Scratch47's comments

Comments 1 - 25 of 469

Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Set controls for the heart of the sun, it's time for another cinematic abortion, from the series that begs the question, 'yes, but WHY is it exploding?' The visual elements are impressive purely as a 20 minute FX reel, it's almost a 3 star movie if you keep the sound off, and that's the key to understanding why Michael Bay, the useless purple dildo of cinema, is so hated. Sure, the dialogue careens between awkward exposition, highly unfunny humour, and paper-thin preachy monologues that come out of nowhere, all linked with the most threadbare connective tissue imaginable. Sure, there's product placement and shilling to the Chinese galore (seriously,I can't imagine the embarrassment the Chinese must bear for Hollywood's hilarious, pretentious attempts to understand its culture and win its favour). But there's something about the ugly, childish spite of his human villains which really brings the case against him home: the characterization perfectly illustrates the awareness of a spoiled, confused, dumb and nasty child who's been left behind the wheel of a 200 million dollar (exploding) tanker, a perception Bay dutifully honours any time he opens his mouth in public.
The fact that the vast majority of us grew out of this phase decades ago, hasn't stopped the march of Bay's arrested development as he makes the same mistakes over and over, battering his point home with militaristic precision. His pretentions to higher cinematic plains (Emotionally manipulative soundtrack? 3 hours long? A second trilogy?! Dear God!!) only makes the clumsiness, and obnoxiousness more galling. The blitzkrieg momentum between all this nothing doesn't echo a rush of adrenaline, more the feel of a wet fart passing through my bowels in glorious Smell-O-Vision: this is movie as pure product, scrubbed clean, freeze dried and microwaved, anaesthetized of vision or heart or warmth (though I hear sitting on a wet fart for 3 hours is quite toasty on the ol' cockles). It's not just bad, it proactively insults those who want to actually believe in the series' potential. It's hollow. There's just *nothing there*. Just a series of events.
I might add, it's always a cynical joy to see Bay's dramatic misfires compelling him to destroy the careers of actual actors; here, Mark Walhberg and Kelsey Grammar are sleepwalking through a minefield, but at least Stanley Tucci is having fun, and John Goodman's voice carries more weight than the remainder of the delivery in triplicate. I'm not ashamed to say I watched a pirate copy of this at double speed to get the check - and most of you would do the same given the chance. 3 hours of my life is too long for this Bayniac.
9 years 6 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

For a 3 hour Bollywood travelogue which has perhaps one too many songs. and in which the main action sequence primarily involves a water pump, this is a consistently engaging, sensitive and well acted piece of work that emphasizes culture and family, whilst marking India's readiness to usher in a new age. Often touching, amusing or beautiful, it's worth a watch.
9 years 6 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

One of the most ambitious and satisfying science fiction sagas ever, pioneering in both narrative scope and computer effects upon its debut 20 years ago. A single story nearly entirely planned out before production by the show's creator, it grows into a consistently rewarding blend of political intrigue and gutsy drama that recalls Star Trek meets Game Of Thrones by way of Lord Of The Rings and military history, and yes, it's highly binge-worthy. But more specifically, it plays against genre stereotypes by emphasizing often unpleasant moral relativity, recalling events long passed in the chronology, and refusing to hit the reset button on its' long-term choices. I marvel at the scenery-chewing, scene-stealing dynamics between G'Kar and Londo, evolving to be comic, tragic and deeply moving (the dearly departed Andreas Katsulas is monolithic throughout). This is a show that traffics in consequence, prudence and surprise. Hitting many highs during its five year run, and gearing into a run half way through year 2, you'll often be left on your toes, if not on the edge of your seat - absorbing, tough, spirited, often remarkable, and a thing of vision. After 9 straight days going through every episode - the series finale left me in tears.
9 years 7 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Barely half an hour after watching it and the only thing I can remember are the excretions landing on faces and the genital close ups. It starts well and has some classic individual moments (Jay's letter, the park, Will's song and subsequent rant), but the more it goes on, it starts to feel like a straight to video cash-in. The plot's forgettable, ditching characters half way through,shoehorning others in, changing personalities outright, debasing to redundancy, and offering no real closure. A disappointing ending to an inimitably British franchise.
9 years 7 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Madness. Sheer madness. Telling the tale of some Yugoslav gun runner rebels who escape World War II by entering a bunker - and who stay underground as a resistance long after the war has ended - this is a cinematic trip and a half. It flips tragedy and comedy around in a tumble dryer, after all, the characters are not just losing their soul, but their mind. It's black surreal comedy with a dash of despondent screwball lunacy, populated by a downtrodden cast of characters who know their entire world is coming loose at the hinges, literally surrounded by animals, in one scene reduced to screaming like them in the dark. There's slapstick and a fleet-of-foot tone, but any lightness ultimately can only be attributed to the feeling of a nervous breakdown. The actors have supreme awareness of the dynamics required, and carry this deranged clown car of a film right up until the poignant ending where fantasy collides with reality again, spoiler Sure, war is hell, but hell has room for those too crazy to be monsters. I particularly loved the central character crashing in upon the filming of his own biography - and the hilarious meta-instances of one particular character's 'refusal to die'.
It takes a lot of bravery to take such an angle on your countries' history, but I was transfixed throughout a near 3 hour running time. Watch it or you'll be 'always hanging yourself'. Oh, and I can't leave without mentioning the amazing score - or the pet chimp.
9 years 8 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

