing but death in his eyes.
With such an exceptionally simple concept comes a very powerful and moving tale of one brother who will do anything to wreak vengeance and make the bullies pay for the abuse they put his brother through. From the first initial confrontation in the pub when he spots Herbie (one of the gang members) the controlled turn of anger from Considine is both shocking and gripping at the same time. A complete composure which switches at a drop of a hat. It is an electrifying and absorbing performance which is only comparable to such an actor as say De Niro.
What gives this film a different slant on the whole revenge genre is that it is almost played out like a horror film (a slasher if you will). Richard incorporates many implements of a horror film. Stalk and slash comes to mind, as he breaks into their houses and leaves his mark on them. Though it is probably the use of the old military gas mask which is put to such great affect, where Richard appears on the front door step to frighten the persecutors. What's more, it is the way in which he has complete power over them and has the ability to show them he has no fear. And like a horror film, they are all picked off one by one...
The main reason to see this, is the performance from Considine who channels a raw energy to exhibit a controlled psycho to such touching and poignant moments when he is alone with his brother. Unfortunately some of the other actors are not as strong so the performances seem a little bit uneven. Tonality of the film is spot on though. It's a very sombre affair with a surprising amount of light humour thrown in too.
Overall, a surprisingly calm and tranquil ending with a predictable outcome but nevertheless an enjoyable journey. An affecting performance with a hybrid of genres which melded well together and never looked forced or added as an afterthought. A well written script by director (Shane Meadows) and star (Considine) and fully deserving a place in anyone's movie collection.
The third film in the successful franchise based on an 80s toy product. This one sees the plot revolving around Earth's manned mission to the moon in the 60s (which incorporates some good and clever use of archive footage). The real reason behind the mission is in fact a cover up for an "incident" which the world knew little about. An Autobot spaceship which crash landed on the surface on the moon, millions of years ago.
With the intriguing set up, the film unfortunately falters and flags. As the story heads back to the drama's of Sam (Shia Labeouf) Witwicky life. Set a couple of years of the 2nd film. Sam is struggling to find a job whilst his Autobot companions are out on secret missions maintain peace and order with their human allies. It isn't too long before the Decepticons make an appearance and are back to their old tricks again. We learn that within the crashed spaceship (the Ark) contains special pillars that could help the Autobots once and for all, to conquer the Decepticons and win the war....but in the wrong hands they could also lead to the destruction of the planet Earth.
To summarise the plot in such way makes the film sound interesting and exciting but it is far from it. The total lack of serious/normal characters in the film jars the brooding menace. Every supporting character is a bit weird (John Malkovich's- Bruce Bezo) or over hyperactive (Ken Jeong's-Jerry Wang). It sometimes feels like there are two films competing here. One a wacky and (un)funny comedy drama whilst the other, an explosive and eye popping special effects laden action film. I am at a loss as to why there was any need for such a need to try to use stock footage of real events for it to only throw at us such infantile humour.
After the absolute slating that the 2nd film received you would have thought that Bay would have learnt his lesson, but far from it. Racial stereotypes are still ever present and it seems like any ethnic minority portrayed comes across in a very unpolitical correct way. A Scottish sounding Autobot is heard to say "I'll bottle ya" The humour is also not at all funny. If you do laugh, you'd be laughing at the absolute dire dialogue written for the film. I had high hopes for this film and my hopes soon turned to anger and dismay.
The other problem with the film is the pacing of the whole thing. It takes an absolute age for anything exciting to happen. When you come to see a film like this you'd expect robots to be smashing other robots, buildings or any other inanimate object. What you get is a limp attempt at humour and character development. Too much unnecessary padding. Strip away the waste and this film may have been better.
Enough about the negatives you say, what about the positives? Well the action scenes are extremely well handled. If you watch in 3D then your eyes will be in for a treat. Bays trademark of slo-mo is in full effect and there is so much happening at one time you could get lost in which Transformer is which. With the carnage and mayhem, you're always going to be in safe hands with Bay. The 3D is also implement in such dazzling ways and the action packed set pieces are done with aplomb.
