Sunday, 8 November 2009
Zombieland (2009)
Starring: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin, Bill Murray
I’m a massive fan of zombie films. Have been since I watched Night of the Living Dead at my friend Marty’s on the biggest TV I’d ever seen. I’ve seen all the Romero classics (and sadly his newer, most definitely non-classics), all the good and bad “of the dead” remakes, and I loved 28 days/weeks later - despite the screams of hardcore zombie nerds that “They’re not real zombies!”. That said, zombie nerds are cool and I’d much rather hang out round them than any Twilight-obsessed teenybopper.
The story is narrated by Jesse Eisenberg’s Columbus – a World of Warcraft playing, IBS suffering loner, who practically has ‘Virgin’ tattooed on his forehead (maybe Eisenberg should begin to worry about what this typecasting is doing for his rep). Something that struck me was that though his narration was smooth, polished and cool, his character was anything but. I didn’t feel like his character had any real depth or inner conflict – I much preferred him in Adventureland.
Columbus teams up with Harrelson’s Tallahassee (who I feel the movie would’ve bombed without) in his struggle to get back home to his estranged parents. Tallahassee’s a great character; a done-to-death stereotypical redneck, but with great lines, a great performance by Harrelson, and pretty fucking great hat. Tallahassee is on the search for only one thing: a Twinkie.
And I think that says it all for how seriously the scriptwriter actually took the zombie genre.
While mashing up the undead on their travels, they meet Stone’s Wichita and Breslin’s Little Rock. Stone I recognised from Superbad - but only just – thanks to the 5 or so layers of thickly applied eyeliner her character has somehow managed to apply in the midst of a zombpocalypse. Breslin of course is from Little Miss Sunshine; she’s a really great child-star alternative to the simpering Dakota Fanning. Of course, Columbus instantly falls for Wichita, despite the fact the girls steal their guns and SUV and drive off into the sunset.
Zombieland looked amazing from the trailer. It seemed to have all the right ingredients for a really good rom-zom-com to rival Shaun of the dead:
• Zombies – check.
• Blood and guts – check.
• Comedy – check.
• Ace cast – check.
However, Shaun of the Dead doesn’t have to worry about being knocked off its mantle for now. Zombieland seemed to be written and directed by a bunch of guys who watched the remake of Dawn of the Dead and based their entire genre knowledge on it. While Shaun of the Dead was a homage to Romero, Zombieland was more like the High School Musical of zombie films. I couldn’t help liking it but God...it was disgustingly gimmicky:
• The loser who gets the girl – check.
• Carefully placed swear words – check.
• Big penis-metaphor guns – check.
• Pop-culture references that a hermit could get – check.
That said, it isn’t without its charm. It’s a funny movie with some great lines and as I said before, a really great performance from Harrelson.
I don’t think Zombieland was made for hardcore fans of the zombie genre, but rather those who’ve seen a few or zero zombie movies. I definitely wouldn’t watch it with a die-hard zombie fan, as the dialogue would be drowned out with cries of
a) “Zombies can’t climb ladders!” b) “Zombies can’t negotiate doorknobs!”
c) “Zombies can’t RUN!"
I could spend hours writing about all the ways Zombieland pisses all over the zombie genre, but I don’t want to bore you and besides, it really is a pretty good film. Sadly - and this has become a real gripe of mine lately - literally all the best bits are in the trailer (despite an excellent uncredited cameo). Watch it for what it is – a comedy horror movie. Just don’t get too hung up on the Z-word, and you’ll enjoy it immensely.
“What’s the best thing about living in Z-land?”
“No more facebook status updates.”
Never a truer word uttered.
Saturday, 7 November 2009
500 Days of Summer (2009)
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Geoffrey Arend, Chloe Moretz, Matthew Gray Gubler
When hearing from others that 500 Days of Summer was a “kooky” film, I felt instantly worried. I’ve seen far too many films where the director aims for “kooky” and ends up essentially with a bag of shit. Forced kookiness has got to be one of the most excruciating things to watch, and no doubt to put together. However, 500 Days of Summer hits the mark.
Thank Fuck.
On the most basic level, 500 Days of Summer can be summarised thus:
Boy meets girl. Boy falls in love. Girl doesn’t.