A film that plays the brilliant magic trick of making the extremely ordinary transcendent. Something rendered in broad brush strokes, but in immutable subtlety, something unassuming yet in endless proclamation of the moment. The lines between actor and character, between character and yourself, just blur and crumble. Somewhere between the second and third act, you realise this postcard symphony has swept its way into your psyche and gently worn your defenses down into the ground. Pardon any refusal to cast personal judgement as this requires a rewatch in, say, 15 years. It's just too big a thing to grapple with right now in terms of grading by a single linear qualification or nominalization, and can only possibly emit more existential gravity with time. The experience has a force to it. Suffice to say all of life, in all colour and shade is here, curiosities and unpleasantaries alike, defying anything other than its own presentation. It's an announcement. That said, however, direct yourself to the perfect scores and act accordingly.
9 years 8 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

I loathe the majority of the stupid, foolish, adult characters in this film, who can't even be bothered to run their problem child by a doctor before berating and shaming him - and why is it that, as per stereotype, only a magical hero teacher can do the job of opening their eyes? The kid should have gone all 'Udaan' on his opponents and socked them in the mouth. The second half is somewhat better (the final cross-generational contest is somewhat enjoyable) but still has a smell of 'Simple Jack' about it, complete with 'angelic' soundtrack at one point, in fact few of the songs in the soundtrack work all that well. The film's sickly sweet message might carry better with Indian audiences, but for those less inclined to believe that every child is sacred, this will probably come off more as saccarine and desperately overlong.
9 years 8 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

A literate, caustic adaptation that stirs the gender, sex, class, and power issues and leaves them on the boil, to spill over onto a glass mirror for closer inspection. For a 20 year old work, it's issues have come full circle back into the mainstream. I have not seen the play on which this is based, but by all accounts it was quite the shocker on release.
Though it might seem misogynist, Mamet's articulate script cuts like a fearless vengeful scythe, revealing vulnerability and pompousness in equal measure, the illustration of the consequences of such reactive mindsets when presented with the threat of power, the betrayal of language and memory when it comes to constructed assumed meanings, the hypocrisy in biting the hand that feeds, the naive foolishness in blind allegiance, and the lengths powerful cyphers of invisible leeching cultures will go to see victory, even in - especially in - the hands of the dispossessed.
Despite a shocking final scene that confirms awful truths, 'Oleanna' is more even handed than might first appear. It's about more than feminism and the sticky truth that it has both the court of law and public opinion on its' side, though it doesn't shrug from implying a sense of cold smugness and plausibly deniable, aggressive social warfare from their part. In fact, the film shows some sympathy for Carol up until the point where her insecurity is exploited and thoughtlessly militarized by a nameless 'group'.
There is nothing gentle or forgiving about this work. Ultimately the issues reach into the heart of ego and conflict itself, right up to the point of continuing the endless cycle, as the outcomes are presented as a foregone conclusion. Recommended for those who want to be confronted.
9 years 8 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Subdued, resigned and mature, pacing slow and deliberately, contrasted with all but the most somber of Ghibli material. Miyazaki himself admitted the autobiographical slant in this work, that he saw himself as the last of a dying breed in the ominous shadow of industry, that he accepted his unique spirit of natural wonder might die with him, but at least he would enjoy it whilst he had it. This theme runs as a poignant undercurrent throughout, weaving around the life of an aeronautics engineer as he quietly follows his calling through the second world war. It's delicate, painful, and patient in a way in which only the old or very wise can perceive, inspiring those betrothed to the wings of dreams to soar, even in a world more suited for a fatalist. A thoughtful and beautiful ending to a rich legacy.
9 years 9 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

