Inglourious Basterds Review (Text)

Now, I’m fairly sure that absolutely everyone else who was ever going to see Inglourious Basterds has already seen it, therefore making a review slightly pointless. However, that’s never stopped me before, so I’m just going to write my thoughts on this movie, and see whether or not anyone agrees with me. Enjoy.

The first thing I would like to discuss is the title of this piece. The title of the movie was, of course, taken from the 70s film “Inglorious Bastards” (a.k.a “G.I. Bro” for all you Blaxploitation fans out there), and changed the second “a” in “Bastards” to an “e” for reasons unknown (and added an extra “u” to Inglorious, if my spelling ability isn’t completely fucked.


This is not a photoshop. This is genuinely the alternate poster and title for the original Inglorious Bastards.


This however, does not concern me. What I really want to know is why take the title from Inglorious bastards in the first place, even without the whole a/e thing? After all, Inglourious Basterds is clearly not a direct remake of Bastards, so why use the name? My guess would be that it was simply because QT thought the name sounded cool, and figured that since there isn’t a black soldier in the film he couldn’t get away with calling it “G.I. Bro”, so went for “Inglourious basterds” instead. However, despite the fact that the two stories are completely different for the most part, there is one similarity which none of the reviews I have read managed to pick up on (then again, I suspect I’m one of the only people in the world to have seen the original Inglorious Bastards before seeing QT’s version).

In the original film, the Bastards are a group of deserters heading for Switzerland who come across what appears to be a German platoon on their way to the Alpine border. The Bastards engage the enemy, and kill all of them, before discovering that they were an undercover American unit sent in to apprehend the German’s V-2 prototype by infiltrating the train it was set to be transported on. The Bastards feel it is their duty to fill in for he Americans they killed, but only have one German speaker in the group. Not only this, but one of their men is also Black, and a French resistance fighter points out that he won’t be able to go undercover as a German soldier. This one element of the story is closely mirrored in “Basterds”, when the three German speakers from the group are all killed, and Diane Kruger’s character points out to Brad Pitt that they will never be able to infiltrate the German film festival (this will sound odd if you haven’t seen the movie, but basically, there is a film festival all the Nazis are going to in Paris, and the basterds want to get in and blow them up) if none of them can speak or even look German. This is literally the only part of the original movie to appear in Tarantino’s movie, which seems odd given they share the same title. But, I guess if you wanted to watch Inglorious bastards, you may as well pick up the original, so I can see why QT didn’t just copy it.


Because, let's face it, this is gonna be hard to top...


Regarding Tarantino’s movie, however, the new plot is interesting enough. As mentioned above, it focuses on a plot by the Inglourious Basterds, a group of Jewish-American guerrilla fighters led by Brad Pitt, who intend to assassinate the Nazi leadership when they attend a film screening in Paris. The movie splits its time between the Basterds, and the characters of Shosanna Dreyfus, the French owner of the Paris cinema the Nazi screening is due to take place in, whose Jewish family was murdered by an SS Colonel at the start of the film, and Fredrick Zoller, a young German war hero who is desperate to woo Dreyfus, unaware of her past or heritage. Dropping in on both storylines, we also have Colonel Hans Lander, the SS officer who murdered Dreyfus’s family at the beginning of the film, who adds menace as the “Jew Hunter” tasked with bringing in the Basterds.


This guy... is un-fucking... believable.


Essentially, the entire film is made up of just a couple of scenes, put together to form the story. We change location 10 times at the very most over the course of the movie, and each of the five “chapters” is essentially made up of one small “set-up” scene, followed by a long “action” scene. Of course, this is very familiar Tarantino turf, being exactly the same as the structure he used in Reservoir Dogs, True Romance and Pulp Fiction, all of which were essentially just collections of cool scenes put together to make a film. But in Basterds this is even more exaggerated, to the extent that you feel the film really has been told in only 6 scenes. This is a really cool way of telling a story, because it allows a lot of tension to build in each scene, as there is no pressure to cut away to something else going on in a different location, so Tarantino is free to have 20 minutes build up to a pay off, and can really make the best use of his incredible dialogue-writing skills.


Never forget...


Although Tarantino himself lists the very first scene in the film as the best scene he has ever written, I would have to disagree with that statement. The scene in the basement of the Inn where the German speaking-members of the Basterds go undercover to meet their contact is one of the best scenes I have ever seen committed to film, and shows that Tarantino really does still have the magic that made Pulp and Dogs such memorable movies. In fact, I would say that this scene probably surpasses the infamous “Sicilian Scene” from True Romance as being the best scene Tarantino has ever written or shot, as it is just perfect. And the fact that he can keep that level of quality up for the half hour or so the scene runs for just shows the man’s pure mastery of cinema.

That said, however, there were a couple of directorial choices that I didn’t like in the film. The first of these was the title we got when first introduced to the character of Sergeant Stiglitz, and the cheesy voiceover we got when his past adventures were shown. It just felt way too cheesy for the film, and really didn’t fit the tone of the rest of the movie. It’s a though Tarantino still hasn’t got all his Grindhouse fanboy love out of his system, which is a real shame, given how good this movie is for the most part, and how realistic he keeps most of it. I suspect that he just couldn’t think of a good way to introduce Stiglitz’s backstory within the film without killing the pace or making it seem gratuitous so just figured “fuck it, if this thing’s gonna stick out, I’m gonna make sure it’s right in everyone’s face!”. The second cutaway scene like this with the explanation of why 35mm film was so flammable isn’t quite so annoying, probably because we had already had one cutaway explanatory scene by that point, but still killed the tone and pace a little, just as Stiglitz’s backstory did. However, I’m fairly sure Samuel L. Jackson did the voice over, so it was kind of cool just sitting there going Yep, that’s Sam Jackson all right.” (I just checked IMDB to make sure, and was surprised to see that the OSS officer we hear speaking to Brad Pitt near the end of the film was Harvey Keitel. How about that?).


No caption required. Oh wait...


I also felt that a couple of scenes of violence were a little gratuitous. Now, I don’t really mind violence – I mean, come on, I just admitted that one of my favourite film scenes is one which involves (Wait, sorry – SPOILER ALERT – probably best apply that from here on out, really) two guys getting their balls shot off, and a whole room full of people machinegunning each other – but a couple of bits just felt unnecessary. For example, the second time we see Brad Pitt carve a swastika into someone’s head, I felt like we didn’t really need to see it in such detail, because it worked well the first time when we didn’t actually see anything (just like the “ear scene” in Reservoir Dogs). I also didn’t like the scene when Eli Roth shoots a recently killed character in the face about 20 times as he lies on the floor. I mean, I can understand what its showing – it’s showing his hatred and anger at the guy for killing so many Jews, but I’m not entirely sure we needed to see a shot of his face as it was blown apart. We could have seen the first impact, then cut to Eli firing until his mag ran out. That way we would have understood what was happening, and understood what the character was feeling, but not been subjected to such unnecessary gore. I know that war is actually horrible and unpleasant to look at, but at the same time, that wasn’t really the point the movie was making (given how overly stylized and “cool” most of the violence is), so the shot just felt a bit over-the-top, as though it was only in there to spark controversy.


NOT that kind of controversy...


Other than that, though, I really didn’t have any problems with this film. I’ve heard people complain about how most of the film is in French and German, but while I did miss the end of a couple of subtitles, this really didn’t bother me for the most part. In fact, I quite liked the effect it gave, because I don’t see how some of the scenes could have been resolved were the entire film shot in English, as the language is pivotal to the plot in places (e.g. the Jews in the barn not speaking English, or the Germans in the bar).