The boy in question? Gordon-Levitt’s Tom Hansen is a young, individual and likeable would-be architect, stuck in a job he hates. Instead of designing buildings, he designs greeting cards. Gordon-Levitt’s obviously been on the acting scene for years and years, notably cementing his career in 3rd Rock from the Sun, then starring in teen-flick (and every girl my age’s guilty pleasure) 10 Things I Hate About You, to graduate to the Smiths-strewn heights of this lovable indie number. And my GOD has he aged well. In a word; phwoar. But back to business...
Tom’s world changes when Deschanel’s Summer Finn lands a job at his office. He immediately decides she is “the one”, cueing a pretty amusing montage of scenes depicting Summer’s charmed life and how men gravitate around her. I don’t think they could have picked a better actress for the part – Deschanel is so beautiful and personable. After some decidedly dodgy previous films (the just kind of ok Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and the travesty that was The Happening) it was great to see her in a film that stood up to her talent. You could easily see why someone would instantly fall in love with her, or indeed; Summer.
The problem?
Summer doesn’t believe in love and *shocker* isn’t looking for a boyfriend.
500 Days of Summer skips back and forth through time, showing the clear progression, and regression, of Tom and Summer’s not-quite relationship. A thing I really appreciated about this film is how real their interactions seem. You find yourself recalling past and present relationships you’ve had yourself, likening times when your partner’s moved their hand away from yours and crushed you, to times when you’ve stayed in bed together all day and enjoyed blissful nothingness. At times the film devastates you as you personally feel Tom’s anguish at not being what Summer really wants. At others, you literally experience your heart jump with the same hope he feels at hearing the six words “I’ve never told anyone that before” drop from her lips. It truly plays with your emotions, never letting you linger on any one feeling for long.
A scene that really resonated with me was one where the film becomes split screen. Tom attends a party that Summer’s hosting; on one side you see his expectations play out, while on the other real life inevitably slaps him down. There’s also a brilliant scene where Tom walks to work after sleeping with Summer for the first time, and spontaneously breaks into song while executing a joyful dance routine with his fellow commuters.
Yes, 500 Days of Summer is kooky in all the right ways. It has subtle nods to other films (a Lebowski-esque Tom buys orange juice and Jack Daniels in his dressing gown and sandals) and has a brilliant soundtrack, but doesn’t bombard you with “cool” in-jokes and pretentiousness. Visually, every set is stunning - you practically see the waves of creativity emanating from the screen.
It’s warm and cold, loving and hostile, cheerful and depressing – and will leave you thinking afterwards. A definite recommendation from me. Buy it on DVD as soon as it comes out, if not only to appreciate the gorgeous on-screen chemistry between the brilliant lead actors.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Funny People (2009)
Starring: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman
I’d like to write a brief synopsis of the film here, but to be honest I’m finding it hard. Funny People is a film that meanders. It’s essentially the story of 2 people (and I still can’t make my mind up who the protagonist is) – George (Sandler) and Ira (Rogen). George is a successful comedian and film star who, at the beginning of the film, is diagnosed with Leukaemia. Ira is a struggling stand up comedian looking for his big break and working in a deli. They meet, George takes Ira under his wing, and hilarity ensues.
Kind of.
To be honest, I don’t like Adam Sandler. I find he’s incredibly typecast, and even when playing a character that’s not so similar, his ego tends to blare through like he’s got a big neon sign above his head reading “HEY, I’M ADAM FUCKING SANDLER!” I’ve seen a fair few of his movies and I haven’t noticed any depth to his acting whatsoever. Therefore I just couldn’t find a way to empathise with his character. It wasn’t “Oh no, George is dying”, it was “Oh, the character Adam Sandler’s playing in this film is dying”. It didn’t help that the character was essentially Sandler anyway, being a (not very good) comedian and all.
Rogen, on the other hand, is an actor I really like. Sure, he’s typecast as hell but he’s been around a lot less time than Sandler, and this film didn’t feature ANY weed. If you’ve seen Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin or Pineapple Express I’m sure you’ll appreciate the magnitude of that sentence. He’s also slimmed down a fair bit (in preparation for his role in The Green Hornet) and looks a lot younger these days. I have to say I prefer bearded, chubby Rogen but he’s still completely lovable and identifiable as the bumbling Ira. This film gave him a chance to begin to break away from his usual role, and he does seem to be showing signs of being a really good, well-rounded actor.