So season 2 came out - it's a deeply satisfying feast of bleak drama and bittersweet laughs that comes built for binging. The focus has moved beyond Piper's dilemma to the wider prison community, their fatal flaws, the frustration at their powerlessness, the heartbreak at their sense of loss and the momentum of their sad indignities. Ultimately it comes down to a single theme - the choice between allegiance to the inevitable insanity of the prison reality, or to the new family you can come to choose. Superb acting all round: Lyonne, Mulgrew, and Yael Stone all excel, and I particularly liked Joel Garland as lovable Scott in the finale, but this season belonged to Uzo Aduba as Crazy Eyes...through and through. A fruitful series that's starting to bloom and fulfill its promise.
9 years 9 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

A wise man once said, 'live as if you already made the mistake and this time you're getting a second chance.' This rests at the feet of that old chestnut, cleverly milking audience curiosity with doses of action and humour. Who doesn't wish they could get a second chance on certain events in their life? It's an intense but light rush of a movie that pedals at such a blistering pace, you'll forget there were such things as character development or narrative nuance to take into account. But the rocketing tempo of events, coupled with the high concept, end up feeling elegant and compact, causing me as an audience member to project into the main 'everyman' archetype, thanks to the what-if nature of the plot and smartly drawn heroes, despite my better instincts and the multitudinous tropes. I mean, c'mon, we have Bill Paxton barking military cliches at a rough n' ready team of Marines! But the influences come off as proud and amusing, and despite a boringly rote third act, I can safely say I enjoyed this. The sense of levity strikes contrast to the much darker, denser Days Of Future Past. much appreciated against the usual summer fare of superheroes atomizing cities whilst holding disturbed furrowed brows, though there's quite a bit of action too. Plus I have to give credit to both the leads for playing against type - Tom Cruise has rarely seemed so befuddled and human, and Emily Blunt also captures a subtle beleaguered fragility under her ass-kicking warrior exterior. It's not a classic, as it can't conclude as nearly as strongly as it begins, and you'll probably forget it in time, but it admirably stands out as a pleasant surprise, a 9-digit-budget sly wink in an age of formula exhaustion, even though many might pass it up from a glaring lack of marketing muscle. Buy a ticket, take the ride.
9 years 10 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Firstly, this is the darkest, most powerful, and most violent X-Men movie yet, with a seriously bleak tone and some emotionally brutal action in the future sequences that challenges the PG-13/12A rating and might warrant some caution for those with young 'uns. The premise is solid, the time-travel-McGuffin rests on its own internal logic comfortably, and the stage is set very quickly for quite a serious ride.

It should be noted the entire film relies upon the audience's existing knowledge of the franchise, or at least the trilogy and prequel. Every line seems to serve as the next piece of plot development. That said, those long time fans know these characters inside and out, many of whom have been well explored at this point in the now decade-old saga. For example, Wolverine's rather worn-out brooding has thankfully shifted towards a more sardonic sense of confidence, exuded well by a supremely comfortable Jackman. I was amongst those who found the original trilogy's storytelling focus upon the 'choice of the victimized outsider' to have become a rather tiresome crutch by part three, a symbol of sorts that the filmmakers themselves didn't seem to know what else to do with their ideas. Those same themes are present here, but thankfully they evolve, towards reaching a satisfying conclusion to the central question the series has asked since its inception: the dilemma of the outsider to choose a path of peaceful negotiation or cynical pragmatism, whether that choice is within our bounds to choose as opposed to being in our blood and destiny, and what would drive such a being to be always be on the run. And on that note, it is fun to see Wolverine be a negotiator instead of the aggressor for once. Even though spoiler thanks to the emotional intensity, solid acting from the principal cast, and the deft manipulation of new developments from a complex timeline, it doesn't feel like a cheat.

