Catfish – Review

January 25, 2011 5 Comments

Catfish

Directed by Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman. Starring Yaniv Schulman, Melody C. Roscher, Ariel Schulman

It’s virtually impossible to talk about Catfish without spoiling it for all those people who haven’t seen it. As the poster itself says “don’t let anyone tell you what it is”, so I’ll try to be extremely careful, just in case, because I do think people should see this film!

Catfish will suffer from the expectations that moviegoers might have been given by the advertising campaign, which once again is very misleading.

The trailer sells is as something that it is not: A thriller or some sort of dark twisty tale. And it’s certainly dark but not in the way you’re expecting it to be: it’s actually so much more than that. It’s a window into today’s world. A touching modern tale of online dating and chatting. A look at today’s society and the ability anyone can have of living a “second life”.

If you go into it thinking that it is a horror, you will leave very disappointed. However if you go in with no expectation or an open mind, you will find yourself moved by this touching documentary.

The authenticity of the documentary itself has been called into question (though the film-makers swear it’s all true). Personally I don’t think the documentary is a fake, or at least the main story isn’t, mainly because it all seems way too plausible.

Yes, of course, some of the sequences might have been re-staged afterwards and some of the realism looks a little too real: for example, all the stuff around the setting up of the microphones, or the shots were the camera has been left on in the car just long enough for us to get the idea that our characters are getting ready.Or the shots of our main guy, with his hand in his pants, as if he didn’t even realized that the camera was on him… Or the final few scenes around the last package that arrives. Even the main’s character’s haircut conveniently changes when we need to know that time has passed .

However whether it’s all true or not is irrelevant to me.

It’s interesting to compare it with fake-documentary (released only few months ago) “I am here” by Casey Affleck . In that case, the fact that the documentary had been faked it, made the whole thing seem pretty redundant and in the end, you’re just just left with a scam which is hard to take seriously.

Here the message of the film is clear and yet at the same time it manages to be quite subtle.

It works either way, whether the whole thing has been set-up or not… Oh I wish I could say more!

I should probably watch this film again to be able to tell you whether the film is a one time trick or if it might even work on repeated viewings, however I was hooked and on the edge of my seat all the way through.

On the visual side of things, Catfish has the usual “handheld/shaky-cam” style we are so used to seeing these days, but it’s also full of little touches that fit the story so well. For example the Google-Maps and Street View style to show characters’ locations both in New York and Michigan and the houses of people miles away and yet so clear and so real…

This is what good storytelling is. It’s a clever, thought-provoking and intelligent documentary that will stay with you long after the credits have rolled on.
I saw this a week ago and I am still thinking about it.

8.5/10

Filed under DVDs& Blu-rays, latest movies, Reviews Tagged with Casey Affleck, Catfish, Documentary film, Filmmaking, Google-Maps, Joost, Michigan, New York

Barney’s Version – Review

January 24, 2011 4 Comments

Barney’s Version

Directed by Richard J. Lewis. Starring Paul Giamatti, Macha Grenon, Paul Gross, Dustin Hoffman, Minnie Driver.

This is a very unusual film which took me completely by surprise. About 1 hour into it I was actually ready to hate it. Then something must have happened about half way through because slowly (maybe too slowly) what was up until that point just an average comedy, turned into something quite different: a touching story, with a very powerful ending which I am sure will stay with me for quite a while.

Paul Giamatti is the real strength of “Barney’s Version”, a film which otherwise would have become a fairly forgettable ride. He somehow manages to turn the part of the obnoxious, hard-drinking, cigar-smoking, foul-mouthed, hypocrite and quite repellent television producer, Barney Panofsky, into a moving character right at the end, just when you’re ready to dismiss him. This is certainly one of the best performances of Giamatti’s career (and that says a lot, since he’s always been very good).

Having said this, 132 minutes spent in the company of someone like Barney who is so focused on himself, so smug would stretch anyone’s patience.

His actual character is virtually impossible to comprehend and in the end, despite being present for pretty much every single scene in the film, he does remain a mystery (and i don’t mean it as a compliment). This is certainly not Giamatti’s fault but a combination of the script (adapted from a novel by the Canadian Mordecai Richler) and a bland direction (unsurprisingly Richard J. Lewis comes from TV from things like CSI, makes no attempt to bring any style or pace to the film).

