May 2, 2012

Jean Claude Van Damme: Bruised, Broken, Brilliant

Yes. This is a post about Jean Claude Van Damme. And a post about his artistic credibility. Praising it no less, and quite heavily I might add too. Watching the above trailer may result in some serious confusion, as I’m guessing Belgium’s most famous Taekwondo champion cum accidental crossover Action Movie Star has probably not been foremost on your agenda recently. Probably not since the last time you actively rented VHS from a store that considered itself a successfully operative ‘Video Shop’. And Timecop was battling Under Siege 2 for a hallowed place in the rental top twenty for a particular week in 1995. 

Others who deserve a spotters badge may have caught the (slightly wizened) muscles from Brussels on a semi baffling Coors ad currently on your TV screens. It was actually this Coors ad that triggered some faint memory of hearing about a rather well received Van Damme stab at independent cinema. It seemed ludicrous, but the ensuing investigation yielded an astonishingly pleasant surprise. If, as I presume so, you haven’t heard of ‘JCVD’, released as a low key joint French/Belgian feature length in 2008, it may just prove to be one of the more eyebrow raising cinematic experiences you’re bound to have. Not to mention, an awkward sense of suppressing your inner most cynical prejudices.

Van Damme plays himself, as a the washed up, down and out has been he clearly acknowledges himself to have become. Broken, both in terms of morale and finance, and having lost custody to his child, he returns to Brussels. A routine trip to a post office in a vain attempt to get petty cash becomes even more disastrous when he ends up embroiled in a heist slash hostage situation. Mayhem and misunderstanding ensue, with crowds on the street cheering him on, the police convinced he’s the architect of all of this, with Van Damme himself, sedated by bewilderment, evoking both comic relief and pathos through extreme self deprecation.

JCVD is in many ways, a clever and stylish low budget feature, with rewind sequences and a never ending array of sniper camera angles and hand held type sequences to represent the chaos and frustration of the situation. These techniques serve to make it a world away from the formulaic ‘guns n explosions’ laden format we would have associated with Van Damme’s bloated action genre. The plot and premise are admittedly standard fare, but it serves as a mere foundation. This is unquestionably Van Damme’s film, and he is the fulcrum upon which it relies.

He is so hapless and down on his luck, that his self deprecation induces the same kind of wince you would get from one of his trademark roundhouse kicks. Not only is it an impossibly endearing turn, it is also very funny, subtle and equal parts touching and troubling. Cynics might say he is just playing himself. However, to put in this kind of evocative performance at any level is a serious feat in itself. In a distinctly post modern turn, there is one stand out scene where he turns in soliloquy to the camera, and pours his heart and tears out in a remarkably eloquent monologue on all his failings and lack of real achievements. Heart wrenching, and certainly baffling from someone you thought wasn’t capable of this, you appreciate it all the more when he returns to the comic relief induced self effacement of his continuing struggles to round off the film.

There are many achievements from JCVD, one is that Director Mabrouk El Machri effortlessly put together an entertaining yet emotional stylish caper on a shoestring. But perhaps the most remarkable is Van Damme himself portraying a deeply humanized, introspective and touching portrayal of a stereotype we previously would have lampooned without question. And how refreshing, and fun and educational it was to witness. Quelle Surprise.

8:33pm  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/22265174387/yes-this-is-a-post-about-jean-claude-van-damme
Filed under: film 
January 27, 2012
‘Shame’ Review

Michael Fassbender’s performance and Steve McQueen’s backdrop mutually excel in a film that provokes a glut of probing questions on modern life, and the polarization between love and cold, soulless lust that lies therein.

‘Shame’s release to the cinema has brought with it a raft of publicity and attention purely because of its subject matter. In a nutshell, it revolves around sex. And I won’t lie to you, there is lots of it. (And Michael Fassbender’s, eh, wedding tackle) Generally,‘sex sells’. Just ask the editors of low end thrash lads mags ‘Nuts’ and ‘Zoo’. While we can joke about the kind of publicity that that kind of market seeks, the attention Shame has brought with it merits much more thought, and presents a very discomforting and brutally real exploration on emotional attachment, or should we say, detachment from the act.

Fassbender plays Brandon, a supremely slick but emotionally distant character, who seems to have only one focus in his life, women, and uncontrollable sexual urges towards them. He is successful and works in an impossibly gleaming yet soulless corporate office, surrounded by fellow alpha males and a reprehensible boss. His apartment is also utterly modern and coldly sleek, thereby lacking any warmth or character. In both these environments, Brandon’s tunnel vision revolves solely around inviting hookers around, voyeur cams via hardcore websites, and just plain old fetish browsing and relentless masturbation. It’s an entrenched bachelor existence to say the least, until his sister Sissy arrives, cramping his style and by staying on his couch, along with her unstable emotional outpouring. 