What did really surprise me about this film, though, was the way that it doesn’t stick to factual events, but instead writes its own version of the war. Whilst this seems strange, setting a movie in history and ignoring historical facts (it almost seems disrespectful to the people who were actually there), this effect does keep the tension up, because it means that literally anything can happen. One of the reasons prequels tend to be worse than the original films (except for “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” and the prequel sections of “The Godfather part 2”) is because you already know exactly what will happen, so there is no real tension. With an altered history line, however, Tarantino is able to keep the tension going, as we are left unsure of whether or not the Basterds really will be able to kill the Nazi leadership and end the war. Plus, I suppose every historical story twists events to better suit the cinema anyway, so if they’re changing things in supposedly “true” stories, what harm does it do to make an entirely fictitious piece of work and set it in an actual historical event?





So, I loved the technical side of things, and the story and direction of the film, but what about the actors?

To be honest, I felt Brad Pitt was bad in this film. I felt he was a little too concerned with his accent, and not really that bothered by anything else. In the scenes where he is supposed to be playing an Italian, he is acting like he is Joe Black, and even in the other scenes, he seems as though he is just trying to play the whole thing for laughs. “Hey guys, listen to this stupid accent – isn’t this funny? I’ll get an Oscar for this!”. The other actors, however, are a different story.





For starters, I was very impressed by Eli Roth’s acting. He was overacting quite a bit in scenes, but for the most part seemed to pull of his character really well, which is pretty good for a guy who’s actually known as a director, rather than an actor. Hell, if his name wasn't in the credits or the posters, I'm certain I would have thought he was an actual actor, rather than a director. Till Schweiger is also really good, considering I had only seen him as Heinz Hummer in Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo before. This was possibly even more distracting than seeing Austin Powers playing a British General (though he was barely recognizable, and were his name not in the opening credits, I probably wouldn’t have known it was him).


He is pretty difficult to recognize, after all...


The real surprise of the bunch, however, is Diane Kruger, who I had previously only seen stumble through family movies like National Treasure and Troy. She seemed really bland in those films, and didn’t seem at all competent. And yet now I realize why – because she’s fucking German. Duh. When speaking her native tongue, or even speaking English but using her regular accent, Kruger nails the dialogue perfectly almost every time, and is perfect as German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark. I can see why she would have sucked in the movies when she was having to put on an American accent, of course; their accents make it hard enough to act even for us Brits – imagine how hard it must be to have that effect compounded on top of he fact that you’re not speaking your native language – but it’s still awesome to finally see her do a half-decent performance. I get the feeling she was previously only ever cast because she’s hot, so it’s cool to see her finally act, rather than just model in films. Although, actually, Tarantino does seem to have a foreign girl fetish (the Swiss chick in Pulp, the french chick in Kill Bill, also possibly Lucy Liu in Kill Bill, the Kiwi stuntwoman in Deathproof), so maybe he did cast her just because he fancied her?


I have no idea why German girls have such a bad rep in this country. They may actually be even hotter than French girls...


However, the best performance of the piece, of course, goes to Christoph Waltz, for his incredible performance as Colonel Heinz Hummer – sorry – Hans Landa. Fuck, now I’ve got Rob Schneider stuck in my head. Thanks a lot, Schweiger!


Yep, that's Till Schweiger, about to have his cock grabbed by 'Undercover Brother'. You're welcome.



Waltz won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal of Colonel Landa, so that pretty well tells you all you need to know about the performance. Waltz nails it, being the smartest, evilest, yet most charming villain we’ve had since Die Hard. He’s such a cool character that as we started to near the end of the film I was actively hoping he wouldn’t die, because he was so awesome. I genuinely felt that a character that smart deserved to survive the film, in spite of the fact that he had killed countless jews, and that’s a good indication of how well Waltz played his part – he turned one of the most unlikeable bastards ever into a character you were genuinely rooting for. Now that’s acting.

I really enjoyed his film, then, and would highly recommend it. The only other thing I want to know is – How come Eli Roth and Omar didn’t leg it out of the theatre once they’d shot all the guys in the opera box and planted the bomb? The weren’t locked in, as only the doors to the main seating area were locked, and they had done their job – so why not just run? Seemed a bit weird to me, but whatever – it was still a cool ending to an awesome movie. Well, actually, the very final scene after was even better, especially the closing line. But I shan't spoil it for you if you haven't already seen the film...





Rating:

****

4 Stars



I wouldn’t say it’s definitely better than Inglorious Bastards, but it is very different. This film contains some absolutely incredible scenes and performances, and is easily Tarantino’s best film since Pulp Fiction. It’s not flawless, but it is great fun, and you could definitely do a lot worse. This movie shows why Tarantino is considered one of the great directors of our time despite producing so few movies, and so few actually decent films out of those he does. Definitely worth a watch, and a great way to spend 2 and a half hours, as long as you’re not an American who can’t bear to watch something with subtitles.




Voice






Before I forget, today’s review was sponsored by Bin Laden photobombing Ed Miliband:








Apparently Eli Roth was dating Peaches Geldoff for a while. Here’s to hoping he punched Bob in the face!

Call Me a Nerd if You Want. I Don't Care. You're Just Jealous My Controller Glows in the Dark and Yours Doesn't.

I play consoles round friends’ houses relatively often. Not because I’m such a socially retarded douchebag that I only hang out with people to play video games, but because often it’s cool to just kick back and play some Xbox when you’re waiting for inspiration to strike. But something which has always surprised me about playing on other people’s consoles is this: I would very often go to pick up the nearest controller, and be told by the console’s owner that I had to use the other controller, because the one I picked up is their “limited edition Halo controller”. In fact, this has happened with 4 different people (You would think I would learn after the first 3, really). No joke.


You've probably seen them around...


The reason I always found this bizarre is simply because everyone who owns an Xbox 360 seems to own a “limited edition Halo controller”, and those who don’t have a “limited edition Call of Duty controller”. In fact, these supposed “limited edition controllers” seem to be just as common as the regular controllers, so it just seems bizarre that anyone would care more about one than they would an ordinary controller.

Not only this, but they seem to only exist for games that everyone is a fan of, and that everyone will consequently own the controller for. Now, I see the logic behind this for the company producing the controllers, because they’re going to make a lot more money this way. But I don’t see the logic behind why people who buy these dirt-common controllers for popular games then act as though they’re some sacred ultra-rare artifact that needs to be guarded against the evils of my palm sweat (and possible “sticky palms”. Oh wait, I do see the logic behind protecting your possessions from that).




But today, I received something which has changed my view of controller snobs forever. Today, I finally got the controller of my dreams, the controller I deserve. That’s right, I got a limited edition Splinter Cell controller for the PS2:





Now, I know what you’re thinking: Splinter Cell was also a very popular game (hence the four sequels), so I’m not really showing my originality by purchasing this controller. However, not only is Splinter Cell a far more underground series than “Call of Duty”, “Halo” or “Medal of Honor”, but, let’s face it, how many people do you know who owned ‘Splinter Cell’ brand controllers for their PS2 back in the day? I’m guessing none.


The reason for this guess is that I wasn’t even aware they existed until just over a week ago. Seriously, I don’t ever remember seeing one when the PS2 was big – otherwise I would have bought one back then – and I’ve never heard anyone else mention they had one. Which is why I was so surprised to find one online, on Amazon Marketplace, for a measly £7.90. For comparison’s sake; the cheapest you can get a standard PS2 controller for is £6.99. The official Sony one like my other controller is £18.99. Now, whilst the Splinter Cell controller is not an official Sony product, it is still officially licensed by Ubisoft, who make the Splinter Cell games, so was guaranteed to be bitchin’. The fact is, I went online looking to buy a regular controller, saw the wireless ones for £9.99 (unofficial) and thought “why not?”, then noticed the Splinter Cell controller and thought “I must have it”, so bought that one instead. And you know what? I’m damn well glad I made that choice. “Why’s that?” you may ask. And I shall tell you.



