Change Your Image
armythegn
Reviews
Faintheart (2008)
Scarily accurate in many ways
OK, so the plot is on the predictable side, and doesn't really go anywhere that you wouldn't expect. Nor does this film have any profound message. In fact, it's a piece of lighthearted fluff.
But the acting is very good (particularly the debutants), and the re-enactment characters are so well drawn that I found myself squirming for large parts of the film. For I actually do swing a sword around for a hobby, and I even know one or two of the folks in the background. My hat comes off to the writers - their characterisations of some of the people one meets in the "scene" is terrifyingly accurate. Yes, these people are really out there...
SPOILER. One part of the film departs from any "reality" (reality whilst playing 'cowboys and indians with swords... hmmm). At the end of this film the antagonist (a non re-enactor) is handed a sword and encouraged to duel for the affections of the leading lady. I would just like to re-assure everyone out there that... no damn chance. No way is anyone handed a sword and allowed to fight for real. We have a little too much respect for our skins than that. It's a small quibble, but it does make the "scene" appear a touch more lunatic than it actually is (although the fact that the antagonist, holding a sword for the first time, outfights the 'trained' hero did make me smile). Of course, I do understand the sequence for dramatic purposes (although I'd have found it better if Jessica Hynes had fought for herself).
As for the comedy... well, the owl wins hands down, both whilst alive and during it's ship burial.
Zombieland (2009)
Close, so close...
This film has been rather obviously compared to Shaun Of The Dead. For some it eclipses the Wright/Pegg offering. For me it comes very close, but has one major drawback - the love story sub-plot.
The rest of this film is fantastic. Woody is superb (is his rehabilitation complete now?), and I found myself watching every move of his character. The two sisters also work well, and the nerd is, well, a nerd. The situations and development of the zombie plague are handled extremely well, and the solutions the characters evolve in their quest for survival are believable as well as very funny. And did I mention that Woody is fantastic? I'll mention it again because it deserves to be emphasised. He's great in this film.
Of course, at a couple of moments the younger characters act like dumb-asses, but this is forgivable in the context of the film - they're teenagers and teenagers don't always do the logical, intelligent thing.
Did I laugh out-loud? Absolutely, and often. Did I empathise with the characters? At almost every moment.
And so to the love-story. It was just not believable. In fact it was a typical nerd's wet-dream. Perhaps somewhere in the world the nerd occasionally gets the babe, but when it's splashed up on celluloid it just doesn't ring true. If she'd fallen for Woody I'd have believed it. As it is I found it really getting in the way of my enjoyment. However, I suppose the money men will insist on the director ticking all the boxes and reaching out to the "nerd profile" of a percentage of the audience. However, for me it was achingly predictable, in a movie that in every other way was fresh.
So, whilst I'd give Shaun a 10 I can only see an 8 here. Having written this I suppose I should declare my interest - as an Englishman I can see that perhaps Shaun is better in my eyes because it presses my cultural buttons in a way that Zombieland, excellent film that it is, can't.
Finally, whilst I have some criticisms, I would always recommend this as a film. In fact, my criticisms reflect my irritation that they came so, so close to making a perfect 10.
Bronson (2008)
Love letters should be kept between lovers...
First the positives: Tom Hardy puts in a very strong performance as the eponymous anti- hero, the cinematography is lush, one gets the very real sense that the prison officers are locked into the same futile game as Bronson himself, and the art teacher gives a real feeling of being a patronising d**k (hey, I'm 'down' with the cons, aren't I cool?). These positives are worth a 5/10.
But then the negatives. About the violence, I'm really not worried - we see worse in any amount of action-film-by-numbers produced by Hollywood every year. It doesn't shock. It doesn't outrage (this is not a criticism, by the way). However, what I feel is really missing is an indication of what turns a boy from respectable family into "Britain's Most Violent Offender (TM)". True, the narration indicates that once in prison Bronson feels in his natural element - but what put him there in the first place? Why did he decide to commit a violent crime? Basically, for me an important back-story was missing.
Secondly, I found the constant glorification of the violent side of Bronson's nature worrying. Again, not because of the violence itself, or what it says about Bronson's character, but actually about what it says about the film-makers'. They seem to be singing the "o-o-o, I wanna be like you-o-o" refrain. OK, so go and do it then if you're so clever, rather than seek second-hand gratification from the fear that this man has inflicted on many people. The film-makers seem to have produced a love-letter to their anti-hero. Almost as if what they really want is some kind of sordid affair with the man. Again, fine. But I don't really feel the need to have the film-makers' little fantasy presented to me.
Lastly, I was hoping for an insight into the art of the man. In fact, for me, this is his potentially redeeming feature, something to make him human rather than a monster. But sadly his art is almost completely absent. True, there is a major focus on Bronson's life being his art, but I couldn't help feeling that perhaps there was more to be told about his creative process and its results. But then again, works of art aren't really art anymore, are they? In many circles the only art is performance art. For me, this made the character less rounded.
To summarise, I almost liked this film. It is undoubtedly challenging, but what let it down was the film-makers' refusal to actually challenge their leading character. He faces no criticism for his brutal, bullying actions, and actually gains approval for them in a way that I feel certain would not be the case were the film-makers subjected to it themselves. And that is moral cowardice.
Outlander (2008)
Same old same old...
I came to this film without any preconceptions, hopeful for something a touch out of the ordinary, but... It was a typical quest film; a bland fill-in-the-blanks adventure. The usual characters died at the usual times, and in the usual ways. The love story panned out with tedious predictability. The monster(s) appeared in the usual tired, hackneyed places and times, and were fought in the same old ways, with the usual results. I've seen this film 50 times before, with different names but the same old story.
The actors persevered with a script which was, at best, average - poor John Hurt. From shining acting beacon of a generation, to plodding along repeating Americanized "olde worlde" language. Even the names the characters were given were from the usual thoughtless school of tragic cliché - I mean, WTF, is it so difficult to spend 10 minutes on Wikipedia checking out some real historical names?
I prayed for some humour amidst this yawn-fest, but alas, any attempts were only leaden, dismal and tired. Except for the wardrobe department, which provided its usual pathetic attempts - it's not as if the knowledge of Vikings looked like isn't out there. Why can't it be used?
The saddest thing is that there is so much talent out there, just waiting to do something more that join the dots film-making. I hope they get the opportunity. Then maybe I'll see a historical fantasy flick that is more than the writer/director's wet dream. Beowulf, it ain't....