Alien

Ridley Scott's classic Sci-Fi/Horror film, or Horror Sci-Fi film stands as one of highlights of both these genre's and the golden decade that was the 1970's. At times the inability to clearly state which of the two genre's dominates the film, is to the credit of both Scott and writers Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shussett, who seemingly chose to use the strengths of both genre's without any of the weaknesses. An example of this is that went with fully developing their characters, something common within Sci-Fi, but something rarely seen in the Horror genre.

The plot of Alien follows the crew of the Nostromo as they return in the gargantuan ship from a mining job(I believe, it is never fully stated). However they are woken up before they get to earth, after the ship, controlled by the computer known as "Mother" picks up an SOS signal. Landing on the now legendary LV426, they crew explore the remains of the ship, and inadvertently bring something back.

The performances within Alien are all superb, from the smaller roles of Dallas and Kane, up to the unsettling Ash and iconic Ripley. The performance of Ripley is perfect, as Sigourney Weaver nails each note of Ripley's frantic emotional and physical jounrey in her attempt for survival, undoubtedly the performance that launched a Sci-Fi legend. Also, John Hurt's table scene performance can't be left out, it was so good, it apparently shocked the rest of the cast.

The weaknesses of Alien are small and for the most part not worth mentioning, the only consistent one mentioned is that it takes too long for stuff to start happening, or "for people to start dying", this for me is a sign of no patience and not being interested in the characters, if people ever use this criticism, I recommend quickly showing them towards the current wave of gore films. In fact, it could be argued that this apparent weakness is actually Alien's greatest strength, it is patient and is willing to add and depth and explore it's characters.

Verdict: *****(5 out of 5)

In Bruges

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the long gap in between this review and the last, the reason for this being that I have recently learned that moving house can be quite time consuming.

This review is of Martin McDonagh’s tourist/professional killer film In Bruges, that recently received both a BAFTA and Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay for this in 2009, and won the BAFTA award. A relative sleeper hit film that slowly built up momentum from appearing at the Sundance Film Festival in 2008 and the Dublin Film Festival.

The plot for In Bruges follows two Irish hitmen Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) who are sent to the titular Bruge, after Ray botches a job in London at the start of the film, by their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes). Once they arrive in Bruges, Ray and Ken try to entertain themselves in the city which Ray has a very negative view of, despite Ken’s fascination with the architecture. But is when Ray finally gets Ken to go to the pub, that they start to get into a series of insane moments, involving prostitutes and a racist midget.

Structurally In Bruges plays out for the most part perfectly in the 3 act structure, albeit being broken up by a series of flashbacks to the botched job in London, which gives you the reason for Ken and Ray being sent to Burges, and what gives the film it’s main plot and character twist.

The stand out character of In Bruges is arguably Farrell’s Ray, narrowly beating out Gleeson’s veteran Ken. Throughout the film Farrell gets the characters complexity perfect, getting both the hidden shame and the fun and charming side of him right at each specific moment, which adds great depth to the character so that you end up truly caring about him, and almost willing to forgive him.

If you were to look for weaknesses in In Bruges, then you could that some of the humour is very particular, and you will either love the humour and the film entirely, or you won’t, and a large part of this films charm and appeal will escape you. So quite simply, you have to be willing to give the brilliant and sometimes bizarre humour a chance, because you will be rewarded.

Score: ****(4/5)

The Life of David Gale

The second n the series of five requested film reviews looks at Alan Parkers 2003 thriller The Life of David Gale written by Charles Randolph. Admittedly I hadn’t heard of this film until it was requested for this series, but the cast and the subject matter instantly peaked my interest and went into the film with high expectations.

The plot of The Life of David Gale follows Bitsey Bloom (Kate Winslet) as she is invited to meet David Gale (Kevin Spacey), a former university lecturer and someone who passionately opposes the death penalty, but is now on death row for the murder of Constance Harraway (Laura Linney), another opposed to the death penalty. Bloom is a writer for a newspaper and with only four days left till Gale is executed, is invited to come and conduct an interview with him, but an ulterior motive is quickly revealed as it appears that Gale may be innocent.