The picture McQueen paints of Brandon and New York is one of modernity laid bare, all surface and no feeling. Manhattan is lonely. Brandon is lonelier. In his attempts of denying this, his need for primal sexual urges relentlessly brush it under the carpet. His approach to sex, and his endless quest for pushing sexual boundaries does indeed smack of addiction. I’d liken it to the chemical addiction of a cigarette. Brandon needs and wants one instantly, seeks it out, consumes intensely and without any feeling whatsoever, before discarding it away. Given that this addiction isn’t chemical, it warrants more exploration, is more intangible, and certainly makes Brandon’s way of life a more complex, inexplicable and distant way to be.

While his approach to sex and lifestyle is relentless, the arrival of drifter jazz singer Sissy (Carey Mulligan) begins to frustrate him, and sway him off course. On the surface, he wants nothing to do with her, and swats her away at every attempt. She is unstable, wild, and ultimately tragic, and amplifies the sorrow felt by both siblings in the desolation of New York. There are ambiguous hints as to where they have come from emotionally. Without his admission, she slowly ekes out his awareness of relationships and depth, illustrated by his tears at one of Sissy’s gigs. But Brandon’s way of dealing with this is to plunge further into his obsession, giving the viewer a blunt polar view between what is needed, and what is dangerously indulgent.

Fassbender is amazing. The audience feels his piercing sexual glare just as much as the unsuspecting subway users do, or the women who frequent the same bars as he does, before he immediately begins to pursue them ravenously and objectify them. He plays the icy cool, primal Patrick Bateman type with ease. However, the depth of the performance is etched out in the moments where we realize Brandon knows there is a deep rooted problem in his inability to love. He attempts to date a co worker in a polite and ‘formal’ manner, only to find himself utterly inexperienced, and more importantly, incapable of engaging in the emotional depth such a commitment requires. His struggle becomes obvious, wretched and pitiful. 

McQueen illustrates the backdrop to all of this in a stunningly affective way. A true artist, he perfectly explores that line between tragedy and beauty, through Brandon’s exploration of his own problem. It’s all wonderfully epitomized when Brandon pushes all boundaries on a sex crazed splurge in one impossibly hedonistic night. An epic (and beautifully shot) but utterly discomforting threesome scene becomes the pivot of the film’s entire premise. It is a brutal and harrowing portrayal of a modern man so deeply indulged in his own problem, whilst desperately struggling to get a grip on its emotional understanding.

Shame is highly charged, visual and evocative. Its dialogue is sparse, but utterly crucial when it counts. Its an artistic tour de force, and highly thought provoking, as any piece of magnificent art should be, thereby showing Steve McQueen as an artist at the top of his game. Like any film worth its salt, it makes you mull over its subject matter long after the credits roll. Indeed, it can be termed highly ‘squeamish’, and not something we as society are totally comfortable with yet, as it is an area exacerbated by the darker sides of our modernity. As it continues, emotional capability and depth get left behind, exposing raw vulnerability. The tragic figures of Brandon and Sissy are common now, and slowly grow in number in vast, lonely and tragic places like New York. This all occurs without much acknowledgement, and the polarization and definitions between such primal acts as love and sex becomes more gaping. Thanks to its superb protagonists and backdrop, this is highly relevant cinema for modern times, and as a film, has pushed all boundaries. Go and have a think about it.

The film that is. Not the ‘wedding tackle’.

View a trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24cjqfVv1fs

11:18am  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/16572781923/shame-review
(Notes: 5)
  
Filed under: Film reviews 
January 8, 2012

After Hours. An underappreciated Scorsese classic

‘Ever seen After Hours?’

‘Nope. Never heard of it. Who’s in it?’

‘Griffin Dunne, Linda Fiorentino, a few others…’

‘Never heard of them either. Sounds shit.

‘Ever seen After Hours?’

‘Nope. Who Directed it?’

‘Scorsese’

‘No he didn’t. I’m a big fan of his and I’ve never heard of it. Sounds shit anyway.’

These are some of the typical responses you can get from folk when you pose the question, ‘Ever Seen After Hours?’ In fact, you are probably reading this right now and are only initially learning about the existence of the motion picture as you progress towards the end of this senteeeeeeeeeeeencccccccce. Don’t worry, you’re not an ignoramus or philistine if you haven’t. A shocking and frightening majority, for some reason still unbeknownst to me, have no idea this underrated classic is patiently awaiting their viewing pleasure.