IT GLOWS IN THE GOD DAMN DARK!!!!!!



Yes, I am as easy to amuse as a 6 year old. Problem?


But seriously, the analogues handle well, the triggers are better than on my official Sony controller (though that is getting on a bit in Sony’s defence), and did I mention it GLOWS IN THE FUCKING DARK?



Seriously, what's cooler than playing a stealth ninja who creeps through the shadows wearing night vision on a controller which glows green (the same colour as night vision!!!!) when it's dark? Literally nothing.


Good attempt, though.


Sure, the vibration function is pretty bad, and vibrates too much so ends up just rattling in your hand rather than giving a realistic buzz as the Sony controllers do. But hey, this shit is rare, which instantly makes it cool. Hell, it seemed a shame just to take it out the packaging, given it had been kept in there in perfect condition for so long. But I did take it out, and you know why? Because damn it, I couldn’t resist the temptation to play Chaos Theory on a Glow-in-the-Dark controller. Ok?



Heaven is a place where controllers glow green in the dark.





Voice



When not masturbating over the Splinter Cell series, Voice reviews the odd film, and wishes he was even half as cool as Morgan Freeman.

I Think I Just Came...

WARNING! THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CONSISTS OF NOTHING MORE THAN ONE MASSIVE FANBOY RANT.






AWWWWW YEEEEAH!!!!!


It’s official, people – They’re making a movie of my favourite video game series, Splinter Cell. If you recall, at the end of my review of “The Other Guys” I suggested that the $90 million they put into that film should have instead gone into funding the Splinter Cell movie, and it looks like someone took my advice (though, too late to stop ‘The Other Guys’ from existing, unfortunately).

The film is slated for release in 2013, and will be the third Tom Clancy film to be released over the coming 2 year period, along with a new Jack Ryan film, and a Rainbow Six movie. Does life get any better than this?



Not even close, Ladies.


Whilst there are many questions which need to be answered regarding this project – who will direct it? Will it be based on one of the games, or will it be an original script? Which game will it be based off of if it is based on one? - The real talk at this stage is, of course, on who will play Sam Fisher.


Option #1 - Gorgeous George




As you may remember (especially if you followed the link I gave above), I was advocating that George Clooney play the part of Fisher. He’s done some action movies before, so can definitely pull off the tough-guy act, even if a stunt double is required for the half-split jumps. Not only this, but he has the right sort of facial structure, too – a combination of the classic all-American hero look, with a softer, more distinguished appeal which whilst making him appear more classically handsome does not diminish his overall rugged appearance. Plus the grey hair and short stubble look really suits Clooney, as we all know. But my main reason for picking George? He’s the right age (My ‘Chaos Theory’ Manual informs me Fisher was born in 1957, whilst IMDB says Clooney was born in 1961. Bear in mind that Chaos Theory was set in 2008, and Clooney is exactly the right age). I would hate to see Splinter Cell remade with a young guy playing Fisher, because one of the things I most loved about the character was that he was an old guy with a daughter who was called back into service because in a world where the intelligence services are full of computer nerds who know how to hack algorithms, there was still a need for a hands-on tough guy who could get to the info that wasn’t just online, and grab targets without the need for a Delta team to be sent in. That said, however, I am prepared to discuss other potential actors for the part.



Option #2 - The Original Sam Fisher




Whilst Michael Ironside is absolutely perfect for the voice of Fisher, I feel that he may, unfortunately, be too old for the part (though he is only 11 years older than Clooney). I also feel that Ironside may not be quite so convincing in such an athletic part, because although he does look tough, he looks more like a brawler than a “stealth ninja”. I also feel that people may have gotten too used to seeing him as either a bad guy, or an insane Lieutenant who has some pretty cool dialogue, and would therefore find it hard to relate to Ironside if he was actually on-screen, rather than just providing a voice. Points to him for being exactly the right height, though.



Option #3 - The Guy Who Played a Very Similar Part in that Other Movie...




My next choice for the part would have to be Liev Schreiber, who by 2013 will be only 1 year younger than Sam was in the original game (set in 2004). The reason I like Schreiber for the part is due to his turn as Clark in The Sum of All Fears (though he was awesome in Defiance as well). Clark is a very similar character to Fisher – a hard as nails stealth agent with a dark sense of humour. However, the reason I like Schreiber for the part is, unfortunately, the exact reason why I can’t back him to play Sam: Schreiber has to play Clark in ‘Without Remorse’ and ‘Rainbow Six’, I just don’t see anyone else being able to play the part. I mean, sure, Willem Dafoe played Clark in ‘Clear and Present Danger’, but that was a semi-retired, older Clark who wasn’t on active duty. Clark is the leader of Rainbow Six, the most elite SWAT-style spec-ops unit on the planet; he has to be a total badass, and Liev Schreiber can definitely deliver. I am therefore asking that the producers of these films do not ask Schreiber to play Fisher, but instead recast him as Clark for the other two films. Yes, I realize that they are probably not all being produced by the same company, but you guys can still work together to give the people what they want - what they NEED - right?





Plus, Schreiber might actually be a bit too big to play Fisher, being 6’3” and built like a brick shithouse.






Option #4 - The IMDB Users' Choices




Some people on IMDB are calling for Clive Owen and Gerard Butler to play the part. Now, I have to completely disagree with Clive, owing to the fact that he cannot do an American accent for shit, and his delivery is too dull for Fisher, who has a more coarse voice (though, admittedly, Owen has the pitch dead on). I also cannot see him in a stealth suit climbing walls and pipes and doing the whole ninja-bit, because he’s just too suave for that sort of thing, damn it! (Ed: And Clooney isn’t?). Butler, however, I can kind of see in the part, given he looks a bit like Fisher:


Photoshop Courtesy of Steve a.k.a "PurpleApe".


I can also see him being very capable of doing all the physical stunts, and he certainly has the right body for Fisher (even if he is just a little on the tall side), so undoubtedly has the look down. I am a bit worried about his accent, though, as I’ve not heard him do an American accent. I am also a bit concerned that the producers would completely change the story to appeal more to the ‘300’ crowd if Butler was in it, too, so would have to be sure the character would not change to be more in-your-face and angry if he was cast. Also, it had better not have loads of slowing-down and speeding-up fight scenes, unless the director wants to die. But still, I can get behind butler in the part.



Option #5 - The Goddamn Punisher!




He was awesome in War Zone and The Book of Eli. If only Ray Steenson hadn't been in The Other Guys - then I could recommend him for the part of Sam Fisher. but then again, he has the same problem as Schreiber - he's just too God Damn big! Although, if he were cast as Fisher, we could always bring in Denzel to play Lambert, which would be pretty sweet.



I completely forgot these two had also done a movie together.



Option #6 - That Other Guy Who was Also in Someting Else Playing a Similar Character.





Kiefer Sutherland is also, of course, a candidate, and I feel he would be able to play the part very well indeed. The only problem is that everyone’s so used to seeing him as Jack Bauer that they won’t be able to take the movie seriously – they’ll just think it’s a story about Bauer’s special forces days. Don’t believe me? I was watching ‘The Sentinel’ with a friend (don’t ask), and when we are first looking around Michael Douglas’s apartment, we see a photo of his character with Kiefer Sutherland’s on his desk, and my friend literally said “Ha! There’s a picture of him with Jack Bauer! They must have put that in as a tribute to 24, or something”. Of course, it wasn’t a 24 reference, and Kiefer just happened to be acting in the film as well - but that’s all anyone associates him with. And that’s Kiefer’s problem – if it weren’t for 24 I would never have considered him for the role of Fisher (since the only other movies I’ve seen him in are things like ‘The Lost Boys’ and ‘A few Good Men’), but because he’s too well known for 24, he can’t possibly play another special forces character like Fisher.