The main problem, length aside, is that you never quite believe why so many attractive women could fall in love for the sweaty, drunken Barney. And yet, he does get married 3 times and has constant flings everywhere else too. At some point I even wondered whether Giamatti was really the best choice for this story (though he is so good that he almost gets away with it).

The whole first part of the film is probably the weakest. It is fairly episodic and tries too hard to be a comedy without being funny enough. There are too many subplots which feel too random and disjointed but also there are way too many supporting characters, most whom might have played better in the novel, but here they all feel too much like caricatures (the father in law, Minnie Driver and Dustin Hoffman among many), as the film barely scratches their surface.

Then, about 1 hour into the film, something quite big happens (I won’t tell you what it is, don’t worry) and from there onwards the film finally seemed to find its way and became more focused.

Rosamunda Pike enters the film and the relationship between her and Giamatti takes the centre stage. I have never been really crazy about Rosamunda Pyke, but in this film she’s really good and she definitely plays one of the her best part.

Slowly the film settles into what it really should have been from the beginning, a slightly more poignant and focused film about a guy feeling the weight of the guilt and regrets for the life he’s spent. The last act is heart-wrenching and probably the most original part of the film. Some people may find it a bit too heavy handled, especially since our emotional investment in the main character has been somewhat limited by his awful persona.

It really worked on me but I can see how somebody could argue it’s rather manipulative.

On a separate note, there some in-jokes cameo appearances by some of Canada’s most notable directors, for diehard movie geeks out there: these are mainly people who have worked for producer Robert Lantos (producer of Eastern Promises). Even David Cronenberg and Atom Egoyan also turn up as directors of Barney’s TV show.

6.5/10

Filed under latest movies, recently re-watched, Reviews Tagged with barneys-version, Dustin Hoffman, Minnie Driver, Paul Giamatti, Paul Gross, Richard J. Lewis, Rosamund Pike, Television producer

Buried – Review

January 20, 2011 5 Comments

Buried (8.5/10)

Directed by Rodrigo Cortés. Starring Ryan Reynolds, Stephen Tobolowsky, Samantha Mathis.

Let me just start by saying that this film is brilliant!! I had heard about the concept (90 minutes with a man stuck in a box/coffin with a lighter and a cell phone) and I was already waiting for pretty claustrophobic experience. However, what I also found was an incredible roller-coaster of an action movie, wonderfully told, constructed, directed and perfectly balanced. And, more importantly, despite its premise, it was never boring, slow or repetitious (I don’t think there’s a single shot being repeated twice). In fact, they even managed to have a couple of really tense action scenes: yes action scenes within a box!!!

The director has been very brave to even attempt something like this, but he’s also been able to play the game within the rules he had set up and never cheat: the camera never leaves the confinements of the coffin. This is a film that Hitchcock could have made, and he would have made him proud!

You know you’re in for something quite interesting from the title sequence itself, which once again is reminiscent of those Saul Bass titles in a Hitchcock’s movies. They’re beautifully designed, perfectly paced and they’re accompanied by a sort of “Hermanesque”score that you would probably expect from an action movies, but not from a movie which you know it’s going to take place inside a coffin.

And that pace, energy and inventiveness permeates the whole film from there onwards.

The first few minutes are probably the toughest to watch (well, in fact there’s very little to watch since most of that time is spent on a black screen): it’s the moment when our character realizes he is “buried” alive. It’s a claustrophobic experience, beautifully orchestrated just with simple sound effects of his body moving around, thumping against the side of the coffin (the use of the 5.1 sound is impressive), breathing heavily and then finally screaming. It is excruciating! At one point I remember thinking to myself: “If it is all like this I don’t know if I’ll be able to take it…”.

But somehow, once the film gets going and the mystery unravels, then you almost became used to the settings, just like the main characters gets used to it too.

I don’t really want to give away too much, because part of the fun is discovering what’s going as the story unfolds. The script is beautifully constructed, giving the audience new and interesting clues every few minutes, thus making us always intrigued and, as I said before never bored.

There’s a sequence involving a snake at some point, that might be a bit of a cheap trick but actually ends up being one of the most accomplished action-packed moment I’ve seen in any action film this season. To be able to pull something like that off, it is an achievement indeed!!

And just when you think the film may run out steam, here comes a new idea and a new trick in the bag. I may even go as far as saying that despite the overall silliness of this movie, it is at the same time one of the most accomplished and inventive I’ve seen in a while.

