An Ironic post to start blogging again with, I feel, as I have definitely not been on-the-line and posting for quite a while. Update on life, I'm becoming an accountant (fascinating). Update on film life, the last film I saw at the cinema was Bill Condon's "The fifth estate" (2013), which I will talk about at a later date I promise! In any case, I am still a poor blogger, and obviously not another year wiser after my birthday in July. So now that I'm back on-the-line here are a stream of posts of films I've been watching since I last posted. Sitting comfortably?
Director: Shawn Levy Writer: Vince Vaughn and Jared Stern Starring: Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Josh Brener, Rose Byrne, John Goodman, Will Ferrell.
The story in a nutshell:
Nick: You got us a job at Google?
Billy:Well, not a job job. It’s an interview for an internship that could lead to a job. Nick, this might be the last chance that we've got.
The use of Alanis Morisettes classic song, 'Ironic' at the
beginning of this film is perfect, as there is no better word to describe it other
than ironic. The film does wonders to promote Google and all its services
without directly promoting Google. The film reiterates the idea that the old
style of selling is no longer needed in this 21st century world but
yet in the real world (outside film world), the only jobs that were available
to me as a newbie graduate were in direct sales, (aka the old style) of marketing
(door to door, cold calling etc). To add irony-to-irony the old fashioned way
of selling is what helps the team win their final Internship challenge and gain
jobs at Google. The narrative revolves around two ‘old school’ salesmen, Billy
McMahon (Vince Vaughn) and Nick Campbell (Owen Wilson) who lose their long time
sales jobs as the company goes bust due to the fact that, as their boss says,
‘no one wears watches anymore’ (again ironic as Samsung have brought out the
Galaxy Smartwatch and there are many designs for Apples Iwatch.)
Billy gets dumped by his long-term girlfriend and decides it’s
time to go online to look for jobs. Inspired by the Google homepage, by the
next cinematic shot he already has an interview for an internship, but not just
for him, he also has an interview for Nick. One would think that getting an interview
for an internship these days is tough enough, but Hollywood seems to make
allowances, and is heavily implying that getting a summer internship for you
and your best mate, at Google nonetheless, just happens by staring at the Google
homepage. From now on I will forget about writing cover letters and updating my
CV, I’ll just stare at the prospective company’s website.
So, I’ve been a bit cynical about the film so far but there are
a couple of good points. It is easily watchable at only 113 minutes, it shows
you beautiful parts of San Francisco, it has some great comedy lines, it
teaches people the importance of teamwork, the importance of technology in
todays society of connecting people with vital information, and most
importantly it inspires even the so called ‘dinosaurs’ of society (the older
generation) that it is never to late to change your job prospects. Although lessons are learnt and relationships are well
constructed, the narrative, acting and cinematography are average; it was difficult
for me to find the mission (or message) of the film. Was it to promote Google?
Smash the dreams of any graduate as they realize the prospect of working at Google
is not as easy as the film makes it out to be? Was it a major step in Owen
Wilsons and Vince Vaughs acting careers? Definitely not to the last question. I
liked it, but won’t be buying the DVD and re-watching it any time soon. Verdict: Meh.
WARNING: This film is in french with subtitles. Just in case it's not your sort of thing.
Director: Regis Roinsard
Writer: Regis Roinsard, Daniel Presley, Romain Compingt
Starring: Romain Duris, Deborah Francois, Berenice Bejo, Shaun Benson
"America for business, France for love."
-Populaire (2013)
Well, that's not strictly true since the french film industry seems to be booming worldwide recently (whilst still maintaining the romance) due to the release of extremely popular films such as "The Artist" (2012), a major Oscar winner and "The Intouchables" (2012), which was a hugely popular Oscar contender but narrowly missed out. Their newest releases is being described as a mix between "Mad men" and "The Artist". With this in mind, I was already set up to enjoy this film (slightly biased I know). Sure enough when the opening credits of Regis Roinsards' "Populaire" started rolling with a 1950s/60s style I was already in love.
"Populaire" is the heartwarming story of Rose Pamphyle (Deborah Francois). A small town girl who having just graduated from secretarial school, is trying to find work outside her small family convenience store. She finds a job working as a personal secretary to, the supposedly smoldering leading man (although I think he looks quite creepy the majority of the time) Louis Echard (Roman Duris) who is impressed with her fast typewriting typing skills. Louis goes on to enter Rose into the annual typewriting championships and becomes her mentor as well as the object of her romantic affections. Basically, this film is your standard rom-com but with a vintage twist.