And yes, it is a Martin Scorsese feature. These days, the behemoth box office smashes of Shutter Island, The Aviator and Gangs of New York are what we seem to instinctively associate Scorsese with, given that it’s the current output, and that we’re force fed through marketing tubes upon widespread release. Don’t forget to cast your eye back to the time when Scorsese was blazing a trail of cutting edge classics, and Taxi Driver and Raging Bull had helped him blitz his way rapidly towards legendary status. What followed those was indeed ‘After Hours’, the film which showcased Scorsese take his first big experimental step sideways, toy with a more fully fledged sense of comedy, (albeit in a dark, whacky vein) and all underlayed with a hugely rich thematic focus. Does that sound palatable to a box office beying for more? Hardly. You can probably already see why you’ve never heard of After Hours. Scorsese’s bold creative step here didn’t make any sacrifices in terms of the quality he was becoming synonomous with. It grew if anything, and showed him tackling a much more challenging scope to his filmmaking. When watching and appreciating After Hours, this will gradually dawn upon you. At the time however, it flew under the radar, and for some reason, never managed to develop that burgeoning acclaim that so much other cult classics incrementally develop over the years. Perhaps too much, too soon. Or yet another ‘over their heads’ scenario.

In After Hours, Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) is a slightly uptight yuppie word processor who, perhaps feeling an inkling to something out of the ordinary of his humdrum routine, on an average weeknight, follows his impulse to pursue a chance encounter with enigmatic and eccentric Marcy, who he briefly meets in a café. He duly chases up on her to Soho (NYC, not London of course) where she lives. What follows is a chain of events that becomes the most unpredictable and nightmarish night of Paul’s life, as he becomes sucked into a series of weird encounters with a motley crew of the craziest characters lurking in the New York night. As he tries harder to escape from each one, and the tragic comic scenario they bring with them, Paul finds himself further away from home, and in an even more complicated pickle than he was in before. His simple desire to escape merely leaves him more frustrated, questioning and embroiled in a very, very inconvenient tangled mess of madness. In essence, Paul’s dreaded night, and the premise of After Hours, represents the feel of a horrible scenario where nothing goes right and trouble can suddenly occur out of nowhere.

With the assortment of characters and craziness of the situations Paul finds himself in, After Hours brims with potential for eccentric humour, generally of the dark kind. The underworld of Soho also gives it a dark, edgy texture, as though you are subtly reminded that the protagonist is very much immersed in a frustrating place within which he has no control over whatsoever. For instance, the women he meets are crazy and mental, despite initial promising impressions. He tries to be nice, but ultimately, he simply cannot relate to their warped madness. Hugely symbolic in terms of mirroring institutions? Or just a blunt reference?! You decide! Either way, the mishaps are hilarious and real, And most importantly, he is passive, trying to do the right thing, almost naïve in his innocence, yet matters get increasingly worse, through no fault of his own. Everybody and everything that influences his night is an external, overbearing influence, deciding how his fate is going to turn out.

Sound familiar? It is supposed to, subtly. After Hours, and Paul’s hellish night, represent you and I at our most frustrated and fed up, living our lives as they are influenced by people and institutions that we don’t know and simply don’t relate to. In a sense, it’s a sly reference to bureaucracy, as it is Scorsese’s interpretation and adaptation of Kafka’s ‘The Trial’. In a situation where pen pushers and overarching institutions can have the most profound influence on how we lead our lives without us realizing it, it is easy to become exasperated and wonder why it affects you, and most importantly, how do you try to run away from it all. Most often, you realize you cant, and the futility and valiancy of it all is the most galling part. Where ‘The Trial’ bluntly illustrated all of this politially, the brilliance of After Hours is turning this into a hilarious, whacky spin on what can be a pretty irritating reality for us mere mortals. Dunne’s portrayal of Paul is an endearing one too, which makes us develop a clearer affinity with what he (or we) have to contend with.

It is said that Scorsese became very passionate about developing After Hours during production. This was due to the fact he was at a very frustrating crossroads in his career at the time, being at loggerheads with studios, and being boxed into situations that were out of his control. He clearly wanted to show those career frustrations by exercising that in the themes of After Hours. Armed with clear stylistic touches and a focused noir sensibility, it became a highly entertaining and uniquely eccentric dark comedy, with tangibly intelligent and relevant underpinnings in those very themes.

It is dark, comedic and very satirical. And building from the vein of Kafka, the weirdness and darkened New York underworld add to an unnerving tension and paranoia, which is evened out superbly given the punctuated laughs, and proves the film is an example of masterful filmmaking. Overall though, with all of this combined, and knowing that this film relates to you, the daring originality of After Hours means it is extremely gripping and rewarding, and will leave you with plenty to stew on. It was also at the era where arguably Scorsese was at his best, and without doubt for this film, his most leftfield. So join the very small cult, and boast that you have now seen it. Unmissable.