Technically it is pretty much faultless too: the camera swoops around the box showing you the action from any conceivable point of view and using pretty much any every trick in the book (zooms, tracks, extreme close-ups and so on). The sound design and sound mix on this film are both just as important and they are both top-notch, as they’re so carefully balanced to making you really feel you’re in there inside the box.

I am looking forward to seeing what the BluRay will look and sound like (This will be coming out around Valentine’s Day, although I cannot think of a worse date movie…).

I should also spend a couple of words praising Ryan Renolds, who literally carries the whole film on his shoulders as he’s on screen from every single second.

The music, as I mentioned before for the title sequence, treats it all like a real action movie and to me that was probably slightly overdone. It works for most of the film, but I can’t help thinking it was a bit too bombastic in a few other places.

But I am really picking needles here and I shouldn’t, because this is a little MASTERPIECE: it’s not just a tagline or a gimmicky one-trick-movie, but it’s a true lesson on creating and building tension in a movie.

Rodrigo Cortes understand film-making, how to build tension and how to sustain it throughout. He’s been able to create an action film which is also, moving and funny in places. I can’t wait what he’s going to do next.

I can see that “Buried” might not be for everyone, and it’s definetely not for the faint-hearted or those people who suffers from claustrophobia, but if you like tension, thrillers, action romps or simply good film-making and pure cinema this is for you!

8.5/10

OTHER RELATED REVIEWS:

127 Hours

Filed under DVDs& Blu-rays, Reviews Tagged with Alfred Hitchcock, Blu-ray Disc, Film, Ryan Reynolds, Samantha Mathis, Saul Bass, Stephen Tobolowsky, Valentine's Day

NEDS – Review

January 16, 2011 4 Comments

Neds (2010)

Directed by Peter Mullan. Starring Conor McCarron, Linda Cuthbert, David McKay, Marianna Palka

I don’t know much about Peter Mullan, but judging by his body of work, he must have had a seriously troubled childhood (to say the least), though he’s been reported saying that the film is “personal but not autobiographical”.

Neds is his third feature as a director, after Orphans (About four siblings who have to cope with the death of their mother) and The Magdalene Sisters (About young women suffering oppression and brutality at the hands of some over-zealous nuns). This one is essentially the story of teenage boy’s coming of age in the Glasgow of the 1970s and his descent from a potentially good boy to a ned

Neds is short for “Non-Educated Delinquents” in Scotland. The stereotypical view of a ned is a white adolescent of working class background engaging in hooliganism, petty criminality, vandal behaviour, fighting, underage drinking, smoking and general anti-social behaviour

There are obvious comparisons with This is England by Shane Meadows but this time we are in Scotland. Incidentally, some people may find the thick accent in certain scenes a big obstacle. I heard that in some festivals the film was even shown with subtitles.

Right now the film is being pushed for various Awards here in the UK (BAFTAs and so on), so I came in expecting to like it quite a lot… And unfortunately that is always a recipe for disappointment.

NEDS is well shot with its grim look and the art direction seems to be spot on, setting up the 70s without overdoing it. It all looks and feels real.

The score of the film, mainly made up with low drones and moody strings, is pretty bland and forgettable and the incidental was often used in contrast with the pictures, for example Irving Berling’s Cheek to Cheek played under a fight sequence among 2 rival bands: that wasn’t very subtle, nor, to be honest, very original either (I suppose he probably did it to distance the audience from the brutal violence of the scene, but we’ve seen this device used many many times before).

I’ve been reading few reviews praising Conor McCarron’s performance, but I actually thought he was quite miscast for the part. I didn’t really find him sympathetic, nor likable enough to care about whether he’s kill anyone or not. He seemed to lack that charisma that a lead actor should have.

Also I didn’t find his change from goody-goody to a ned quite unbelievably abrupt; then again, I am not sure whether that was a problem with his performance or with the script itself. On one hand I felt the shift happened to quickly, one the other hand it was obviously telegraphed from the script right from the start.

However I did like all the secondary characters in the film. Apparently the cast was largely made of untrained people, and they all added extra injection of realism to the grim story.

To be completely honest I found “NEDS” way too long and fairly messy in its episodic structure. I’m also beginning to find the brutal violence of films like these a bit too repetitive and pointless. In a way I felt like I’d seen this film even before I actually saw it for the first time. And although it started off quite promisingly, it then fell quickly into predictable clichés.