The typewriter will forever be defined as a symbol for all working novelists. There is something about the pressing of the hard keys and the swift jolt of the platen to begin a new line that modern keyboards today just don't have. Typewriters are classic, sure they're a bit messy, but definitely a step up from a Shakespearean quill. In addition the typewriter can also be the stepping stone for women into the working mans world- as, apparently, the keys where to small for a mans fingers to type with, so more and more women were employed in offices; although those offices probably resembled the set up of 'Mad men' where all the women sat in rows in the middle of a room and the men were in offices behind closed doors, the increase of more women in the office was a significant move to creating modern offices of today. In modern times, having the sole ambition of becoming the fastest typist in the world may be seen as silly, but in the 50s/60s, when the number of women in the office rose to over a million, and as demonstrated in the character or Rose Pamphyle this was an immense shift in womens' power in showing what they can do.
This film is one drop in a huge ocean becoming known, in my opinion anyway, as the New Vintage. It replicates the exact style of the 50s and early 60s rom-coms films with actors like Doris Day and Rock Hudson. "Populaire's" set up and cinematography makes you forget it was made in 2013, and the sex scene seems quite out of place. This era of such grand commercial change is fascinating for modern times and still holds a massive influence on people today. From the colors, the set design, the 'costumes' (as it were), down to the way people supposedly' used to act- the New Vintage is gathering a huge following. Think about the success of "The Artist" (2012) a black and white, silent film which grossed c. $133,432,856 worldwide. So, in conclusion, going back to Roinsard's film, I expect it to be a success.
Screenplay: David O. Russell, Matthew Quick (novel)
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawerence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker and Julia Stiles.
I don’t really know just where to begin on explaining this film. In all sincerity- from someone who generally hates romance films- I absolutely loved it. Originally I thought is was about two people with mental health problems who fall in love inside a mental home in some indie ‘quirky cute’ fashion, in a sort of annoying Zooey Deschanel kind of way- so it took me a while to sit down and watch it. Another reason I thought I would not enjoy this film was because of Bradley Cooper, I’m not his biggest fan, as you can probably detect from my rather negative rant on his film “Limitless” (2010). In actuality, it is about two people who have psychiatric issues but the meet and develop a relationship in the outside world and certainly not in an
annoying 'quirky' fashion. It is a black comedy, mixed with a type of coming of age film as the characters leave their negative pasts behind and look for a brighter, happier future. Excelsior!
This film just proves the point that to be a critic on film I need to keep an open mind to various other films rather than dismissing them straight away- message loudly received, thanks. Bradley Cooper was actually great in this film. His subtle style of acting worked well for a character who spends the duration of the film in a rather subdued state, trying hard to suppress any past feelings of anger and aggression having been released from a psychiatric unit at the start of the film. The real star however, or starlet, of the film is Jennifer Lawrence. Maybe you were expecting me to add something new compared to all the other reviews out there who praise her but um nope, nothing negative to say. I’ve not read the Hunger Games books and went to watch the film to see what all the fuss was about- I did enjoy it, but didn’t really think Lawrence was anything spectacular. So really, her Oscar win should read ‘Best emerging Actress’ rather than just ‘Best Actress’ as I don’t think anyone was expecting her talent to stretch thus far. Talk about Excelsior.
The story is loosely based on the authors, Matthew Quick, own experiences in dealing with depression. He has a lot in common with Cooper’s character, Pat Solatano. As Lawrence’s character, Tiffany, bluntly points out, Pat has ‘poor social skills’. He interups his parents sleep by storming into their room to discuss a book he finished reading at 4am or because he can’t find his wedding video; he asks inappropiate questions about peoples private lives; he goes back to the school where he has a restraing order and asks for his job back and all because his main focus is to try and win back his ex-wife Nikki, no matter how early in the morning- he will try everything to get her back. He uses the word ‘Excelsior’ to invoke inspiration in getting his life back on track or back how it was.