And one more thing. Leonardo DiCaprio isn’t in it. So thank Christ for that.

11:04pm  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/15530415052/ever-seen-after-hours-nope-never-heard-of-it
(Notes: 2)
  
Filed under: Film Martin Scorsese 
June 16, 2011

Generally, any film boasting Brendan Gleeson has got to have its’ merits, not because of my own partisanship, or he’s my uncle, or anything like that. It’s purely because he’s one of the finest and most consistent actors around. He becomes an asset to whatever motion picture he’s a part of. In fact, the term ‘under rated’ can still apply firmly, despite the fact that he’s both proven and firmly established himself over the last twenty years. Appearances in box offices smashes are sprinkled amongst the generally adept independent features he regularly involves himself in. Whether it was Gangs of New York, or whoever he was in Harry Potter (I despise all things Harry Potter, utterly indifferent) or as a scarily accurate Winston Churchill, he has constantly riveted viewers attention. My earliest memory of him is portraying Michael Collins in RTE’s The Treaty, and as I got more and more acquainted with the nuances of Irish history through primary school and ye olde Leaving Certificate, I still had Gleeson as the ‘big fella’ enshrined in my imagination, an image and performance I could never shirk. Unlike Liam Neeson. Speaks volumes, really.

 

Aside from The Treaty, a litany of other quality Irish roles have been a given, where many an impressive performance is turned in. Bunny Kelly in the ‘criminally’ unknown I Went Down was a stellar comedic tour de force. He was also the fulcrum of Six Shooter, the best short ever made by Irish hands, and arguably, one of the finest Irish films ever, full stop. Of course, we couldn’t forget The General either. In films like these he has seemed to be on a crusade to personally hone the character of the entire film, an aim which never seemed to fall short.

 

So if any film boasting him has its merits, we should really be looking forward to ‘The Guard’ with baited breath then, shouldn’t we? I’m not actually too sure. I’ve watched the trailer multiple times now. After the first viewing, I thought so, but I was clearly sold by the presence of Gleeson, and all the attributes already alluded to. However, the rest of the film might pale into a crushing mediocrity, at a time when we could really do with a big, acclaimed Irish motion picture success. Instead, ‘The Guard’ seems to be veering down a highly undesireable road full of stereotypes, weary paddywhackery and an odourous essence of ‘dere’s more to Ireland ‘den ‘dis’. There’ll be no critics knocking on any doors if this materialises. At the directorial helm is a McDonagh, but alas, its not Martin, but his brother John Michael. Martin McDonagh (although 2nd generation Irish) had emerged as the great white hope of Irish film after the success of In Bruges, and before that, the Oscar winning Six Shooter. Recalling elements of Flann O’Brien and JM Synge, he had carved out a niche of modernising that whacky, rural, surreal and dark humour that was distinctly Irish, yet universally understood and appreciated. Six Shooter was this in a nutshell, with a wild and crazed imagination throughout that was both gripping and oddly alluring. For In Bruges, he clearly made a very delicate transition to a more international setting, diluting this just enough to make it far more palatable for an international audience, yet retain the odd humour, all whilst being driven and revolving around Gleeson. Americans ‘got it’. Job done. I didn’t actually think it was all that and a super sized box of popcorn at the time, but on reflection, the near universal acclaim spoke for itself.

 

Somehow, I have a feeling The Guard won’t replicate its success. Set in the West of Ireland, on paper it seems ripe for a Playboy of the Western World/Beauty Queen of Leenane esque retelling. The atmosphere seems ripe, and the proverbial stage is set. From the trailer however, all we see is a stream of drug trafficking, prostitutes, and guns, all laced with Gleeson’s hapless local Garda, who’s dialogue seems to revolve solely around some old school backward Irish racism, and the remedial ‘humour’ derived therein. Surely this won’t win us any friends, let alone be funny. If the jokes of that calibre go down like a lead zeppelin, than don’t be surprised to see the box office takings, critical reception and people’s take on good ‘ol Irish racism go down with them.

 

I’ll have to stop short, as you can’t be overly scathing about a trailer, let alone be allowed to review it. That said, I just hope the opportunity of having Don Cheadle in Ireland, alongside Brendan Gleeson, isn’t hopelessly squandered just for a few cheap laughs that absolutely no one else beyond the shores of our tiny, sparsely populated island will get. Maybe this is just a poor, unreflective trailer. I’d dearly love it to be side splitting, and replicate the international acclaim and success of In Bruges, with such universal appreciation. In fairness, I should really have faith, Gleeson will probably hold the hold thing together anyway, as has been done before, so please go and prove me wrong!