On the subject of Bauer, though, I have a good suggestion for the actor to play Irving Lambert. Obviously Don Jordan, who voiced Lambert in every Splinter Cell game but Pandora Tomorrow cannot play Lambert, owing to the fact he looks like this:





However, you know who voiced Lambert in Pandora tomorrow? A man who not only worked with Kiefer Sutherland in 24, but who also narrated the Call of Duty games. That’s right – Dennis motherfucking Haysbert.





Dennis Haysbert is actually closer to the age I imagined Lambert to be whilst playing the games, as opposed to what the instruction manuals say (there’s about a ten year discrepancy). Not only that, but at 6’4” (and a half, according to IMDB), he also has the same dominating presence as Lambert. Plus, we already know he has the ideal voice for the part, having already played the character once before. In fact, I’m gonna say definitely on this one that Dennis Haysbert is the man I want to see in the part. He’s proven he can still do action with shows like ‘The Unit’, and more than proved his acting worth in ‘24’. In fact, you know what? I’m calling it right now. Clooney and Haysbert for Fisher and Lambert in Splinter Cell. I’m gonna start circulating a petition for this shit.



Oh wait, I forgot I'm incredibly Lazy.




Voice.



And for what it’s worth, I reckon Tanoai Reed could pull off a pretty good Sam(oan) Fisher, judging from his skills in this video (first kill after about 2:25).

The Bad Lieutenant Review (Text)

Well, it finally happened. I’ve been trying to see The Bad Lieutenant ever since I heard about it from Noah Antwiler way back in April (On the very same day I was tripping out on Sub Coca Dragon, in fact), and today, I finally managed it. Fuck Yeah.




“So”, you may be thinking to yourself “what did you think of it? Was it any good?” to which I shall respond: Hey, you know how these reviews work – I talk about plot, then actors, then technical crap, and then conclude with what I thought at the end. If you don’t like it, go elsewhere. But don’t really, because I need the viewers. I may even get AdSense if I can ever break 10,000 viewers a month (I won’t).

Now, something that surprised me about this story was how early on Nicolas Cage makes Lieutenant. We literally only have one scene before he is promoted, in which he saves a prisoner caught in his cell as the floods caused by Hurricane Katrina sweep in (yeah, it’s set in New Orleans after Katrina, did I not mention that?), and then we go straight to the ceremony where he is made lieutenant and awarded the medal of valour for his bravery in jumping into the water to save the guy. This wasn’t what I had been expecting, as I had thought we were going to see Nicolas Cage set up as being the bad cop who is about to be kicked off the force for abusing suspects and taking drugs and drinking on the job, who the Commanders are forced to promote against their better judgment after he commits a truly heroic act that gets a lot of media attention – and whilst this is sort of what happens, it seems as though none of the characters really know about Cage’s problems at the start of the film, and the possibility that he only starts using drugs on a regular basis after injuring his back trying to save the prisoner in this first scene is also hinted at. Whilst this was completely different to what I was expecting, however, I still thought this set-up worked really well.

The primary reason for this is that it adds a whole new layer of meaning to the film. Cage’s character, Terence, is prescribed drugs for his back injury right at the start of the film, but starts using more and more illicit drugs as the film goes on. Whilst the character was clearly supposed to have been using drugs for quite some time before hand, it is implied that he starts to take a lot more to self-medicate for his back pain, and this is a theme which the movie comes back to at several points. The movie switches from manic and hyper, to dark and depressed, to slow and chilled, like it was nothing. These transitions are incredibly smooth, and don’t always fit the action on the screen, but are still very noticeable, and really affect the feeling of the movie. Clearly, the movie is shot in this manner to reflect Terence’s mood swings, as he succumbs either to the effect of the drugs, or to a post-injury mental illness, most likely a form of bi-polar disorder, judging from the mood swings and hallucinations. This is a really cool effect, and shows how the injury, stress and the consequent abuse of drugs is really taking its toll on the character, which makes the film infinitely more fun to watch.

Whilst the infamous ‘Iguana scene’ does have a hilarious surreal quality to it, in the same manner as a lot of the humour in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas came from the characters reacting to hallucinations or severe attacks of paranoia, a lot of the funniest scenes in the film occur when Cage appears to be completely lucid, owing to his bizarre interactions with other characters. The drug-store argument is sheer genius, and an amazing scene. But it is topped later on in the film with yet another similarly-insane scene.

One of the funniest reactions Cage has whilst out of his head on crack and heroin is depicted in a scene where he attempts to interrogate an old woman to find out where her grandson is, and winds up almost suffocating another elderly woman by taking her oxygen tube out of her nose. When the Grandmother tells Cage where the boy can be found, Cage returns the woman’s oxygen tube, before going on a rant about how he should have let her die, and how people like her who live in homes and use up all their kids inheritance are what’s ruining the country. It’s a hilariously over-the-top reaction, and incredibly dark, but a brilliantly filmed and acted scene, where you can really see the insanity start to creep in for Terence.




But not all of the humour in the film is derived from the increasing insanity of its main character. Instead, there are a lot more subtle jokes hidden within the film. For example, at one point we see Cage walking into a Grocery Store in a black neighbourhood, as some kids play outside. One kid walks past Cage and right by the camera, and we realise "hey, that isn't a kid, that's a dwarf!" - Herzog actually dressed a midget in kids clothes just to fuck with white people who can't tell the difference between a black kid and a black midget - And it's the small things like this that really add surreal humour to the movie without being in-your-face insane. Another such example is one of the first things that really made me laugh out loud whilst watching ther film, where in an early scene where we see Terence sitting and talking to his captain with his gun shoved down the front of his trousers like he’s a gangster. What made this even funnier is the sheer size of the weapon – a .44 magnum. In fact, during a later scene where Terence goes to arrest a suspect, we see him walking through a neighbouring house and yard in a brown suit, holding the gun up with his hair back, and he looks just like Dirty Harry. This is obviously an intentional reference on Herzog’s part, but was a really cool tribute, and also possibly shows what the character thinks of himself. He feels he is like Harry Callaghan, breaking the rules, but still getting results he couldn’t if he stuck to them. Or maybe it’s because he’s gone so batshit insane he doesn’t care how it looks for a Detective Lieutenant to be walking around with a gigantic handgun just casually shoved into his waistband.


Is that an anti-tank weapon in your pants, or are you just pleased to - OH FUCK IT'S A CANNON!


Not only is the humour in the film all fantastically executed, but the actual story itself is a really cool, exciting one, which would have still worked really well even without the surreal elements. The plot unfolds nicely, with various story arcs overlapping each other, and coming together with comical results. The execution of these storylines is flawless, and is very reminiscent of Guy Ritchie’s early films, where he would set up multiple storylines for different characters, and let them progress individually before finally bringing them all together in one dramatic scene. Of course, The Bad Lieutenant is entirely focused on Cage (I believe he is in every scene), so there is nothing quite this complicated going on, but it still unfolds in a similar manner, with different plotlines overlapping at times, as if by chance, and it is really cool just sitting back and watching everything come together.

The movie is also shot in a really interesting way, with most of the action framed in a fairly conventional manner, but occasionally deviating into completely different styles when trying to highlight a certain point. For example, in a shootout scene, the lighting is done in such a way that the smoke seems to hang in the air for ages before finally settling, and the gunshots are all highlighted as though the director is trying to show their importance. Likewise, in one scene set at the scene of a traffic incident, we cut away from the action to a crocodile sitting by the side of the road, watching, and the camera changes to what appears to be a Super-8 film, and some chilled-out trippy music starts to play as the Croc just sits there, and watches everything unfold. To say Oliver Stone would be proud is an understatement. I think Werner Herzog got fed up with Stone making films like World Trade Centre and Alexander, and decided cinema needed to be taken back to the days of Natural Born Killers. And who could argue with that?