It was the director, David O. Russell who decided to divulge deeper into the fragile relationship between Pat and his family. Robert De Niro plays Pat’s gambling ‘but most definitely not a bookie’ father who blames Pat if his team, the Philadelphia Eagles, lose a match. He refers to Pat as his lucky charm but yet maintains a distance in getting emotionally involed with Pats ‘crazy’ episode. The fact that Pats portrait is not hanging by his brothers on the wall but left on the shelf is a clear indication that the other brother is the ‘golden’ child. Jacki Weaver plays the doting mother who goes to fetch Pat from the unit as soon as the doctos say he is eligible to be released. She is very understanding of Pat’s condition, even if she can at times be too overbering, its clear that she loves her family and does her best to try and help. Safe to say the relationships expressed in this film are less than ordinary but at the same time can be seen as a magnified view of some peoples family life- especially those dealing with a member who has depression.
The film has helped a lot of people to recognise or aid with mental health issues and the impact it can have on someones life and people around them- even in the smallest of cases. The story brings to light the fact that not all people who have depressive tendencies are completly ‘insane’ and can lead normal lives. The film forces people to see the silver lining in all situations and that life may not always go as planned. All in all, a great film and defintely worth adding it to your ‘must-watch’ list.
Writer: Chris Terrio, Tony Mendez and Joshuah Bearman
Producer: George Clooney
Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman
So the Oscars happened, but you probably knew this already- not exactly flashing news. And now we are moving into this years summer releases- finally we can watch “The Great Gatsby”, which will be a highlight, for me anyway.The fact that the Oscars are over, however is not going to stop me continuing to write about the films that were nominated and now may or may not have won a golden statue. Lets proceed.
Had I organised my life and written this entry before the Award ceremony on the 24th of Feb 2013, I would of definitely predicted that “Argo” (2012) would win at least one Oscar. Instead it won three: Best Motion picture (Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney), Best Screenplay (Chris Terrio) and Best Achievement in Editing (William Goldenberg). Ben Affleck was not nominated for Best Director at the Academy Awards however he did win a BAFTA for his directing capabilities; so as they say win some, lose some.
Regardless of the fact that the film is now Oscar certified and it comes adorned with 57 other wins from various Award ceremonies the film should not be cast aside as pretentious. It is still, most definitely, worth a watch. The narrative itself seems ludacris: revolving around CIA agent, Tony Mendez (played by Affleck) who devices a plot in attempt to rescue 6 other American ambassadors, who are in hiding in Iran after a raid on the US embassy during the revolution of 1980. The plan is they are going to be ‘smuggled’ out of Iran by obtaining fake Canadian identities and pretending to be part of a film crew searching for locations to shoot a new up and coming Sci-fi movie. A script is chosen, there are storyboards drawn up, costume designs- the works. Mendez travels to Iran and encounters countless problems in trying to extradite the fugitives back to the US safetly. This type of plot, one would think, could only be drawn up in Hollywoodland but what makes the story even more unbelievable is that the film is actually based on real life events.
This is not just your average Hollywood action movie. In fact, there is very little action at all, but tonnes of suspense. The film starts of as a documentary of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and then, using a graphic match, the shot moves from documentary footage continuing the image of the revolution into the film shot. Overall the film can be classified as historical drama. Affleck has been criticised for his falsification of the events- new characters invented, scenes and facts added etc. But, in all honesty, what historical representation or even documentary is completely factually accurate? They all get edited in some way or another- the main objections are that they provide good entertainment to capture an audiences attention for the films duration and perhaps provide a starting point/ alternative information for the viewer who may want to research deeper into the subject in question.
Thus ‘historically’ Affleck neglected to mention the full aid provided from various goverments and give credit to the principle historical players such as Ken Taylor- the Canadian Ambassador who originally (supposedly) devised the whole plan- and completely dismissing the aid given by the British embassy to the fugitives. It can be argued, however, that due to the mise-en-abyme effect created by focusing on the making of a film within a film, Affleck’s objective was not to support any particular government at all (the American government is not represented very well yet it does play a bigger part in getting the hostages to safetly) but rather Affleck pays the highest credit to the role of Hollywood in the missions success- as any good little Hollywood boy would, when having to premier his film infront of Tinstletowns elite. Essentially the film acts as a reminder to the audience that Affleck has still got some talent since his last Oscar nominated directing project, “Gone Baby Gone” (2007).
Regardless of whatever point, historical fact, myth, story, low budget sci-fi drama the film was trying to fabricate or recreate- the point is YOU need to watch it.
...and he is not dragging around a coffin this year.