6:15pm  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/6589769904/generally-any-film-boasting-brendan-gleeson-has
(Notes: 1)
  
Filed under: Film 
May 23, 2011
Tree Of Life Review

Where to start… Bucket loads of clamour; the proverbial case of mixed reviews, revulsion to adulation from all kinds of critics, whether it’s professionals or popcorn munchers, and now, the proclaimed winner of the Palme D’Or. Probably an accolade that will, on past experiences, only serve to create an even greater chasm of opinion. That’s the general talk so far for the Tree Of Life. Now that I’ve seen it, I feel I can wade through the muddle and offer a slightly more decisive verdict on my own behalf. Yes, its big, its ambitious, its slightly bloated, unorthodox, its lengthy, perhaps flawed in parts, but above all, it’s a spectacular achievement in filmmaking. One that has pushed boundaries in every level, whether you like it or not.

Hype was always going to be a factor too. I’ll be honest, I had an alien feeling of apprehension and struggling to acclimatise for the first five minutes. But as soon as I acknowledged that the obnoxiously large Flemish and French subtitles stacked on top each other weren’t part of Malick’s beatific vision, I eased in and started to get to grips with it. You had to, as it all began at a little bit of a flurry.

Kicking off with some biblical quotes courtesy of Job, alongside shots of pre big bang cosmic visions, a contemplative Sean Penn gazing around gleaming corporate lustre, and the first images of his 1950’s classic, American suburban childhood were all relayed out in the first few minutes. This laid a foundation for a three pronged approach that provides the premise for the ambitious exploration of life, love, loss, existence and so much more. Much of the film’s derision seemingly comes from those who can’t piece together these core aspects together, yet Malick clearly envisaged this approach as a template for his exploration of life as a whole. The parallel of the world through its inception and evolution, and an average life lived through its own inception and evolution, and all the existential questions that apply to both in between.

Penn’s character, Jack, is seemingly disillusioned and searching for answers in his modern day guise as a successful architect/corporate executive. (Although materially, he seems to be doing alright…) Recalling the cataclysmic moment of his mother receiving the drastic news of his 19 year old brother’s death on military duty, this serves to bring everything back to its very basis and formation, from his own birth and development through childhood, learning what is first wondrous in the world, right and wrong, and then discovering what darker elements lie in wait. His guidance is led by the autocratic leanings of his churchgoing, ambitious but ultimately bitter father (Brad Pitt) and more tender and loving mother (Jessica Chastain), along with the cameraderie he experiences alongside his two brothers. Before Jack’s exploration of his own life begins, the parallel of the earth’s evolution is shown in full, from galaxies forming, prehistoric flora and fauna growing, landscapes and organisms developing, dinosaurs roaming and what essentially is, a visually spectacular brief history of time. On paper, its hard to piece together, but once the parallel of evolution and development is assumed between the earth and this man, and everything they both experience through development, the possibilities of where Malick was going with his ideas suddenly became infinite.

On a purely visual scale, Malick, even by his own standards, has broached new unforeseen territory with the grandiose (and CGI enabled) scenes of the earth’s geological growth. It was nature at its most resplendent, making Badlands and Days of Heaven seem almost archaic and amateur in comparison (I know, total anathema). A mesmerising sequence that is seemingly endless (in the best possible way), it was a bit like watching the most wondrous version of Planet Earth conceivable, with a consistently breathtaking capacity to make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. Utterly spectacular, and even though you got the impression you were getting sidetracked, you become so immersed you almost didn’t want it to end. But of course, once the voyage of space through time reached modernity, it turned into something we the viewers, as humans, could relate to, which was Jack’s own evolution, development and life.

As Jack the child grows more, he experiences more, just as the earth did. At first, all is innocent and wondrous. The initial stages are all a discovery of beauty, fascination and learning. But with the advent of time, more influences come to bear, he learns the more difficult truths. He wonders who he respects more, and his basic concepts of love, fear and alienation are constantly tested, his father being more dominant and disciplined, and his mother the more gentle and weaker. With each day he learns and experience more, and life and the world become to possess more challenges and harsh realities. We begin to realise that this our life as well as Jack’s represented on the screen, and that we grew and developed in much the same way. The infinite possibilities Malick built the film from stems from the fact that as we follow Jack, we seamlessly follow the growth and learning in our own lives too.  The effect is that we are immersed in a richly thought provoking take on how we’ve come to be also, and it is augmented and driven by the stunning visionary tour de force.

This is exactly what makes the Tree of Life such a different and original cinematic achievement, the fact that it is so stirring and thought provoking throughout, It is essentially a spiritual experience. There are plenty of questions to God, and asking him to explain things, but the answers never come, they only create further wonder. Here, the brother’s death is the definitive catalyst for all of this.