On the downside, rattling along at a furious pace between two plotlines, there's no doubt some of the characters get shafted beyond merely delivering plot points. There's depth in storytelling, but less so in dialogue. As a result, this film will serve as an exciting two hours but may not stick much beyond a week after watching. In fact I would have appreciated some breathing room: a slower pace, perhaps 10 extra minutes of acting chops, as some strong dramatic scenes, including spoiler blur into the action a little - leaving the viewer dizzied and dazzled by spectacle, but with perhaps not as much to get their teeth into. Maybe since at this point, as is the case in many modern comic book movies, the characters themselves have become rather limited within their archetypes.

Yet this isn't repeating the errors of an Amazing SpiderMan 2, with a more absorbing momentum, and greater maturity and deliberation. I can't deny they got the group dynamics down pretty well. The action highlights, particularly Wolverine's wake up call in the 1970's, and a virtuoso slo-mo bullet-time prison break sequence, both include involving imagery and a refreshing sense of humour which offset some of the breathless blur of the forward drive (excepting a curious third act deceleration). The script carries the day and keeps a sense of parable about some of our heroes, who, it's safe to say, have entered into cultural legend, and even though I wished for more of the future cast, everyone gets their moment in the sun. If you're not blitzed by the narrative, and have experience with the saga, you'll find much to enjoy here. Plus, the final scene feels satisfying and cyclical, an acknowledgment that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Overall, this takes the best elements of the original films, and combines them into a showcase reel and a solid conclusion to what has come before. Best film in the series? Jury's out, as it's not a knockout punch, but it very well could be.
9 years 10 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Frustrating. But with moments of brilliance. Edwards' touch for images is undeniable - the camera lingers and paces itself in a way which recalls vintage Spielberg. In fact, its' closest cinematic cousin is Spielberg's take on 'War Of The Worlds' though you can also see touches of Jurassic Park, as well as Cloverfield, Super 8, and the King Kong remake. There are some truly fantastic moments where things land definitively; the opening credits, the jump, the final fight, and many chilling shots, and by God(zilla), they got their big hero right. There's one astonishing moment in the climax, where, emerging from clouds of smoke amidst the lanterns of San Francisco's Chinatown to sparse piano, he bends and roars with a primal force that incites sheer excited terror, that causes even Pacific Rim to shit itself.
Things become more polarized in the script department - Bryan Cranston is sterling,spoiler the rest of the characters are mere archetypes in comparison, content to run in terror, have a sex scene interrupted by a phone, have to get on a plane to break their dad out of jail, make tearful appeals to military commanders, get separated in time for a joyful reunion, or all just deliver ominous soliloquies and exposition. It's standard stuff for the genre.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a better actor than I gave him credit for, and it's quite surprising how Ken Wanatabe's face can convincly convey so much dread. Yet, whilst nothing I've mentioned is strictly a dealbreaker, it's not enough to avoid pulling you out of the moment, puncturing the wonderful biblically dark mood that sometimes seems to arise spontaneously, underselling some of the cast and the nuclear backdrop, and curiously dragging and lurching in such a odd way you're left feeling dulled, and in need of some levity.
What is far more of a dealbreaker is that we get precious little of our monstrous hero. During all of the fights - the camera cuts away, at the point of contact no less, from the brawl to the human drama, and though this helps to build the anticipation for the final battle and is a brave directorial move, I was left feeling undersold every time - to be reminded of the last Hobbit film was a slight for me. One more brawl in full view would have made all the difference here.
Overall, the character development simply doesn't stand up, and isn't as dramatic as, well, seeing G-Man make another monster shit itself. But, this being essentially a modernized version of a Toho film, essentially a monster throwdown with cutout humans, I guess I couldn't have expected more, and it does succeed on that level, and more besides, with moments of perfection in atmosphere, and a truly great final scene. It just can't quite escape it's frustrating flaws.