The Life of David Gale uses a non-linear narrative, with the first scene being one from much later in the story, and then cutting back to the beginning of the narrative. For the majority of the film we are with Gale before he was convicted, his story is told in 3 parts, each of them begins with an interview with Bloom and then cuts back to the Gale’s past. This kind of structure is the only kind that would have, or could have worked for the this film, as told in a three act structure the “heroine” Bloom would have been introduced too late, and her interest in Gale would have come across as taped on and rushed, but in the form, it is allowed to slowly develop, and appear real.

With The Life of David Gale, there are a number of stand out performances from Spacey, Linney and Winslet. But if one had to chosen it would be Spacey’s portrayal of an innocent man who has accepted that both his own decisions and those of others have lead him to this moment, but still believes he is innocent and that all he wants Bloom to do is restore his reputation so that his young son will read about the real David Gale. Spacey takes the characters from his joyous highs to his deepest drunken lows at ease, beautifully executing Gale’s arc.

The only real weaknesses with the film is reasoning for some of the supporting cast, the most obvious example being Gabrielf Mann’s Zack Stemmons, who although he plays the part brilliantly, appears to only be a prop or device in the story for Bloom to interact with.

Score: ***1/2 (3.5 out of 5)

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

NB: The next five reviews to be featured on this site are ones that have been requested by readers. So feel free to send me a film request.

This weeks film is the 1999 comedy classic South Park Bigger, Longer and Uncut, written by Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who also directed the film. When this film came out I was thirteen and it was the talk of our school, very similar to Terrence and Phillips “Asses of Fire” in the film it self. Also, recently this film was voted 5^th in the all time top 100 funniest film, beating Monty Python and the Holy Grail and The Naked Gun films, which shows just how funny this film is. 

The plot of South Park is that following the boys’(Cartman, Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Ike’s) paying a homeless man to get them into the ‘R’ rated “Asses of Fire”, and then unleashing some of the language from the film onto, such as “You donkey r*ping sh*t eater”, and countless uses of the word f*ck during a school lesson. Ultimately they are pulled out of their class and their mother brought in, who decide, led by the unrelenting Sheila Broflovski, that it is all Terrence and Phillips fault for the childrens bad language and behaviour, and so want to see them brought to justice. 

The structure of South Park is fairly simple, which moves the plot along quickly, cutting between Cartman, Stan and Kyle trying to help Terrence and Phillip, and Kenny is Hell, observing Satan and Saddam Husseins lovers tiff. Like the best comedies, the plot doesn’t stop for the jokes, they are all intergrated into the plot, which could explain the 78 minute running time. The songs and musical moments of the film don’t side track the plot either, instead they just help add to the comedy as again, the story unfolds around the song.

When it comes to a stand out character in South Park, it is hard to look past Eric Cartman, a character who has taken on seemingly legendary status since the show aired on TV in 1997. Although he losses the ability to curse at a point during the movie, his dialogue before and after that are classic comedy moments, such as “No, I don’t seem to have any Jewish candy” as a way to both hoard his sweet and insult Kyle simultaneously. Also the megaphone scene in the classroom which sets off the whole plot is tear inducingly funny. Although the other characters and well written and undeniably funny, it is Cartman who ultimately steals the show.

The weaknesses for South Park are minimal, any complaints about the animation are lost, as it wouldn’t be the same without that trademark style. Possibly the film could have been stretched out to last longer, even reaching the 90 minute mark, but obviously not at the expense of the tight story and comedy already in the film.

Score: ****(4/5)

Chinatown

The next film to be reviewed in this series is Roman Polanski’s 1974 Film Noir classic Chinatown, written superbly by Robert Towne. It is not only my view that it is “superbly” written, as it is widely considered to be one of, if not the greatest screenplay’s ever written.

The plot of Chinatown follows private detective Jake Gittes(played by Jack Nicholson) as he is hired to follow Hollis Mulwray by his wife, as she suspects him of infidelity. But it is only after Hollis is exposed, and the papers get hold of the information that the real Evelyn Mulwray comes forward and threatens legal action against Gittes. Eventually Evelyn drops the case, and hires Gittes to find the now vanished Hollis Mulwray, this forms the main part of the investigation and the films plot.

The structure as you may have guessed from the introduction is first class, the film moves at a perfect pace with all the turning points and major incidents coming at perfectly planned stages. Make no mistake this is screenwriting of the very highest quality, Towne shows complete and utter confidence and control of the writing and story. Although not strictly a part of a traditional “film structure” discussion, the lack of a truly snapping twist helps the integrity of the film, as the whole film doesn’t rely on this one potential moment for it all to come together.