In a sense, death and bereavement is the most affective and earth-shattering experience a person can go through in life. Suffering such a loss triggers of a range of responses, and a multitude of desperate questions on existentialism, love and loss, that all end up simply wondering ‘why?’. Here, Jack had never really got over his brother’s loss, and it still affects him now, more than ever. All his questions remain unanswered, and simply become more and more searching and inquisitive.

The narrative provided by his mother’s voice, posing breathy, wondrous questions, which on the surface, seem pretty simplistic and the ones that would be put forward by child philosophers (more ammunition for the cynics) However, there is a point behind this.

I had jokingly suggested before that Malick might go so far as finding the meaning of life in this film. Here, you realise that finding a definitive answer or meaning isn’t the point of all of this. The simple questions are the ones that always remain, because there are no answers to them at all. The whole point is the process of the soul searching, and ending up being more at ease and accepting of what you have at the end. This is what leads to the self-actualisation, acceptance and coming to terms with everything. Not a simple definitive and concrete answer to everything. It’s the voyage of discovery that Jack undergoes, and that we will all undergo.

In fairness, that’s probably why so many people are going to dislike it. For people who want answers to questions instantly, and want some sort of stable ‘plot’ to cling onto, perhaps they won’t be latch on to this. It’s not a Maths equation with a concrete solution, It’s a much more intangible experience than that.

The same people who won’t like it for lack of clarity will also probably be the same who feel its too long,  and too epic in its aims. And they may have a point. Perhaps there are segments that drag on, and some ground of Jack’s learning curve begins to repeat itself. Penn’s wandering around could almost be deemed gratuitous, as he really has very little to do (and even less to say) He certainly won’t find a less taxing role for a while.

Pitt has a lot of screen time, and is rock solid, but its not one of the most stellar performances that he’ll be remembered for. All are quietly impressive, but the premise and backdrop carry this film so much so, that performances were always going to rank on a slightly lesser scale. Although to be honest, if anyone is going to get praise, it should probably be newcomer Hunter McCracken as the young Jack, who carried most of the scenes and looked every inch a young boy discovering a tumultuous learning curve, and more.

Others may find it all a bit too grandiose and bloated, particularly with the Earth scenes, Penn’s muted soul searching, or even just the manoeuvring around pristine skyscrapers or tranquil rivers. Whatever is deemed gratuitous, or Malick mastery, the key point for the Tree of Life is that once the parallel has been understood between man and earth, everything comes together; this picture can potentially take you anywhere. I haven’t even scratched the surface in terms of how it affected me. At the very least, I found it extremely reflective, pondered over and over it again; in a manner I can’t recall a motion picture doing for a long, long time. New filmmaking ground has been broken in terms of visual empowerment, and exploring who we are, why we are, how we love, and how we exist. There is no concrete answer, but that’s not the point, or the aim. It was extremely beautiful, powerful, evocative, and evaluating, and that was the point. The point was also that Malick has now firmly etched his credentials as a bona fide genius, Palme d’Or or no Palme d’Or.

11:10pm  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/5777495726/tree-of-life-review
(Notes: 1)
  
Filed under: Film Tree of Life 
May 1, 2011

This looks like it could be amazing. Terrence Malick’s fifth film, The Tree of Life, may be a return to the unanimous praise he’s used to, after the mixed reception that was initially greeted with the New World. In fairness, getting Colin Farrell on board would potentially throw most film’s artistic credentials into jeopardy… The master of scenic epics returns with what looks like an outrageously… scenic epic. Whilst being the forefather of all things stunning cinematography(you would expect nothing less from a Malick feature), ‘The Tree of Life’ seems to be a fascinating exploration of a life lived in its entirety, and assessed from the journey from birth, growth, development to becoming a wayward lost soul, and attempting to make sense of it all. Sounds pretty ambitious. Especially considering that whole ‘meaning of life’ conundrum we tend to try and make sense of from time to time…

But this trailer has seriously caught my eye. Brad Pitt as the stern father and Sean Penn as the grown man trying to find his way seem like particularly meaty roles, and he arguably couldn’t have got two more appropriate people to play them. Obviously, its looks like a scenic tour de force, and nature seems to be shot in all all its resplendid glory, the only way Malick knows (see Badlands or Days of Heaven for the best example of course). 

Details on plot have been kept as secret as Malick’s private life, apparently, and there has been a big guessing game surrounding general knowledge of the film, and curiously, its release date, which has been repeatedly pushed back. It was originally due late last year, before being mooted for an early 2011 launch, but it appears it is now going to be held so it can premiere at Cannes. Who knows though. With the general aura of mystery surrounding many of its aspects, anything could happen.