Certainly not Robert Downey, jr.


The acting in the film is also amazing. Cage plays the unhinged Terence fantastically, and only plays Nicolas Cage in a couple of scenes, managing to actually create a different character to himself for most of the film (contrary to what I may have said in my review of “Next”). Val Kilmer is also great as Cage’s partner who just does not give a fuck about anyone. At a couple of points, he advocates just letting suspects die, or even actively killing them, and when Cage is blatantly hallucinating in the iguana scene, Kilmer just stands there, not particularly bothered by the whole affair. He also appears to have lost some of the ridiculous amount of weight he put on post-Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, which is good to see.


Shit, actually, he doesn't look that much fatter than I am - I need to rethink my life...


Eva Mendez also turns up as Cage’s prostitute girlfriend, and gives a fairly convincing performance. Not to give too much away on my final rating of the film, but it’s funny that Mendez has appeared as the girlfriend/wife of a cop in both what are probably my favourite and least favourite films of 2010. It’s also quite funny that she always seems to be the girlfriend of the ultra-criminal drug dealing cop, regardless of whether it’s Nicolas Cage or Denzel Washington.


She got dat FINE ASS!


The biggest surprise in the casting, however, has to be XZibit, who turns up as one of the bad guys of the piece, who Cage starts to work for once his case against him falls apart, and he gets heavily into debt. I think the last time I saw XZibit in a film was when I watched Derailed years ago. No, scratch that, he was in triple X 2: The Next Level as well. However, both of those films intentionally cast rappers simply because they were rappers (Derailed also starred RZA from the Wu Tang Clan, and XXX 2 also starred DMX or Method man or someone who once did a song with Limp Bizkit). In The Bad Lieutenant, however, X seems to have been given the chance to show off his actual acting cred, and he’s pretty damn good. Though, not good enough that people are likely to start remembering him for his acting rather than his meme potential:




Stiffler’s mum from American Pie is in it, too, but that’s a story for another day.



Sorry.


Aside from the actual content of the film, however, one of the things which is most outstanding is the locations depicted. We go from the richer, fully intact and repaired areas of New Orleans, where there are high-rise hotels and casinos, down to the projects, and see the level of devastation present. Whether the neighbourhoods shown in the film were deliberately messed up to make them look more like they did right after Katrina hit or not is something I’d be interested in knowing, having seen the Top Gear special where they go to New Orleans a couple of years after the disaster to see that nothing’s changed in the projects, and everywhere is still in ruin. Herzog uses all the locations he can find to great effect, and executes his scenes masterfully.

Other than that, there’s really not all that much to tell. The soundtrack is eclectic, reflecting the state of Terence’s sanity at varying points, and the lighting is all very well done and not too in-your-face, and that’s about it. This movie is fantastically dark whilst still laugh-out-loud hilarious, and is shot and acted in beautifully. This is undoubtedly one of my favourite movies of 2010, right up with Inception, Toy Story 3, and The Book of Eli (and, of course, The Expendables). Maybe 2010 wasn’t the best year for cinema, and the Oscars were a joke – but we have had a couple of great movies, right?


Just before I wrap this up, I just wanted to talk about the title. The DVD case says “Bad Lieutenant” (Without “The”) on it, but when I was watching the actual film, the title was given as “The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans” – is this just because the British title was changed from the American one but they couldn’t be bothered to re-edit the title sequence, or is this really a movie with 2 names? I still find it weird when I go to watch Rambo and realize it’s actually called ‘First Blood’, so I was freaked out a little by this. But not to worry, I’ll post this as a review of “The Bad Lieutenant”, and leave the rest up to God. Or Allah, or whoever…



I guess now I just need to watch the original Harvey Keitel film, right?





Rating:


*****

5 stars


Sorry to give you such a short review, but I really don’t want to spoil anything for you – this is a great movie, and a must see. Hell, even if you’re not a Cage fan, there’s still a good chance you’ll like it, it’s that well done. I would say this is probably my favourite movie of 2010, beating Inception simply because Inception invited you to think about it through its complex plot, and thus felt like it was intentionally trying to make us look at the plot holes that were present in the story. The Bad Lieutenant, however, is clever, but not in such a way that forces you to over-analyse it, and is incredibly good fun to just sit back and watch. I highly recommend this film – it’s undoubtedly Cage’s best work. Now I suppose I should go check out Rescue Dawn and see if Herzog is consistently great.




Voice



P.S. Since it’s been exactly 25 years since Phil Lynott died, I leave you with this YouTube link as a tribute to the man.



If only there was more music like Thin Lizzy around these days, huh?

The Book of Eli Review (Text)

The book of Eli is a post-apocalyptic action film starring Denzel Washington as the eponymous Eli, a man who is on a mission to travel west across the vast wastelands of what was once America, in order to deliver his book to whoever is worthy.

The movie opens with Eli out hunting in a polluted forest, where ash is falling from the sky and blanketing everything in sight. We see Eli crouching in the cover of bushes, breathing through a gas mask, as he lines up a shot with a bow, and kills a hairless cat. This image tells us everything we need to know about the new world, and sets up the rest of the movie for us nicely. Although it is never made clear exactly what wiped out most of the human population, and laid cities to waste, it is a fairly safe bet that the destruction is the result of nuclear fallout (Eli suggests at one point in the film that during the war, “they” blew a hole in the sky, and the sun burnt everything left unprotected by this). I was slightly worried at one stage during this first scene, because in the shot where Denzel actually fires the arrow at the cat, we see the arrow launch, then time slows down almost to a stop (bullet time) as the arrow flies past the camera, before speeding right up again to actually hit the cat. The reason this concerned me was that it is such an overused effect, and whilst it may make visually impressive shots, often ruins the pace of fight scenes. My concern at this stage was that The Book of Eli could turn into another 300, or Watchmen (in which, let’s face it, the only scene outside of the flashbacks to the days of The Minutemen and the Vietnam war which really needed to change speeds was the one where the delivery guy tries to assassinate Veidt), but thankfully this did not happen, and the playback speed was left well alone for the most part, and not used gratuitously after that point.

Visually, The Book of Eli is a stunning film. As you may expect from a post-apocalypse movie, the colours are all very neutral, with a lot of faded greens and browns, but not many reds and other such colours. This works perfectly, as the film takes place mostly in the desert, and when combined with the CGI skyline, gives quite a surreal effect, which looks just gorgeous. The fact that the movie is borderline sepia also complements the old-west town style setting that a large portion of the film takes place in, as it feels almost as though you are watching a western at times.


Except, you know, with Black people...


Storywise, the film is very much like a western in many ways as well. A large part of the story focuses around the events that occur when Eli reaches a town on his way west, and decides to stop off to get his iPod charged up (I am not actually joking about this, either, as retarded as it sounds), and collect water for his journey. Whilst there, Eli gets into a bar fight with a posse of thugs, and learns that the town is controlled by a rich overlord (Gary Oldman), who enforces his will with an Iron Fist, and treats women like slaves. Essentially, this could be a remake of any John Wayne film ever made, except the epic fight scenes that occur make it more likely to be an updated Clint Eastwood movie.

The first one of these occurs when Eli comes across a woman in the desert screaming for help, but realizes that this is a honey-trap (I guess he spent some time in Glasgow before the apocalypse?), and fights off his would-be-muggers with a giant machete. This fight scene is incredibly badass, as we watch it unfold from inside a tunnel, with the characters all silhouetted against the outside light flowing in, as Denzel hack his way through 5 or 6 thugs, including one who is wearing a mask and wielding a gigantic chainsaw… Sound familiar?


I STILL have nightmares about this fucker...