I just wish he would try to leave school boy humour and offensive pokes at other races alone. Apart from that I just about found the film tolerable. A complete mess with a tone which shifts from one extreme to another and just doesn't sit well. I now know why Megan Fox jumped ship and left this awful mess of a film. A sad waste of money, time and effort. I want my money back.
Linklater's simple yet highly enjoyable film where the two main performers are the key to the films success. Before Sunrise is another one of Richard Linklater's experimental films where the dialogue and performances are the main focus and the usual filmic techniques (like multiple edits, shots and angles) are abandoned for a more free form and relaxing capture of what genuinely feels like a blossoming relationship.
Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are two strangers who meet on a eurorail heading towards Vienna. An argument between a German couple provides the excuse/reason for Celine (Delpy) to sit adjacent to Jesse (Hawke). Jesse takes this opportunity to talk to Celine. They sit together and share stories from childhood and the spark of a budding relationship begins to form. When the train finally stops in Vienna, Jesse plans to get off whereas Celine is suppose to be heading on and return home. Jesse decides to take a chance and invites Celine to spend a day in Vienna with him. He has no money for a hotel/accommodation and proposes that they spend the night exploring the city. With conversation flowing, it is clear that neither are ready to say goodbye, so with very little hesitation Celine departs the train with Jesse and we follow them as they wander through the streets of Vienna.
For those of you expecting dramatic action or dialogue, you are watching the wrong film. It goes from one conversation to another. It's set at a very leisurely pace as the two of them walk the streets of Vienna where they discuss things that come to mind. One scene has them being tracked through the streets in one continual shot which is marvellously done as both leads talk so naturally it feels like we are listening in on a private conversation. Their exchanges of conversation are not at all pompous or overly intellectual but consist of amusing observations, anecdotes and quirky ideas (like reincarnation and monkeys!)
There is one particular scene in the music store where they stand in a booth and listen to some music, quickly glancing at one another hoping for the other not to catch them looking. It's all too cute, touching and refreshingly genuine. This feels like a poignant moment in the film where as a viewer you finally allow yourself to hope and believe that from this chance encounter true love will in fact blossom. Unlike most romantic tales, this film doesn't hide the obvious attraction between the pair. There is no premise of unrequited love or denial of true feelings with the purpose of the film to show how against all odds this is overcome. The film purely relays all conversations shared from past experiences, ideals and opinions on everything no matter how insignificant, or obscure and from this their relationship grows. It's these little things that gives this film it's beauty and provides enjoyment. As their relationship unfolds it becomes more and more naturalistic and believable. Can two strangers meet and fall in love in one night? For those of you who hold some romantic notion/ideal then the answer would be yes, but for those cynics out there, you will probably think this is all too convenient.
The two leads are extremely likable and very easy on the eyes, with a completely believable and very genuine look at two people falling for one another and with the film finishing with both characters promising to come back and reconnect, the film is left for us to imagine whether their love can truly blossom such is the way of the spirit of the film, very invigorating, imaginative and joyful to watch.
Banksy, an artist, an enigma and now a film maker. What is his topic subject about? What else but his own profession and the one everyone associates with him. Street Art. Does the film allow us into the world of the street artiste in question, well yes and no. The film isn't majority based about "him" but revolves around an unusual French shop keeper living in L.A, Thierry Guetta.
From the off we learn that this man loves to capture his every moment on film. He is never without his portable camcorder, (we later learn that he had missed out on his mothers passing with his family failing to inform him of her illness until it was too late) capturing every mundane detail, to capturing sport stars on the streets of LA, to recording his children playing, everyone around him has gotten use to his obsessive "hobby". He also happens to be related to a street artist by the name of Invader.
Guetta follows Invader and captures him doing his street art and from there on in Guetta becomes fascinated and follows him everywhere he goes where he eventually meets up with other renowned street artist. As his obsession grows his recordings increase and he eventually captures almost every known street artist on film bar one, Banksy. Fate however seems to be on hand, Banksy has planned a visit to LA an is in need of some assistance in finding good locations on the streets. Through a mutual colleague Banksy is hooked up with Guetta (who better!) As the documentary unfolds Guetta starts to dabble a bit himself and later transforms himself to become Mr BrainWash.