Either way, bring it on. Apart from cinematography gala affair its obviously going to be(the usual), whats making me most intrigued is how Malick’s potentially fascinating exploration of, well, life in general, is actually going to turn out. Its a pretty big ask, and challenging subject matter to say the least. Then again, this isn’t exactly something he’s ever shirked before. And anyway, he’s more than likely given himself enough time to work it out, I’m guessing it will probably a good ol’ epic clocking in at the 2 and a half hour mark… And who knows, within that time frame we might actually get to ascertain what the meaning of life is. Thanks Terrence, we’d been trying to figure that one out for a while.

3:07pm  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/5099060764/this-looks-like-it-could-be-amazing-terrence
Filed under: film 
February 16, 2011
View The External World here

David O’Reilly’s multi award winning The External World

12:19pm  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/3325419065/view-the-external-world-here
Filed under: animation film 
February 16, 2011
The External World

Link to view The External World: Click Above

Animator David O’Reilly’s career has had an impressively solid upward trajectory over the past few years, especially considering his tender age of 25. He has progressed by doing ‘nixers’ for Shynola, his friend Adam Buxton, films Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and Son of Rambow and a promo video for U2 to name but a few. While work such as this has kept the bank balance ticking over, and also showcased O’Reilly’s growing profile and discernible talent, he always kept a sharp focus on his own creative projects being at the forefront of his output. And why wouldn’t he? O’Reilly clearly has a brilliant mind, capable of things we couldn’t even imagine. He claims a stripped back approach to animation, in order to allow the story to take precedence, yet in reality, he is seemingly capable of anything. The Octocat series on YouTube, under the guise of a nine year old kid called Randy Peters from Chicago, was for 80 percent, seemingly the work of a crude MS Paint sketcher, yet remained an emotive story, until bursting into a sophisticated finale, and climaxing as a highly resonant piece.

If the Octocat series, and his previous release, Please Say Something, showcased him taking particular and more bare approaches, his new release, the bathed in awards ‘The External World’, shows him breaking new ground, and fulfilling the first tangible milestone of his vast potential. It is a truly mind blowing film. A whirlwind of dynamism, hysterical humour, bizarre scene changes and the darkest of imagery, it is essentially a whistle stop tour of O’Reilly’s take on the world, done in the most most virtuoso of animating styles. There’s barely time to pause for breath as we shift from utterly different scene to scene, encompassing Felix the cat in a nursing home, excrement giving birth to excrement, a screaming child becoming modern art, the vacant sitcom.home scenario and of course, the starting point, a boy learning a piano piece. All serve to illustrate the array of disturbed aspects of modern life.

You aren’t really allowed pause for breath, and when its over, you need to take stock and unwind, or as one reviewer said, go and take a walk in the park. This is kind of the point. Apart from being visually stunning, each segment packs a bitter punch. In the first instance, it is side splittingly funny, but you also acknowledge the grim nature of each point. Fitting, as I have always felt that some truly brilliant pieces find that delicately poised knife edge balance of humour and sadness. The External World does so in extreme measures. At times it is not easy, but that is the price you pay for truly impacting and affective viewing.

Indeed, on that note, O’Reilly certainly doesn’t do things in half measure. While us mere mortals operate at roughly 10 % brain capacity, his vision seemingly utilises much more than that. He possesses a scything and brilliant wit, but also a blunt and clear view on his take on the world, and its there for all to see. It leaves for a very strange and original experience when you laugh hysterically, and simultaneously realise how humans are their own worst enemy, and that the world we inhabit has become a very, very disturbed and fucked up place. At the end, you will also realise that no one does ‘elegiac’ quite like O’Reilly.

In a sense, thats as far as the analysis of The External World can and should go, because it really does completely speak for itself. Although many may not engage with it so willingly, it is hard to argue against much of its brilliance. It could also be the first real dent made by a truly brilliant mind. So for future releases, we should be on the edge of our seat to see what awaits.

12:18pm  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/3325411681/the-external-world
(Notes: 3)
  
Filed under: animation film 
October 1, 2010

The Town - Trailer

7:21pm  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/1222644577/the-town-trailer
Filed under: Film Review Trailer 
October 1, 2010
Review - The Town

My word. Ben Affleck has certainly come a long way since slapping kissing J-Lo’s ass in the video for ‘Jenny from the block’. Not to mention cinematic catastophe’s such as Gigli, Paycheck, Daredevil and countless other forgettable garbage. I recall wondering what the hell I was doing when subjected to two and a half hours of just his jaw and a little bit of peripheral drivel in the appalling Pearl Harbour. More importantly, what was Affleck himself doing, seemingly little to arrest the irreparable plummet of a career that had seemed so promising with the breakthrough of Good Will Hunting. However, arrest this decline is exactly what he did, and in spectacular style, with the superb ‘Gone Baby Gone’.