And the fight scenes only get better from there. We have a very Fistful of Dollars-esque shootout in the middle of the town, in which Eli manages to take on most of Gary Oldman’s men singlehandedly, shooting them with more ease than Jean Reno shot them in Leon, and eventually get to a shootout nearing the climax of the film in which an entire building is literally torn apart by machinegun fire. The sound effects throughout these scenes are incredible, with shifts in ambient sounds changing greatly depending on the noise of the guns, dampening some to reflect the effect the gunshots and explosions would have on your ears if such a situation were to occur in real life, and this isn’t the only element of the film in which sound is significant. In a number of places, one specific sound may be picked up on more than others, highlighted because it serves a distinct purpose – perhaps a bird flying overhead, or a far-off engine, or even a tea cup rattling on a saucer – these things are intentionally made clearer against the background noise because they have some significance, and this effect is fantastic, especially when considered in conjunction with the twist (which we shall discuss later. Obviously if you’re a regular to the site, you know I love to ruin movies, so please continue as planned. If you were unaware of this fact, then you should probably stop reading when I start to mention things nearing the end of the film).

Whilst the actual scenes set within Oldman’s town could easily be taken from a John Wayne film, there is a scene beforehand which most definitely could not be. We see Eli making his way along the road, and coming across a couple who are being harassed by a group of bikers. The bikers shoot one of them, and then go to rape the woman who is still alive, and Eli just remains in his spotting position, saying “stick to the task, stick to the task”. Whilst it is clear that he wants to help, the fact that he does not is strongly reminiscent of the scene from “Escape from New York” in which Kurt Russell walks past a couple of “freaks” raping a girl, and just gives them a distasteful look before walking on without helping. Of course, at the time, this caused a great deal of controversy, because a hero who walks on when a woman is being raped is most certainly not a hero, but this really worked for the character of Snake Plissken, and in some ways made him even more badass; he just didn’t care about anyone.




Whilst Eli evidently does wish to help the girl, given he has to talk himself out of acting, it does strongly resemble this scene, and establishes that Eli is not a flawless hero, but a man who can get scared, and who is not willing to risk his own life, and the completion of his task, to save another.

The task Eli has been set is, of course, to deliver “The book” referred to in the title, to the remnants of society still left out west. Whilst I started off suspecting that the book was going to be the Qu’ran, as it would obviously need to have some religious significance, it became clear pretty soon that it was, in fact, the Bible. I have no idea why I thought it would be the Qu'ran originally. Maybe because I'm a racist and think all black people must be Muslims? Or it was going to be making a point about how one man's God is not always anothers, so Oldman would be after the Bible when Eli had the Qu'ran, or something? I don't know. But it is, in fact the Bible, and as Muslim as Malcolm X was, Denzel is not one here.


A lot of the story, therefore, is about faith, and about the extent to which God is real, and protects us. Whilst it is made clear throughout that religion was blamed by many as the cause of the nuclear holocaust, Eli himself still clearly believes in religion, and believes that God is protecting him on his mission. We see an example of this when Oldman’s thugs (led by Ray Stevenson with a bitchin’ shaved head and sunglasses – a look I am now considering going for. Though it may not look so cool outside of a desert environment...) try to shoot Eli, and the bullets apparently are unable to either hit or injure him, making it appear as though God truly is on his side. Of course, Gary Oldman does not believe this, and insists that Eli is just a man (he actually says that exact line. I couldn’t help but think of the Frenchman in The Matrix Reloaded when he did. Though, this film is superior to that one), and tries to hunt him down to take the Bible, so he can enslave the hearts and minds of the weaker individuals still populating the Earth.

This is one of the more interesting political points of the film. Whilst there is a strong spiritual overtone to the movie, with Eli set out as the chosen one, whom bullets cannot touch, Oldman also makes the point that religion can be used as a weapon. It is the perfect was to pacify those who would fight you, whilst at the same time make those on your own side fight far harder, as one who believes they will go to heaven after they die will not be so worried about dying. This same point was made fairly effectively in Starship Troopers 2: Marauder (That’s right, I said it – Hero of the Federation is NOT a Starship Troopers film, it is a crappy low-budget horror film which doesn’t star a single member of the original cast and brought shame upon the original movie. Marauder is the only Starship Troopers sequel, and even that doesn’t hold a candle to the original), in which the humans, who have previously outlawed religion, bring it back after discovering that the brain bugs are using the idea of religion to enslave the minds of the arachnoids to make them fight, and use it as propaganda to encourage people to fight, saying “God is on our side”. Whilst this plays cleverly on the old tradition that everyone felt God was on their side (“Gott mit uns”, anyone?) and that they were the righteous ones, it also makes the valid point that the easiest way to enslave the minds of individuals and make them do the state’s bidding is through religion (Religion, after all, is the opiate of the masses. Just as quoting Karl Marx is the opiate of college-age douchebags, such as myself). Of course, this went somewhat against the analogy made in the original Starship Troopers, in which the bugs seemed to represent the Russian communists almost perfectly (a technologically inferior race that is impossibly difficult to beat owing to its weight of numbers and iron will, who destroy all the farms and humans within the “quarantine zone” whilst retreating?), but works perfectly in The Book of Eli, owing to there being no comparisons with the communists at any point.


Although, maybe I missed something? There's clearly some connection...


The only other real political point made during the course of the movie is one made by Eli when telling Mila Kunis’s character what the world was like before the war, where he simply tells her that it was a world based on greed, and not caring, in which people would throw away things that they would kill for in the post-apocalyptic world. In other words, he tells us to be thankful for what we have, and not be such greedy bastards, which I suppose is a fairly sensible moral, although I would like an X Box 360 and an HD TV. This point returns at the end of the movie when Oldman has retrieved the Bible from Eli, but in the process has lost almost all of his men, and sustained an injury himself, meaning he no longer has the power to control the town, and so through his greed to obtain the weapon to control the people, he has lost what little control he had before. And that’s the real moral of the story.

But off the story for a little while, just to say: Everything is directed and edited very competently, and as I said before, is shot beautifully. The cast is terrific, with one hell of a set of supporting actors, including Michael Gambon and, as already mentioned, Ray “The Motherfucking Punisher” Stevenson, who I was pleased to see in this, as it no longer means the last film I watched him in was the God-awful “The Other Guys”. The effects are also brilliant, with all the gore scenes looking fairly realistic, or incredibly cool when intentionally stylized, and the explosions being big yet believable (a fine line, trust me). The make up used to give most of the cast scars and burns from the war is also really convincing, and completely changes Gary Oldman’s appearance (which makes him quite hard to recognize in conjunction with his putting on an American accent).



Gary Oldman without make-up, using his ordinary accent.


But, onto the ending of the film (so stop reading if you don’t want spoilers and haven’t done so already). Near the end, we see Oldman shoot Eli, and take the Bible from him, which he takes back to his town. Mila Kunis saves the wounded Eli, and drives him to San Fransisco, where there last remaining element of contemporary society remains intact. When he gets there, Eli tells the survivors that he has a copy of the King James Bible, and when asked to produce it, tells them to bring paper. He then recites the whole bible to a scribe, who writes everything down as Eli dictates it. Whilst I expected this to happen, I was not prepared for the other revelation. We see Gary Oldman open Eli’s book, only to discover that it is written in Braile. That’s right, the motherfucker who managed to shoot about 20 guys without missing a single shot was BLIND!

Now, it is of course debatable whether or not Eli was blind throughout the entire film, or whether he was a blind man before the war, but was granted sight for his task, and then had it taken away afterwards. Personally, I think Eli was supposed to be blind all along, as there are clues to his condition (for example, when he tells Michael Gambon he must have missed the sign saying “No Trespassers”, and his heightened senses of smell and hearing), and thus is one of the ultimate badasses of recent cinema history! Seriously, if the dude could do all that shit whilst blind, imagine what he could have done if he could see – he probably could have reversed the nuclear fallout and brought all the dead back to life, or something. I therefore vote that all “Chuck Norris Facts” be changed to “Eli Facts”, because Eli is now officially the biggest badass on Earth. Whilst we’re at it, as well, who came up with the one “when Chuck Norris does a push-up, he pushes the world down?” – Everyone does that, it’s one of the basic rules of forces: there will always be an equal and opposite reaction to any force. So if I use the Earth to push myself up, I must also be pushing the Earth down at the same time.