Before the real agenda of the documentary becomes apparent, you realise that this documentary isn't really about Banksy himself. We do get footage of him working on his stencils and installations but we never find out who the man is or anything new about him. In fact this documentary seems ridicule the way in which the public cotton on to street art and how easily fooled they are, thinking that MrBrainWash is an important and relevant street artist. When Banksy looked at Guetta's immense amount of footage acquired over the years, Banksy persuades him to get his footage together and make a documentary. When Guetta shows him the finished product, Banksy was fails to be impressed. He realises that Guetta is not really a man suited to the job of showing the profession and the workings of fellow artists, so he decides to take over. Hence this film.
With Banksy busy editing his documentary Guetta asks him what he should do, Banksy replies by saying he should create some art. Taking his advice literally Guetta sets out on changing himself and becomes determined to put on an exhibition. What is shown is that hype and who you know can get you anywhere. An inspiring piece of determination and a lot of help from other established street artist, Guetta (MBW) becomes the talk of the town. With influences from other artists, Guetta creates hundreds and hundreds of works of art. He recreates, alters and imitates works of art he has seen either through books or his own personal experiences. The finished article becomes a little like something similar, works that look like someone else's.... a pale imitation. With the current trend and popularity of street art, MBW became a massive talking point in the art world which guarantees him some notoriety. A mass marketed factory where all artists are hired to recreate styles and images from existing pieces of works where the mass market is fooled into believing that Guetta aka MrBrainWash is the next big thing in the art world.
It is a fascinating portrayal of a man who is very likable but who seems to be on a quest for a purpose in life. He finds this when he becomes an overnight sensation as a street artist. A sly and clever look at the public's urge and obsession to try to catch on to the latest craze in art. Clearly MBW is not an artist in the traditional sense but what he has done is show that talent doesn't equate to success. The whole documentary has become an experiment and leaves you questioning what is art and who or what can define you as an artist. Sometimes you watch this and you wonder if the whole thing isn't just an elaborate joke concocted by Banksy to laugh at the paying public who will buy anything they think is of artist value whether it be in merit or by hype. To dismiss it as a joke is far too easy as Guetta does seem like a genuine man who just so happens to get lucky on his project. I don't think anybody was prepared for the amount of work he was going to display and when the public went to the opening exhibition they lapped it up like masses of brainless zombies. He has truly brainwashed the public and for that you have to applaud the man.
A very well made documentary that will leave you with questions as well as some very funny and thought provoking ideas on art. Does a quote from another artist give you credibility? Does familiarity breed contempt? Or does it give people a sense of comfort, that it reminds them of something else. Something better. Narrated by Rhys Ifans.
An outdated film about an outdated topic. It baffles me how the films producers, writers and financiers would ever think that this was a good idea. Roping in Hideo Nataka (Ringu & Dark Water) to direct would make you hope and/or think that it'll turn out all okay. Unfortunately as the old saying goes, you can't polish turd.
The story is about five young(ish) teens who accidentally meet in the virtual world of chatrooms. All are slightly troubled by their own little problems (though some more than others) and feel a connection with one another and decide to form a tight friendship where they meet and discuss their problems or issues. William (played by Aaron Johnson-Kick Ass) has other things on his mind than sharing his problems. He has a plan to destroy one of them in the real world (as well as the virtual world).
This is a subject matter that the film-makers may well think needs to be brought up and talked about in the media. The topic of cyber bullying hasn't really been tackled on film and I feel that maybe there is a good reason for that. It just doesn't work. The lack of realism and the lack of a good script. The intention is there but they've failed to bring any solution or how to tackle the problem.
The other problem I had is how little the characters are developed. Yeah sure, each character have their own little problems from feeling unloved, crush on a friends sister to feeling misunderstood and jealous of their sibling. They are all painted too thinly to stand out and only a bit of overacting allows for some form of distinction. Aaron Johnson character William, plays a disturbed young man who manipulates the group towards acting out and to eventually convince the others who he see as his candidate for his plan. His motivation? Not really too clear really, he's presented as a boy from a family who are successful and has a brother who is equally as successful and the film seems to make out as if he is put out by all of this. We learn that he has suffered from mental issues from flash backs and an interest in watching someone end their life online. Is this what causes someone to be like a predator to find someone worthy of his macabre obsession?