It was good to see Vegas get trashed, though.
9 years 10 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Straightforward. Puerile. Yet this film breezes with a light-hearted sense of fun, poised at the two-way intersection of carnality and responsibility, besting my old 'guilty' pleasure Old School at it's own game. It's not as probing as, say, The World's End when it comes to its' character dilemmas, nor as epochal as a Superbad for the student crowd, but its' combination of a high laugh rate, open candor, game performances, and wish fulfillment make Neighbors a fun watch that doesn't claim to have ideas above it's station. Particular props to Zac Efron, who carries much of the bawdy fun on his capable shoulders, clearly up for it. As far as Rogen flicks go, it's up there: the agreeably coarse cotton-candy mentality of much modern comedy is very much in place, and you won't remember a lot of it in a week's time, but it goes down well and (surprisingly) doesn't leave you feeling sick. More warm and satisfied, rather. Good to see in a packed theater.
9 years 10 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Somewhat corny and dated, but a pleasant and amusing nostalgia trip with a couple of big laughs.
9 years 11 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Kieslowsky exerts magical command of visual dynamics, texture, mise-en-scene, camerawork and insinuation. The soundtrack plumbs rich, cavernous depths of tone, collapsing the pace into moments of crystalline antiquity, and the character dynamics feel suitably oblique and murky, leaving archetypal hints to the cyclical nature of human nature, self exploration, and surrender to nature's power. Make no mistake, this is arty arthouse at its' finest, plumbing dimensions few films follow, and though some might find the lack of distinct narrative maddening, there are moments here that are quite breathtaking. A work that adults may find satisfying on all levels.
9 years 11 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Raw, defiant and troubled, but WHAT great music...from (cliche) a time where rock really mattered (/cliche!) You can almost smell the vinyl sleeves, spilt beer and ragged edges, even if you weren't there the first time, this film will transport you straight there expediently, planting you into a nostalgic barrage of celebrity talking heads, DIY chaos, bruised egos, and bittersweet decline in the modern age. A veritable time capsule and a must watch for all music aficionados.
9 years 11 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