Overall, then, I felt that The Book of Eli was a very well made movie, which told a very exciting story, and is definitely worth a watch. The cinematography is incredible, and the film is very enjoyable. I’m sure not everyone will enjoy it, but I for one really liked it. Great stuff.




Rating:


****


4 stars



This is one of the better films I’ve seen this year, and I loved its religious-epic-turned-western style of storytelling. It’s not groundbreaking in any way, but it’s a good bit of fun, and a reasonably intelligent script. To be honest, I thought it might have been adapted from a graphic novel, though looking online, it doesn’t seem to have been. It has that kind of feel to it though, which I really liked. I thoroughly recommend this movie. The sequel doesn’t look bad, either:







Voice





I hope Gary Oldman's happy he's got his fucking picture now.

A Serious Man - Review (Text)

Earlier this evening, I watched A Serious Man, the latest movie from the Coen Brothers (unless you count True Grit, but that hasn’t actually been released yet) for the first time. I’ve been a big fan of the Coen Brothers for quite some time now, and own a number of their movies (for trivia purposes: The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Barton Fink, Intolerable Cruelty, The Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, No Country for Old Men, The Man Who Wasn’t There, Miller’s Crossing and Blood Simple – though I have seen all their other films except The Ladykillers and Raising Arizona), so naturally was looking forward to seeing this movie.

A serious Man centres around the life of a Jewish Mathematics professor, Lawrence Gopnik, and the events that happen in his life over a 2-week period in the run up to his son’s Bar Mitzvah. It is set at some point in the relatively-recent past, but does not specify a specific year. In fact, it feels as though it could be set at almost any time in the last half-century, and this is a really cool effect. Of course, since it features a song by Jefferson Airplane at multiple points, it is probably set in the 70s, but the feeling of ambiguity is nice regardless.

In a lot of ways, the film is strongly reminiscent of ‘The Man Who Wasn’t There’, the Coen Brothers’ 2001 movie in which Billy Bob Thorton plays a depressed man who finds out his wife is cheating on him for his boss, and decides to blackmail him as revenge. A Serious Man similarly features a lead who is incapable of understanding other people, forever left dazed and confused by their actions, having increasingly worse things happen to him, yet seemingly not being able to process the events and find the right emotions for them, and finally falling into neo-insanity as a result. The movie often plays on the deadpan style humour of a man just not knowing how to react to different situations, and accidentally making things increasingly worse by simply not reacting at all, and this creates some hilarious scenarios.

The different elements of the movie all come together very well, and the story progresses brilliantly, with small incidents often culminating in larger events later in the film. These events include Gopnik’s wife Judy revealing she intends to divorce him and marry another man, Sy Ableman, who dies soon after in a car crash, and whose funeral Lawrence is asked to pay for – “His own estate is in probate, but why does it have to be me? Or is it wrong to complain? Judy says it is.” – and being blackmailed by a South Korean student who failed an exam but still wants the pass grade, whose father later threatens to sue Gopnik over the incident:


Father: This is Defamation!
Lawrence: I could pretend the money never appeared? That's not defaming anyone…
Father: Yes. And a passing grade.
Lawrence: A Passing grade?
Father: Yes.
Lawrence: Or... you'll sue me?
Father: For taking money.
Lawrence: So he did leave the money?
Father: This is defamation!
Lawrence: It doesn't make sense. Either he left the money or he didn't.
Father: Please. Accept the mystery.

As always, the Coens’ dialogue is some of the sharpest and funniest you are likely to hear, and there are a number of incidents in the movie where the performances and dialogue are absolutely fantastic. The movie is one of the bleakest, darkest comedies to come out in a while (probably since ‘The Man Who Wasn’t There’), but still delivers good laughs at regular intervals throughout. The whole piece seems so well put together, as well, and it is nice to see the Coens back on top form with their writing, having slipped a bit with ‘Burn After Reading’, and adapted ‘No Country’ pretty well word-for-word from the book (creating probably the most accurate film presentation of a book since Orson Welles' adaptation of Kafka's "The Trial").

The movie also moves deeper, taking a look at faith itself, and exploring religious imagery, and Jewish culture in an often entertaining and hilarious manner. Lawrence’s experiences talking with numerous Rabbis about his problem, and his conversations with his lawyer are both comedic and revealing, and give the film a deeper, spiritual base, which is important for the ending. Essentially, though, the main theme of this side of the film is that God works in mysterious ways, and even if you do all you can to find meaning in things, some questions will never be answered. This is highlighted excellently with a scene in which one of the Rabbis tells Lawrence the story of a man who came to him looking for meaning in the events that were happening to him, but never reveals what the man found at the end of the tale.

The are a large number of other references to religion and Jewish culture within the film that don’t deal with this theme as well, and undoubtedly there are countless things hidden within the story that I missed. For example, there is a scene in which Lawrence is fixing the aerial on his family’s TV, and has to get up on the roof to do this. Whilst he is up there, we see him fiddling with the aerial, trying to make it work, and the hidden reference contained here is, of course, that he is literally “fiddling on the roof”. I suspect that there are numerous other incidences of things like this occurring within the movie, but a lot of them are probably only obvious to those with a Jewish background. Still, even acknowledging the fact that I probably missed 90% of the references, I still really enjoyed this movie, and watching the story unfold.

The film is shot incredibly well, as always, although this time round the Coens seem to be playing with the camera a little more than usual, tilting the camera to indicate that we have switched from a story to real life or vice versa, or to signal a change in location. There is also even more soft-focus photography employed in this film than in their other films, with some shots blurring all but the character’s face. Of course, the Coens have been doing this since Miller’s Crossing, and are known to be avid fans of long-lenses, but it is just interesting seeing it being exaggerated further than usual in this film. The blurring between reality and fiction in the movie is also great, with a couple of scenes included that could either be reality or fiction, especially when viewed in conjunction with scenes which we know are imagined or “made-up” by the characters. This blurring of reality becomes significant when we view the end of the movie.

But this is where things got strange: the ending of the film. It is so abrupt. We go through the entire film building this story, and as Lawrences family and money problems seem to have resolved themselves, he gets a call from his doctor (who we see him with at the start of the film) telling him he needs to come in to discuss his X-Ray results (“can’t we do it over the phone?” “I think you’d be more comfortable hearing it in person”). We know that this is obviously bad news, and as this scene concludes, we cut to Lawrences son, at school, standing outside and watching a tornado about to hit. The song “Somebody to Love” by Jefferson Airplane kicks in, as it does at 2 points earlier on in the film, and then the screen goes black, and cuts to the credits. It is by far the most abrupt ending to a film I have ever scene, and tops even “The Italian Job” for the bizarre cliff-hanger ending award.

Now, I can understand why the film ends like this; it is supposed to represent exactly what the Rabbi was talking about when he told Lawrence the story earlier in the film that did not have an answer at the end: We all search for meaning, but we are not always given answers. However, it just seemed like such a rip-off; we had waited for some kind of pay-off, and then the movie just ended. That’s it, movie’s done. Of course, this was the point they were trying to make about life, but it just felt disappointing. The ending was so abrupt it was almost as though the last reel had been lost, or the Coens had run out of ideas whilst scripting and thought “doesn’t matter, we’ll think of a way to end the script once we’ve filmed it”, and then couldn’t.