Ira’s housemates are Apatow-favourite Jonah Hill, and a somewhat wasted Jason Schwartzman. Both are initially more successful than Ira, with Schwartzman getting a fat pay cheque from acting in an awful school sitcom every week, and Stone’s aspiring comedian getting more laughs and more gigs than Ira. I feel the movie would’ve lived up to its title a lot more if the action had focused more on the repertoire between these three, rather than giving Sandler far more screen time than he deserves.
A gripe I had with the film was in the form of George’s long-lost love Laura (Leslie Mann), and her two daughters. For those that don’t know, she is director/writer Judd Apatow’s real life wife, and those are their children. They also appeared in Knocked Up, again as a family unit but plus Paul Rudd. In my opinion the movie could’ve shaved off about half an hour by leaving out this shameless back-patting. We see extended montages of George and Ira hanging out with the family, playing games, and doing boring shit that no director in his right mind would’ve left in the film had the actors not been his own flesh and blood. I found this self-promotion irritating, and a little embarrassing that Apatow had to resort to showing a portfolio of his wife’s earlier TV and movie work during the film (maybe so he wouldn’t have to keep casting her?). Eric Bana’s cameo as her cheating Australian husband was pretty good though, and it was nice to see Bana without teary eyes and/or wielding a mace.
Now, I hate it when people moan that films are too long. Most people who do that seem to be complete morons, and massive chavs from what Facebook can tell me. For instance, a “friend” of mine’s status –
“Watchmen woz well to long! Wht da fuck even happend? Shit!”
However, morons and chavs aside, Funny People was one of those films that had about ten endings. It felt, towards the end, like watching Borimir’s death scene in Fellowship of the Ring. Twice. I think that without the unnecessary family scenes, and the overkill of celebrity cameos (keeping the Eminem and Ray Romano scene, which is hilarious) Funny People could easily have tied things up at the 2 hour mark, instead of drawing itself out for another half hour. Overall though, it’s well worth a watch, though it doesn’t pull on your heartstrings or tickle your funny bone particularly.
Maybe it could’ve done with being called “Slightly Funny People”.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Adventureland (2009)
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Ryan Reynolds, Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig, Martin Starr
I chose to see Adventureland over 500 Days of Summer at the very last minute because a)I was tired and it was on earlier
b)I'd heard good noises about it
c)I have a massive thing for Ryan Reynolds (sorry).
Adventureland is set in 1987 (the year I was born), but the opening scene (a college party) didn't seem so removed from the kind of parties I'd ended up at in the last few years. I guess that either means I've been hanging out with some dope-smoking and deceptively young-looking 40 year olds, or that maybe the 80s wasn't quite the shell-suited train wreck I previously perceived it to be. From what I could tell, the "way things were" seem a lot like "the way things still are". Maybe that's why I pretty much forgot it was set in 1987. Then again, maybe I was just being extra blonde.
The story runs thus - James (played by Eisenberg, who is alarmingly like Superbad's Michael Cera) has just graduated from college, and plans to travel round Europe all summer with his best friend Eric (a charismatic and compelling Michael Zegen, who stood out despite being in only 3 scenes). He's also a virgin and hoping to lose his "crimson V" fast.
Cue James' parents, who can't afford to finance his trip anymore, or (and here's the kicker) his tuition fees for grad school in New York come the end of summer. Armed with a laboriously written and ultimately useless CV, an awkward yet endearing stammer and a shit-load of joints (courtesy of Europe-bound Eric), James rapidly discovers that the only place he's able to find work is the rundown themepark in his home town - Adventureland.
Enter Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, the owners. Bill Hader has been a favourite of mine for a while now, and his turn as the eccentric boss certainly doesn't disappoint. Wiig is also hilarious, though I wonder how long the "mumbling weird things" routine is going to work for her.
Fetchingly emblazoned "games" shirt in hand, James heads off to the stalls, where he meets the nerdy, googly-eyed lifer J (Starr of Knocked Up, though considerably less bearded). Some well put together and amusing scenes ensue, concerned with the extremely unfairly rigged amusements, the acknowledgement that only the cool kids work on the rides, and the assertion that under no circumstances should anyone win a "Big-ass panda". Also working on games is Kristen Stewart's punky Emily, hard to place when not sucking face with a vampire. James instantly falls for her, unaware that she's pretty busy helping the Handyman (Reynolds) cheat on his wife once a week.