The character who stands out the most within Chinatown is obviously the protagonist and central character Jake Gittes, who plays the classic detective figure in a similar way to which Harrison Ford did in Blade Runner, albeit 8 years before. However the more obvious comparisons to be made to Bogart’s Phillip Marlowe from The Big Sleep, as the smooth talking intelligent private eye, albeit with more of a weak spot for the ladies. Marlowe, I am sure was some form of influence for Chinatown’s hero.

Weaknesses for, or within Chinatown are indeed few and far between, and most of them are unworthy of mention. Two common criticisms of the film are that it can drag at times, or come across as boring, this however is purely matter of taste, which is more relevant to those viewers with a limited attention span. The second is the lack of big pay-off ending, and again this form of criticism could come about from those who want an obvious and definite ending, something which Chinatown only really hints at.

Score: *****(5/5)

 

 

Blade Runner

NB: This is a review of The Directors Cut originally released in 1992, the reason for this is that I have yet to see both the Original Cut or Final Cut.

Ridley Scott’s 1982(Original Cut) Sci-Fi masterpiece was released to average reviews, with some critics critising the pace, Sheila Benson of the LA Times refered to it as “Blade Crawler”. But with the release of the Directors Cut (1992), Blade Runner received considerably more positive reviews, and catapulted the film from being a cult film, up to a true classic.

Blade Runner’s main plot is fairly simple, it follows Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) as he searches for five replicants (Androids, who look just like humans), after one of them killed another Blade Runner (The title for people who chase Replicants) during an interview. Deckard is then brought back , or forced back by his superior to  find these replicants and retire them, another of saying killing them.

Structure as far as Blade Runner goes is similar to the classic Three Act Structure, and without giving away major plot points they do come at the right time to keep the pace of the narrative moving. Despite some criticisms of it being slow, I personally find this to be inaccurate as not once did it feel as though the film was lagging or struggling to carry on. In fact the last 45 minutes of Blade Runner are very quick as the story begins to reach it’s memorable climax.

The whole story is told almost exclusively from the point of Rick Deckard, as is the style of film noir’s, which is essentially what Blade Runner is. Deckard plays the part of the detective perfectly, living alone concentrating on his work, whilst also having the classic brash and to the point personality that is synonimus with noir detectives.

Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) is the films antagonist, if he was to be classified. However, in the second half of the film, Batty’s apparent obviousness as an antagonist starts to fail, as we realise that all he wants is to live beyond his predetermined four year life span, that all of his model of replicants have. So is his desire to live a “bad” thing, or is it just in the way that he is going about seeking out a longer length of time to live.

Blade Runners weaknesses, are that some viewers may find it to be slow, although crawling is undoubtedly harsh. Also, the conclusion and the paper unicron has left a number of people confused over whether Deckard could possibly by a Replicant also, maybe so much a weakness, but a big piece of the plot left open.

Score: *****(5/5)

Heat

Michael Mann’s 1995 epic Los Angeles crime drama Heat gives to the crime drama genre what The Godfather gave to the “gangster” film, a level that all films of the genre should aim for. It was another film overlooked by the Academy, in fact this film didn’t even garner a single nomination at all.  [1] But anyway, it all doesn’t come down to awards recognition.

The plot of Heat essentially involves a traditional “cops and robbers” story, where the police, lead by Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino) chases Neil McCauley (Robert Den Niro) as he plans and commits a number of crimes throughout the city. Which includes one of, if not the greatest bank heist sequence ever written, which culminates in a “warzone” like shoot-out the crowded streets of Los Angeles.

The structure of the Heat does follow the more traditional three act “Hollywood” structure, with important turning points appearing at well-placed points throughout the film. Following the three-act structure in this case helps Heat, especially with it’s 171 minute run time. As with the previously reviewed Magnolia, Heat does move around the various characters, which helps the pace of the narrative remain quick, and drives the film towards it’s memorable climax.

The two main characters of Heat are undoubtedly Hanna and McCauley, both played superbly by Pacino and De Niro. Yet they only share two scenes together throughout the film, one a stunning conversation in an LAX diner, where they discuss how similar they are, and that the only real difference between them is which side of the law they work on. The other characters don’t just fill out the time; they inhabit their roles and bring great depth to each of them, such as Lauren (Natalie Portman), Hanna’s stepdaughter who is marginalised by her mother and biological father. Heat is filled with flawed people who focus on their professional lives, and neglect their personal lives to often calamitous consequences.