Unfortunately, the Coens seem to have gotten into a habit now of ending their films abruptly, and without wrapping everything up. ‘No Country for Old Men’ skipped some of the last chapter from the book, missing out what ultimately happens to Chigurh, and the kid who takes his gun from the wrecked car, and ‘Burn After Reading’ just cut from mid-story to the ending scene, explaining everything in a voice over but not tying things up properly, and now this. Whilst No Country didn’t really need those extra scenes, and the abrupt ending to ‘A Serious Man’ does make a very valid point about life, and meaning, it is still frustrating, and honestly did feel lazy. An abrupt ending can be good, but we need our pay-off first. Think about The Long Good Friday; the ending is an abrupt cliff-hanger/twist ending, but since the main part of the story was all wrapped up by the time we reached the ending scene, it fit perfectly. A Serious Man does not end this well, leaving a lot more to be desired, and thus was a very disappointing movie, despite how enjoyable it was for the most part.




Rating:


***


3 Stars



A very well written often-times hilarious black comedy which I would definitely recommend to anyone who is a fan of the Coens (especially ‘The Man Who Wasn’t There’), but otherwise would suggest you don’t watch. This film is incredibly well made, and very well written, but the ending is such a disappointment I just don’t feel I can give it 4 stars, no matter what point it may be making with this ending.




Voice

Happy Post-Festivus, People! (A Christmassy Message About Being Pathetic)

Hey guys, it’s your friendly neighbourhood Voice from the Pillow, back once more after our brief holiday. Hope everyone had a great Christmas/Hanukkah, and I hope our Ba’hai friends have a great New Years when it does come round. Same goes for my Chinese homies – Mad props, boys. Keep the faith!






I’ve managed to accumulate a couple of presents this year which should hopefully be review worthy, so you can be expecting to see a few more reviews fairly soon (although I do have an essay for my Masters course due in on January 10th, so forgive me if the posting is a little light for the next couple of weeks). My younger brother bought me The Bad Lieutenant, which I’ve been trying to see since about May, so hopefully I’ll get a review of that posted once I’ve watched it; and also got me a copy of the remake of Inglorious Bastards, having bought me the original for Christmas last year, so you may see a review of that soon too. I also got the Frank Miller run on Batman (The Dark Knight Returns) from my older brother, and so I may post a review of that too, given the last comic review I did was on Halloween last year (unless you count that rant about Preacher). So, that’s January’s reviews pretty well laid out for you, but be sure to check in occasionally even if you aren’t interested in reading any of those, because I’ll almost certainly be posting musings, stories and politics articles as well, as I am wont to do, as well as possibly hitting the cinema or catching something on TV, as has happened on occasion with my reviews.



Today, however, I am still recovering from the standard Christmas excitement, so shall not be posting anything as complex as a review, but shall simply stick to a basic sociological/psychological discussion of something that’s been really confusing me.



Recently, I have seen a few posts like this on Facebook:





… and it makes me fear for the future of the human race. I mean, are people just not fucking any more?


Good Question...


Seriously, what’s the deal with posts like this? I remember once a couple of years ago some girl I had once worked with sent me a text asking what I thought of her, and giving options saying “I like you as a friend”, “I’d date you in a second”, “I’d marry you”, and other similarly ridiculous things, and my response was basically “why are you asking me this shit? If you want to get with me just come out and say it, because I can’t think of any other reason you would send a message like that”, and that’s exactly what I think when I see posts like this. Anyone posting this sort of status isn’t just doing it for the fun of it; I’m a fun loving motherfucker, and you don’t see me posting such questions on my Facebook page – the only reason anyone posts a status like that is because they’re “secretly” hoping that someone they want to get with is going to “like” it.



SINCE WHEN DID WE ALL BECOME THIS FUCKING PATHETIC?


This is apparently a legitimate fantasy in some people's lives. Some really sad people...


I mean, honestly, if there’s someone you’re into, why not just ask them out? Why not just give them a call, or a private message or something saying “hey, do you want to get together some time?”. How fucking difficult is that? Instead, we’re treated to a world where people are too scared to make a move on prospective mates, and so post statuses such as this, in the hopes that the other person will make the first move after reading it, and this will take the pressure off of them to do so. Only, that doesn’t happen, because what happens is the other person will be thinking “maybe this isn’t just directed at me? I’ll ‘like’ it, but if he wants to get with me, he’ll have to make the first move” (for simplicity’s sake, I’m assuming a man is posting the status, and is into a woman, though as I showed with my example earlier, it is just as likely to be the other way around), and thus leaves the original poster in the same position he was before. “Well, she ‘liked’ the status saying she would kiss me, but maybe that’s just because she wants to be friends and thinks it’s a bit of fun? After all, Gary ‘liked’ it, and I’m fairly sure he isn’t a homosexual. I really don’t want to private message her in case she was just having fun. I guess I’ll have to leave it.” STOP BEING SO FUCKING PATHETIC AND ASK HER OUT RIGHT NOW, MOTHERFUCKER! YOU, READING THIS, PICK UP THAT PHONE RIGHT NOW, AND FUCKING CALL HER UP, AND ASK HER OUT ON A DATE! ENOUGH OF THIS PUSSY-FOOTED FACEBOOK SHIT! MAN THE FUCK UP! Seriously, I don’t want to see any more of these messages on my news feed. Any guy who posts one is officially having their man-card revoked. After all, what’s so scary about asking a girl out? “Oh no, she might say ‘no’!” – What the fuck do you think will happen if you aren’t man enough to even ask her on a date? Do you really think she’ll suddenly decide to ask you out instead, or will she assume you’re not interested and get with the next half-decent guy to ask her on a date instead? I don’t study statistics, but I know which option I’d bet on…


This is possibly the only instance in which I disagree with the infinite knowledge of comedy T-Shirt manufacturers...


Sorry to tell it like it is, guys, but come on – I would love to have a girl in my life I was interested in, and wouldn’t waste the opportunity douching-it-up on Facebook. No offense…



I understand that's like saying "No offense, but you're a cunt", but work with me here, I am genuinely trying to give good advice, just not in a very pleasant manner...




That’s my opinion. Now, for a little extra trivia, if you’re wondering about the girl who sent me the aforementioned text: I ended up going on a date with her after, and kinda hitting it off (she was fairly cute, but not exactly a knockout). I agreed I’d come to her party a couple of weeks later, but then blew her off at the last second to do coursework and hang out with my Chinese buddies up in Pompey, and as revenge for this she got with some other dude at the party. She then decided not to mention this, and tried to hook up with me again, but I saw a message he’d left on her Facebook wall and was like “the fuck, bitch? You can’t make out with another dude and expect me to still be interested. We’ve only had one date.” – strange times.

Still, hopefully the people posting these messages will have more luck in the love department than I do (though I highly doubt it, given if you’re not confident enough to ask someone on a date, you’re gonna struggle even more working up the confidence to actually fuck them…). Though, presumably they’ll be more interested in the individual they’re after than I was in that instance. Girls, you know you’re not important to a guy when he blows off coming to your Birthday party to do coursework, so if that happens, get with some other dude; it’s the only way to ensure he’ll still be talking about you in a year’s time ;)



On second thoughts, he's probably even more likely to still be talking about you in a year's time if you get with another girl instead. Just a suggestion...




And now that I’ve severely depressed some of you, in an effort to prevent another holiday-period suicide, here is U2, with a special message for you, Mr. Suicidal:





Have a great bank-holiday Monday and Tuesday, everyone!




Voice




Sorry to anyone linked to this page by searching for "girls kissing" on Google images. I apologise unreservedly for the inconvenience. Here's a link to some porn: enjoy.






UPDATE (01/01/11):



UPDATE 2 (05/01/11): Guess I'm not the only one...

http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/01/05/funny-facebook-fails-21/#comments