The film isn't without some merit. The clay motion sequence are very well achieved and accomplished and the visual representations of chat rooms are bought to life vividly in an never ending hall way of different topics and subjects. It's only let down by the fact that people have moved on from chatrooms. It's a decade or so too late and the film suffers because of it. With so many ideas touch upon within the film, none of them are fully explored. A teen who develops sexual feelings for an eleven year old is touch upon but is never really particularly addressed. The film wants to be challenging but doesn't really have an opinion or how the issue should be resolved. Consequences of their actions don't seem to amount to much.
A failed and flawed film which doesn't entertain and can be infuriating. Hopefully all involved can move on from such dire mess and look back at this as a failed project and try to forget it. I for one, am trying to already.
Three high school friends reconnect one night in a hotel room to remember events that happened 10 years earlier. Summary of the film in one line, though there is more to it than just three characters talking to one another for 90 minutes. Director Richard Linklater has interwoven a complex tale of intrigue and perception. The film opens up with Vince (Ethan Hunt) in his hotel room as he prepares himself for what seems like a wild night out as he chugs on beer, scrunching and throwing cans across the room. When the door knocks, enters the second of the films three characters Jon (Robert Sean Leonard-Dead Poets Society). As they reminisce about the past, things soon turn to a more serious matter of a girl they both knew.
The conversation shifts to the girl Amy (played by Uma Thurman), who Vince use to date and Jon had sex with in high school. Vince pursues and pesters Jon on what happened on their eventful night. He wants details on how, why and where. As he goes on and on at Jon (who becomes more and more agitated in his line of questioning), he finally admits to coercing her into having sex with him. Vince being unhappy with his explanation continues in asking him how. With Vince's continual questioning, Jon finally admits to possibly raping her. As this is said, Vince goes to his bag where he reveals a tape recorder where he has been recording their conversation and replays Jon's confession. It becomes all too apparent that Vince has an ulterior motive for meeting up with his old high school buddy.
With such a brave approach to having one setting and only three characters who interact with such verve in dialogue that is all too intellectual yet highly believable where one tries to gain a moral high ground on one another. As they argue with one another the camera goes back and forth like an audience watching a tennis match as argument is battered back and forth, it is such an involving way to participate in their personal debate. An experimental technique which works!
The confines of the room may restrict the action but it's a film where the characters drive the narrative forward to what is an intriguing debate about perception about an event that happened 10 years ago. Where one person remembers an event in one way another person views it differently. Each actor is given enough to work with where each character is smart and articulate, where one can seem like the protagonist and then become an antagonist in one line of dialogue.
The story adapt from a stage play shows its origins in it's one set, dialogue full narrative where it's all down to the actors to pull you in, in it's exchanges between one another as information is feed to us and where not everything is as clear as mud. When you feel one character is gaining the upper hand on the argument it suddenly turns and the other character is in fact the one who is right. It raise a lot questions which not all may be answered but is thoroughly enjoyable thought provoking debatable film.
Waking up from a coma and finding out that you are unable to communicate, you would understand ones frustration and the director allows us to fully emphasise a man utter irritation and annoyance by giving us Bauby's internal monologues. As relentless Doctors and experts come to treat his condition, none of them truly know how he is feeling on the inside. We as the audience become Bauby. It's very unsettling and a sense of claustrophobia creeps in as a sense of helplessness overtakes.
The narrative isn't as sombre in tone as it sounds. There are light touches of humour as we experience everything Bauby does and we feel the same as he does, so when people start to talk to him like an idiot we can only feel the same as he does. Contempt, disdain and indignity. As he learns to communicate through a modern alphabet of the most commonly used letters (it is a slow and arduous task), we too have to endeavor this as well. We are following his journey though it's heartbreaking, the voyage is of life affirming self discovery and a great example of how one man overcomes mountainous odds. With only his determination and patience, Bauby sets out to dictate his life and experiences into a memoir.