Again, the long running time could stop a lot of people watching the film, but if you discount films that push the 3 hour mark then a lot of films will pass you buy. Along with the length some of the side stories and plots could come across as being indulgent, such as Laurens suicide story and Van Zant’s relevance to the plot, but without these the story wouldn’t be as layered or rewarding as it is.

Score: *****(5/5)

---

[1] Oscars nominations for Best Film 1996: Braveheart (winner), Apollo 13, Babe, Sense and Sensibility and Il Postino

Magnolia

The next film I will review is Magnolia Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1999 dramatic epic, snubbed by the academy in most areas and undeservedly not winning anything at that years ceremony.

The basic plot follows a group of around nine characters through a day in the life, which all happen to be rapidly spiraling out of control in one way or the other. An example of this is Linda (Julianne Moore), who after years of cheating on her elderly husband, has slowly fallen in love with him genuinely, and with him on his death she realizes that she can’t accept that he has left everything to him, and sets out to repeatedly try and commit suicide.

The structure of Magnolia is relatively simple for the most part, as it moves around the various characters in a sequence and we get to see the key parts of each characters story unfold before we move onto the next one, who is more often than not linked to the character we have just seen in some way.  Chronologically the film works in near linear fashion, with only the occasional manipulation of the timeline.

With Magnolia being a large “ensemble film” the number of characters and their qualities would take forever to get through, and then to discuss them in the detail that they deserve. So to highlight one, it would be Frank “TJ” Mackey (Tom Cruise), who did receive an Oscar nomination for it. Frank is a character that on the surface is someone who helps men to have sex with women, in theory lots of women thanks to his “Seduce and Destroy” technique. But it is when he is interviewed by Gwenovier (April Grace) that his supposed past is revealed to all be a lie, that his normally calm and confident character is broken. The performance itself is perfect, and shows what Tom Cruise is capable of when he is given the character and freedom to act.

The one aspect of the film which could discourage people from watching Magnolia is it’s run time, coming in at 188 minutes it is a film truly epic in scale. And if you were to cut anything from the film, it would suffer on a whole as each character need and deserves the time they are given on screen, so that Anderson is given time to get everything from each of the characters.

The final verdict of Magnolia is that if you are willing to give it you time and patience, then you will be rewarded with a great film story with a detailed and amazingly constructed narrative, that you won’t realize you have just spent over 3 hours watching it.

Score: *****(5/5)

Memento

As this is the first of my film reviews, I thought I should probably start with my favourite film, which is as you may have guessed, Christopher Nolan's 2001 neo-noir Memento.

Memento tells the story of former insurance investigator Leonard Shelby (played perfectly by Guy Pearce) as he searches for the man who raped and murdered his wife, and is responsible for Leonard suffering from anterograde memory loss. A form of short term memory loss, where Leonard is unable to remember anything for more than a few moments. 

Structurally, Memento plays in reverse chronological order, for the most part anyway. The colour sequences are primarily of Leonard searching for his wife's killer, whilst the black and white section has Leonard talking on the phone to an unknown person about his past, and how came to the situation he is in. To simplify, the colour sequences run "backwards", whilst the black and white run in correct chronological order.

The reason for the structure is clear, and in terms of the story, essential. Without the use of the structure we would witness the narrative unfold from an objective perspective, and would be more aware of what has happened than Leonard is. With it running backwards, we experience it from Leonard's perspective, which gives us a very subjective view of the story.

The lead character of Leonard, as previously mentioned played perfectly by Guy Pearce comes across as first being a one dimensional character who is simply out for vengeance, but as the film progresses we see pieces of his past and his actions that build this complicated character, who struggles on in the attempt to find his wife's killer with this major block in front of him at all times.

The two main supporting characters of Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), the man Leonard kills at the beginning (or the end, depending on how you view it) as he believes him to be the killer. As well as Natalie (Carrie-Ann Moss), a bar maid who helps Leonard track down Teddy. Are both played superbly, bringing out these characters that would just as soon help Leonard as they would plot and use him to their own ends.

Delivering a final verdict on this film is easy for me, as I would highly recommend it to anyone for a multitude of reasons, some of which have been discussed above. Quite simply it is a must see film.

Score: *****(5/5)