It's a little flabby, but not dated. Carrie retains its power today, nostalgic period aesthetic intact and effective (in spite of a few poor funk numbers in the soundtrack). Fueled by the occult primal force of the womb, Spacek's emotive performance is heartbreaking, propelled like an out-of-control train that won't stop for repression. She's aided by strong support, a fine musical score, a respect for the gothic roots of the genre, and a palpable control of image, tension, pacing and cinematic beats. DePalma coldly weaves the threads of schoolyard and underworld together like a stalking predator, hand on leash until the lurid blood spattered climax, leaving us with no illusions as to the exacting ruthlessness of human nature, or of the vengeance of the feminine. There's no reassurance here: red, red everywhere...
9 years 11 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Rename to 'The Hobbit: Battle Of The Five Armies'. Eugh. I'm not even going to get started.
9 years 11 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Still struggling to emerge from the shadow of the Raimi trilogy and a horde of genre titles, TASM2 makes steps towards establishing its own voice but can't quite emerge from a persistent sense of deja vu. It has quite a lot to recommend it: a good sense of humour, Dale DeHaan's sly charisma, a sharpened eye for visuals, quite impressive effects during the Times Square sequence, and Andrew Garfield's presence as a likeable guy, who gels very well indeed in his on-screen relationship with Emma Stone in a smart and sweet combination. Plus you can't fault it's ambition, hell, the thing cost 200 million and lasts 150 minutes.
But the impression I got upon conclusion was that the film was an inconsequential and unconfident checklist. As if the mistakes of Spiderman 3 were having a second wind, the overstretched narrative darts to and fro 3 different subplots with a total of 5 different villains, trying so hard to please everyone it imagines might be watching. Though there's a lot of setup on the front end, these subplots are crudely linked together and accelerated into and through an eerily vague plot featuring many tonal shifts, and finally a pat and thoroughly downer ending which wipes clean any emotional subtleties of the last 2 hours. spoiler It's admitedly true to the comics, but encapsulates the whole film in a egotistical tortured-hero tragedy which doesn't play well to Spiderman's spirit of childhood innocence, and a recovery can only be staged with the generic 'chin up and move on' soliloquy that we've all heard before... Moreover, it proves the inability of its' cast of characters to learn anything - granting ample room for future franchise entries to milk the self righteous quest of our agonized Hero's Journey, as Peter constantly refuses the help of his loved ones so he can continue to bear the Atlas-sized burden of the life that's wearing him down. If this story decision sounds familiar, it's because it's a marketing decision, a card that's been played to death in the saga, and will most likely be played again. I just didn't feel the pain, rather, I felt cheated, by what looks like a narrative that's reverse engineered from a tragic ending, towards filling a whole movie with tiresome wheel spinning, without any regard for dimensionality for its hero, bar a poorly explored obsession with selfishly concealed 'colossal heroic burdens', that subtly mirror both writer Roberto Orci's hollow marketing-driven approach to movie-making, and perhaps even his broken groupthink logic around his beliefs around 9-11.
Its' cousin in the Raimi trilogy was able to affect on a quieter, more personal level, balancing Peter's anguished commitment to his life and his city very deftly. Yet here, every time the film begins to build on its relationships and make emotional impact (say, in the final scene), it pulls the rug out from under our feet in a hurried dash for the next plot development, ending up saying nothing from being out of breath. How hard is it for writers to understand basic character interaction and resolution? Without a guiding center of character and theme, the action means nothing. Plus, Jamie Foxx woefully overplays the already unnecessary Electro, and the collaborative musical score is severely grating, featuring an acoustic ballad in the middle which made my toes curl.

This is essentially what comic book fans pay to see these days - childhood mythology co-opted by blitzkrieg formula, a quiet personal pastime supplanted by juggernaut franchising and loose-ended caricature. The dogged persistence by studios in running their superhero cash cows into the ground is leaving me feeling a kind of resentful battle fatigue - Sony and Marvel's animosity only contribute to this arms race. Plus, for a film featuring a supervillain who has serious issues with not being heard, it ironically never really grabs your attention despite the spectacle. But damn, it sure as hell tried hard. And it's not completely without merit. Your enjoyment will rely upon your answer to the question, how much is too much? For me, that 'too much' was not enough. There are 2 more episodes in this saga planned - prepare for more of the same.
9 years 11 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

What a curio. A review of this film is only as good as the person giving it: I'm an ex-church goer who understands the power of myth and story, and still respect what those old stories meant to me as a child. Aronovsky's gambit was to toe the line between producing his usual visually impressive masochistic character study, a religious vision, and a summer blockbuster, and he succeeds to some degree in uniting film fans, Christians and the secular without preaching to any of them. Sure, the source material raises all sorts of questions, and issues of belief or hidden agenda, but these are tackled mostly gracefully and with respect, and enhance the apocalyptic, weighty Biblical mythology, which usually comes with the territory in adapting these kinds of stories (it's dark, serious and intense for sure). In particular, stunning sequences illustrating global warming and evolution, stop short of showing apes becoming human, and end up striking a balance between intellectually and spiritually inquisitive perspectives, as well as the film's tone.
Yet it's greatest strength is also a thorn in its side. With regards to style and substance, it tries to have its' cake and eat it too - depicting implausible rock monsters on one hand (perhaps the film's only potentially major misstep for many), and then the psychological wear and tear upon the characters on the other, leading us to make suggestive leaps of faith as large as Noah himself. The actors convey the gravity of the narrative well, and invoke ancient cycles of faith, family, morality, archetype and destiny in a very broad and muscular way. Yet we still end up with a flabby final third in the Ark plus some thin tonal joins from all the gear shifting. But then again I'm quite amazed anything of substance or solidity emerged from the boiling pot, particularly given this productions' troubled birth. 'Noah' struggles, but eventually emerges as a portentious and incredibly ambitious blend of mythological depth, spectacle, and Russell Crowe's tortured brooding, albeit a moderately absorbing rather than downright thrilling one. Anyone curious for 'Exodus' this winter?
9 years 11 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