*WARNING: THIS FILM IS VIOLENT. IT IS A MEAN, CRUDE, GUT WRENCHING, TOMATO KETCHUP SPILLING, FIST FIGHTING, ALL GUNS BLAZING, WESTERN. NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED.
I knew I would like this film. I mentioned it as one of the films I was most excited to watch in 2013, and discussed the origins of the original 'Django' here. Tarantino, for me, can really do no wrong. He essentially draws his influences from forgotten, lets face it, shit films of the 70s, predominantly from Italian cinema and passes them off as new masterpieces. He is an artist, with Django being one of his best yet most controversial pieces to date.
'Django Unchained' focuses on a subject that has become almost a taboo to discuss in England, Racism, more specifically racism against blacks. If anyone comes out with the N word, the response is usually 'oh no you can't say that it's racist!' Well Tarantino does say it, he lays the word on so thick and fast throughout the film that it almost becomes acceptable to use it, and if it makes one feel uncomfortable they will just have to evacuate the cinema. The film deals with the tricky issue of the slave trade from many different angles and in ways that people (black or white) may not want to face in present day but the film should definitely not be taken as a true historical portrayal of the trade.
If the viewer is concerned about the 'racism' in the film they must remember that Westerns have never been the most PC of films anyway; think of the original Django with Mexicans being exploited and treated like bait used in a game as they ran away from a shotgun or having their ears cut off and being made to eat them. So expect Tarantino's Django to be explicit. As I previously said, Tarantino uses different ways to exploit the slave trade- one way is through the use of comedy, where the viewer is forced to laugh at a scene which really is PC at all for example the scene with the KKK trying to fix their hoods. The other is fear. No one expresses the fear quite as well as Samuel L Jackson does in his character. He hit the nail on the head when he stated in a recent interview that predominantly "slavery was perpetuated through fear and intimidation"- Tarantino certainly uses 'fear and intimidation' to ensure that none of his characters are ever safe from getting their insides splatted across a wall or eaten by a vicious dog. Before going to see it I was discussing with a friend just how violent Tarantino would go- we referred to "Inglorious Bastards" and the carving on the Nazi swastika on the scalps- but Django does not even compare. Even I, myself found one scene particularly difficult to watch, as it seemed to be a never ending fist fight with sound effects and extreme close ups, making the scene so uncomfortable. Although it might of been distressing to watch, this scene does well in illustrating the exceptional cinematography used throughout the film.
A lot of critics are focusing on the film as a Blaxploitation film. I don't believe it is. It is first and foremost a sort of Western, with side elements of comedy and romance. I describe it as a sort of Western because it does not technically adhere to the most fundamental requirement of the Western genre. The cowboy always has to be a figure who walks alone. Having lost his one true love he may find women along the duration of the film but the closing shot is usually of him riding of into the distance solo- he cannot be tied down. Tarantino's Django is a free man, free slave as they say, but he is most certainly tied down. He gets his revenge, but he is married and rides of with his wife at the end of the film- so independent lone cowboy he is not. Thus the film is more of a crossover of various genres rather than just one.
With the film being one of Trantino's best box office films to date and two Golden globes under his belt, time will only tell whether Django will receive any of those Oscar's. The film is up for:
Best picture;
Best supporting actor, Christopher Waltz;
Best cinematography, Robert Richardson;
Best sound editing, Wylie Stateman;
and Best original screenplay, Tarantino.
Weinstein has already stated that his lack of publicity for Django may have lost Tarantino a Best director nomination, but regardless of this, Django is sure to pull at least one award. Best original screenplay for one and maybe best picture/ or best cinematography since Christopher Waltz already won Best supporting actor at the Golden Globes this year. Then again even if Tarantino doesn't win any more awards one thing is for sure, Django Unchained has definitely caught some attention.
The British summer as good as it's ever going to be, the Olympics are in full swing, and I am amongst many other graduates who are thousands of pounds in debt. Life definitely has its ups and downs but right now my life seems to have stopped with nothing exciting happening at all. But there is a silver lining- or there will be over the next few months/ entering 2013- and here are the five reasons/ or rather five films that I'm hoping will lift my spirits in the future:
1) The new Tarantino movie, "Django Unchained" (2013):
I've already blogged about the legend of the Django character and it all he represents- and this combined with the quirky directing of Tarantino= exciting.