There were only few surprises here and there: the ending (with the non-too-subtle metaphor with the lions) and a scene with a crucifix (which I personally found of poor taste) being the only two worth mentioning and not necessarily in a good way.

Just because a film talks about serious issues in a serious way, it doesn’t necessarily make it a good film. There was very little in NEDS I haven’t seen before and despite some good individual scenes, but on the whole I felt that the film had said everything it had to say after the first 30 minutes, the rest was just pretty gratuitous and the open ending was just a bit disappointing.

I much prefer Peter Mullan‘s first two films, in fact I loved the The Magdalene Sisters, another tough film, for sure, but at least a more original one with more of grip on the story, the style (NEDS was a mish mash of styles) and and actual ending!

6/10

Filed under latest movies, Reviews Tagged with British, Peter Mullan, violence

Monsters – Review

January 12, 2011 1 Comment

Monsters (2010)

Directed by Gareth Edwards. Starring Whitney Able, Scoot McNairy.

When reviewing a film like Monsters you can’t help dealing with 2 things: the film, of course, which is essentially a road movie with some added Alien Monsters. And then you’ve got the making of the film itself, which is the issue everyone has been talking about (and that’s somehow even more interesting).

The budget of “Monsters” is reported to be under $500.000, shot with a camera in the region of $15,000, which in Hollywood wouldn’t even be able to cover the rental of the main camera for a week. And yet Gareth Edwards has been able to come up with movie which looks like any of those blockbusters out there, if not even better.

His background is from Graphics and Visual effects and it clearly shows. Here we are dealing with somebody who really knows the tricks on his trade. There’s hardly a frame in the film which hasn’t been treated or altered in some sort of subtle way: whether it’s just in the grading and colour of the pictures themselves which really makes it look and feel like any feature films out there, or whether it’s a detail way off in the background (an helicopter flying in the distance, the wreck of a tank, smokey ruins) and finally, obviously, the title’s ‘monsters’ themselves (though this ones, are the more showy and, to a degree, less successful Visual effects).

Gareth Edwards is very aware of the limitations of his trade too. His handheld camera moves in such a way that he’s always able to diguise his effects and trick the audience. In the best tradition of great movies which have monsters in them (Alien, and to a degree, Jurassic Park and even Jaws), he wisely keeps them well hidden to the audience for most of the time (the monsters are only seen at night times or on TV newscasts), thus creating a sense of foreboding and adding a lot more tension to the story.

Unfortunately as a film, “Monsters” is a lot less groundbreaking. For some reason it has been compared to District 9, but it has neither the inventiveness, nor the humor, let alone the high concept and underlying subtext of Neill Blomkamp‘s sci-fi from 2009 (which I loved, by the way).

The story of Monsters is pretty simple. Right a the beginning a series of captions tells the following: Six Years ago…. Nasa discovered the possibility is alien life within our solar system. A space probe was launched to collect samples but broke up during re-entry over Mexico. Soon after new life forms began to appear and half of the country was quarantined as an INFECTED ZONE. Today… The Mexican and US military still struggle to contain ‘the creatures’…

From there onwards the film is essentially a road movie where the two main characters have to reach the US border, crossing the so-called infected Zone in Mexico. That’s pretty much it.

Gareth Edwards is clearly in love with his pictures, since he spent a lot of time cleaning them up, but he probably forgot about pacing them. It is a fairly slow film which seems to be more interested about creating an atmosphere than actually telling a good story. However the film is short enough to just about get away with it. The acting is pretty good (with however little material they’re given) and the non

He’s clearly an interesting director: he’s good a framing his action, directing his actors and creating the right type of mood, so it will be interesting to see what he can achieve with a proper budget (and a better script) in the future: unfortunately it looks like he might be getting stuck with Monsters, as it just emerged that he will be directing a new Godzilla Movie (he’s been quoted in Variety saying “you just don’t say no to Godzilla”): not very imaginative, I’d say.

So now we’re only left to see how Hollywood will respond to a film like this which looks like any multimillion dollar flick, and yet it costs just a fraction of what Michael Bay would spend in taxis.

In the end, this will be the only legacy of this film: it cost nothing to make andyes it’s watchable. I’ll take this over Transformers anytime.

6/10