Adventureland really struck a chord with me. I think it will with anyone who's worked long hours in a mundane summer job where the only real fun you have is with the people working beside you. It delicately and realistically shows the progression of James and Emily's relationship; noticably exhibiting an entirely refreshing lack of slow motion kisses and melodrama. You also find yourself caring deeply for a few of the other workers - no huge character flaws are made obvious, just a completely human feel to each and every one. We've all met these people: the guy who boasts and lies because he feels inadequate, the girl who seems to put it about but is actually still a virgin, the unhappy guy in his 30's going through a pre-emptive midlife crisis.
The casting is absolutely top-notch - Eisenberg's portrayal of James is so full of humility and feels so genuine that it's hard to believe he's any different in real life. Stewart similarly is fantastic, though perhaps a little too comparable with her best-known role of Bella Swan in Twilight. She's the same awkward and reserved character, though it's great to see her spit out a few swear words for once. Even Ryan Reynolds deserves a nod for his performance (and no, not because I fancy him), but because he plays a completely straight role, with literally no elongation of vowels or taking his shirt off. Surprised? I sure was. And maybe a little disappointed about the latter.
The film even has a perfectly realistic ending, and I was delighted upon reading up on it to find out it's semi-autobiographical, which lends so much more credibility in my opinion.
Go see it! Now!
(and if you have 3 twatty northerners who insist on sighing all the way through the film because it's not exactly like American Pie, just turn round and tell them to shut the fuck up. Worked for me.)
nb - also can't wait to see Eisenberg in Zombieland, which is a film that's either going to completely suck or absolutely rule.
Let's give this a try, shall we?
I have a degree in Creative Writing, and all through my degree I found myself looking longingly over at the Film Studies lecture theatre. Not because I want to make films, but because I want to watch them. All of them.
I'm not going to claim to be a mega film buff. I've worked in a cinema for 5 years and a DVD shop for one month. I have around 400 DVDs. I've mainly seen new films and am shamefully aware of the lack of classics in my DVD stacks. I'm also one of those people who will instantly recognise an actor in a film, obsess over where I've seen them before, and won't relax until I've worked it out (or logged on to IMDB). I could probably tell you the storyline/lead actors from any high-ish profile films that came out in the past 5 years. Feel free to test me on that, if you wish.
Anyway, I've been reading a friend of mine's blog tonight. Hers is about makeup and hair and beauty, something I'm not so interested in, but it really woke me up. If I want to be a writer, and want to review films, why the fuck aren't I doing it? It's like if I don't get a pay cheque at the end of it, I don't have enough motivation. Well, screw that in the ear. As of now I'm reviewing every new film I watch, and maybe some old ones too. I won't pretend to know too much about camera angles and lighting techniques, but I will be writing entirely honest, biased and non-patronising reviews, ranging from the ragingly angry to the deliriously happy.
Enjoy, gentle reader.
As a side note, if you are a fan of Julia Roberts, Jack Black or Helena Bonham Carter, I wouldn't read my blog. Irrational hatred lies within.
I'm not going to claim to be a mega film buff. I've worked in a cinema for 5 years and a DVD shop for one month. I have around 400 DVDs. I've mainly seen new films and am shamefully aware of the lack of classics in my DVD stacks. I'm also one of those people who will instantly recognise an actor in a film, obsess over where I've seen them before, and won't relax until I've worked it out (or logged on to IMDB). I could probably tell you the storyline/lead actors from any high-ish profile films that came out in the past 5 years. Feel free to test me on that, if you wish.
Anyway, I've been reading a friend of mine's blog tonight. Hers is about makeup and hair and beauty, something I'm not so interested in, but it really woke me up. If I want to be a writer, and want to review films, why the fuck aren't I doing it? It's like if I don't get a pay cheque at the end of it, I don't have enough motivation. Well, screw that in the ear. As of now I'm reviewing every new film I watch, and maybe some old ones too. I won't pretend to know too much about camera angles and lighting techniques, but I will be writing entirely honest, biased and non-patronising reviews, ranging from the ragingly angry to the deliriously happy.
Enjoy, gentle reader.
As a side note, if you are a fan of Julia Roberts, Jack Black or Helena Bonham Carter, I wouldn't read my blog. Irrational hatred lies within.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)