2) I discovered that Anne Hathaway can actually sing and so it is perfectly okay for her to star in Tom Hooper's adaptation of my favourite musical "Les miserables" (2012):
When I first watched this trailer I became dubious about how the musical was going to be adapted on film as the stage production is so amazing (i've seen it twice and would definitely see it again). Seeing Anne Hathaway in the part of Fantine, singing 'I dreamed a dream', came as a bit of a surprise but after some research into Anne Hathaway's singing abilities I'm confident she'll do a great job of portraying such a broken character. Also, for those worried about the other cast members singing capabilities, keep calm and click here.
3) Leo DiCaprio is not only starring in the upcoming "Django Unchained" but he's also portraying F. Scott Fritzgerald's famous Jay Gatsby character in Baz Luhrmann adaptation of the famous novel, "The Great Gatsby" (2012) alongside Carey Mulligan and Isla Fisher:
DiCaprio has indeed been a busy bee. But there is a downside to this film, mainly due to Tobey Maguire just being in the film. Apart from that blip the trailer looks promising and Luhrmann seems to have captured the roaring twenties decadence in his own style and looking nothing like the previous release of the story in 1974 with Mia Farrow and Robert Redford.
4) There is the prospect of Keira Knightley winning an Oscar this year with Joe Wright's "Anna Karenina" (2012):
Although I find Kinghtley's constant pouting in her films terribly annoying, and that added onto the fact that she has starred in a film this year with the unfunny Steve Carrell in "Seeking a friend for the end of the world" 2012 (which I haven't seen yet but it has received mixed reviews) means that my admiration for Knightley wavers. However the trailer for "Anna Karenina" (2012) intrigues me and although I haven't read Tolstoy's novel, yet I believe it is going to be an exceptional adaptation from the speculation around this film. Moreover critics have stated that this is going to be one of Knightly's less stiff performances so lets hope its done with a little less pouting.
5) Finally, the last reason I'm continue to look forward to the future of film and probably the most bizarre reason, is going to see James Franco becoming the Wizard of Oz. Seriously, he portrays the wonderful, maybe not so magical, Wizard and tells the tale about how the wizard came to reside in the emerald city in Sam Raimi's "Oz: The great and powerful" (2013):
Word of warning: the trailer may not appeal to everyone and some people will be doubting the directing ability of Sam Raimi (mainly after "Spiderman 3" (2007) and that awkward dance scene... let's not discuss it again). Moving on, "Oz: The great and Powerful"(2013) is considered to be the prequel to "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) and the film has some great cast members; with the brilliant James Franco who always does a great job in any role he is cast in; Michelle Williams; Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz. What lets the film down is its concept and that could spell disaster for Frank L. Baum's classic tale of Dorothy and her sparkly red shoes, but the broadway musical "Wicked" has been faring pretty well, so let's just hope that Franco can pull off the story of the Wizard.
So there you have it, the release of these five films in the near future are pushing me to continue to power through the post-university blues. Funnily enough, it is ironic that on a blog post where I am looking forward to the future, all the five films that i've mentioned are costume/ period dramas that are set in the past or a fantasy land. In addition 4 out of the 5 films are adaptations of a famous novels with "Django Unchained" taking inspiration from old Spaghetti westerns- thus the influence of classic literature and old film is going to be hard to miss in the upcoming film industry and so, if I haven't already mentioned, I'm bloody excited.
Director: Shawn Levy
Billy gets dumped by his long-term girlfriend and decides it’s
time to go online to look for jobs. Inspired by the Google homepage, by the
next cinematic shot he already has an interview for an internship, but not just
for him, he also has an interview for Nick. One would think that getting an interview
for an internship these days is tough enough, but Hollywood seems to make
allowances, and is heavily implying that getting a summer internship for you
and your best mate, at Google nonetheless, just happens by staring at the Google
homepage. From now on I will forget about writing cover letters and updating my
CV, I’ll just stare at the prospective company’s website.
So, I’ve been a bit cynical about the film so far but there are
a couple of good points. It is easily watchable at only 113 minutes, it shows
you beautiful parts of San Francisco, it has some great comedy lines, it
teaches people the importance of teamwork, the importance of technology in
todays society of connecting people with vital information, and most
importantly it inspires even the so called ‘dinosaurs’ of society (the older
generation) that it is never to late to change your job prospects.