 

Following on the heels of ‘Gone Baby Gone’ is this weeks new release, ‘The Town’, a film which consolidates that newly formed sub genre spawned by GBG and The Departed, the working class Boston crime thriller. Set in the down at heel Boston suburb of Charlestown, a similar scene is created to that of GBG, although this time the story is built around of bunch of childhood friends who have developed into outrageously canny and slick bank robbers. Beginning with the taking of bank that exudes professionalism and ruthlessness, the police’s unplanned intervention compels the gangs to take bank manager Claire (Rebecca Hall) hostage. Central character and gang leader Doug McCray (Affleck) soon realises that she is a Charlestown resident, putting them in a difficult situation. His best friend and resident psycho Jem (Jeremy Renner) thinks he should take care of business with her, while McCray’s more subtle side leads him to take a less pragmatic approach, thereby leading him closer and more interested in Claire, thus supplying the obligatory love story. In the meantime, her questioning after the robbery leads her to come into contact with determined FBI agent Frawley(Don Draper, I mean, Jon Hamm) who is vehement to stop this gang in its tracks. And so the pursuit ensues.

 

The film latches onto a tried and tested template; crime thriller, heists, familiar setting, solid love story, dislikeable FBI agent at every turn, actions, some guns, car chases… You get the picture. It should really be rife with cliches, but it actually manages to rise above all of this and prove to be a pretty solid piece of work. The key to all of this is Affleck’s attention to detail, an ingredient which I believe is the backbone to any self respecting film. The strength of Gone Baby Gone was that it portrayed a real and gritty Boston, the ugly underclass that America hides at will and glosses over so easily. Affleck manages to show us the grim reality of what its really like, Wire-esque, with old timer barflys and their strawberry wizened noses, chain smoking teenage mothers that remind you of Hemel Hempstead council estates and tattoos that look like they were applied with smudgy biro pens. He and his crew blend into this setting seamlessly, with Renner stealing the show as the utterly sociopathic Jem. Authentically rough around the edges and within, Renner has the viewer on edge throughout, and owns every scene he is in.

 

Indeed, the performances are pretty flawless throughout, and in tandem with the attention to detail, really embolden this film as a whole. Apart from Renner’s brilliance, I haven’t seen Affleck impress this much before, while Hamm makes the skin crawl as classically snarling FBI agent. The fact that we realized we weren’t watching Don Draper, and that we disliked the character so much is a succinct testimony of his performance. In the latter part of the film however, Blake Lively, hitherto known as some random society princess from irrelevant TV tripe Gossip Girl, completely steals the show in her late emergence as a pivotal character. As McCray’s long term concubine, she is utterly convincing as the runt of Boston’s litter, and boozy, drug addled dysfunctional young mother (i.e. your average X Factor 2010 contestant) Lively and Renner’s performances add a that gritty realism to the Charlestown experience. This is all allied to a supporting cast that look the bona fide part, such as Boston rapper Slaine as part of the crew, while Pete Postlethwaite’s grim and sinewy Fergie is convincing both aesthetically and personally as just an utterly vile individual.

 

Not much can go wrong after building the film on such a solid foundation of detail and stellar performances across the board. But there’s some more nice touches. The action scenes are pretty explosive, with one car chase in particular being especially exhilarating and originally shot. The decision to show the terror and intimidation of the bank robbery through the black and white CCTV footage was a particularly innovative move on Affleck’s part, showing that he some good creative imagination up his sleeve. There is cliché’s throughout as I said, and on the whole, it does become slightly predictable, particularly towards the end. In addition, some scenes are frown inducing, such as Affleck and Renner’s striding through a corridor in police uniform and aviators, which could easily have been cut from a Police Academy movie or a Village People promo video. It also would have been nice to see a bit of research put into some authentically Irish names, considering the ‘Irish Omerta’ is something constantly referred to. Douglas McCray, James Coughlin (pronounced ‘Cofflin’) and Albert Magloan ain’t exactly classic Munster names…

On the whole though, ‘The Town’ is extremely solid, highly enjoyable and rewarding. It is another pretty good example of Affleck’s directorial capabilities, and bolsters his burgeoning reputation. However, it is also merely proof that he has just mastered the whole Boston Crime Thriller sub genre. Next time, it will be interesting to see if he can escape the comfort zone, and perhaps branch out a little. 

7:19pm  |   URL: http://eclecticpicnic.tumblr.com/post/1222637532/review-the-town
Filed under: Film Reviews