There wasn't much doubt given the first Raid, but Gareth Evans has just laid waste to all echelons of mainstream action directors. He has a peerless mastery of how to capture the percussive beats of a scene; a use of Steadicam cinematography that swoops and whips round, over, under, with, and through the opponents with the grace of a ballet dancer; pinprick-level control of editing, the strength to stop a scene dead to build the intensity, a knack for visual composition, sound design, dark humour and atmosphere, and of course: a gleeful brutality that's physically quite sickening. A film this violently unrestrained is seen as transgressive in the modern climate: fists, blades, bullets, bats, axes, walls, doors, floors, glass, hotplates, hammers, scalpels, Uzi blasts and shotgun hits to bones, skin, neck, veins and face? How did this not get an NC-17? As mentioned by another critic, 'the most violent mainstream film since The Passion Of The Christ' INDEED, blood literally pouring down onto the floor in the climatic duel. I'm almost left without comment. That it remains exciting despite its' joyful sadism and ruthless, unrelenting chewing through bodies is testament to Evans' precision, economy of motion, and exacting restraint, and the storyboarding and framing must have taken a lifetime.

So, do Evans' grander ambitions towards crime odyssey work as well? Sometimes. The dialogue is servicable and the acting rather good in a stoic, simmering, impenetrable way. The plot holds up OK, once you are able to get your head around the numerous characters, allegiances and plot twists. I somewhat advise taking a trip to the Wikipedia page prior to watching this as you may get lost, as many characters are referenced but barely have screen time.
These elements gel fairly well with the action, and some strong performances occasionally grant a certain sense of mythology that deepens the emotional blows of the carnage, admirably raising the stakes to almost Greek tragedy by the final reel, as indeed, everyone pays for their mistakes. Uco's character journey against Rama is quite interesting, and the unravelling of his seditious ambition, the almost operatic heart of the film. But I won't lie, I lost interest during a few moments of bloat and secondary character development that drew attention away from that central dynamic, remaining just a perfunctory setup to the technique. I'm content for the assassins to be foils. So my first view left me admiring this work, yet a little cold from repetition and indulgence. Perhaps a second watch seems necessary.
A little tighter and sharper with the story elements and this could have been an instant classic, as it stands, it's pretty good - perhaps very good, an action masterclass that fulfills many of its pretenses to Godfather-level even if its' overstuffed ambitions betray some of the lean fluidity of the combat. Judged by its' feverish hype, I grant a cautious thumbs up, but judged on its own merits I grant it a much more enthusiastic approval. Cinema needs and deserves this kind of shot in the arm. Guys? Bring your friends. Women and children? Stay home and watch The Notebook.
9 years 11 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

A unfolding dessert, say a well designed cake, of a film, with a bittersweet center. Though there are works of greater substance in Anderson's catalogue, the perfectly enveloping Technicolour vistas are just a lush treat. Kudos to the production design, cinematography and editing. The ensemble cast all impress, but Ralph Fiennes truly leads the charge as the composed Gustav. It's not a work of tremendous drive or overwrought drama, the conflict always has a touch of the gently comedic, but it remains a dreamlike postcard from a forgotten time captured at its zenith, increasing Anderson's stylistic reach from the personal into the almost archetypal.
9 years 11 months ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

So, 8 years later, is the satire just cruel, awkward, political anarchism, does that make it defensible? Actually, yes. A honest and open society has to be willing to be confronted with the paradox that free speech warriors conceal their arguments under a mask of another's hatred, so anyone laughing WITH this is only laughing at themselves. That said, the use of easy targets does hold up the view that this is an immature mess, and that's not entirely defensible, and I would probably react quite similarly if conned this way, it feels like blowing a raspberry in your face. STILL - the content itself is justified not only under free speech, but the revelation that it reveals: that most humans are in a walking daze and will in fact cast out a truthsayer. The line has to be pushed in order for any freedom to be maintained at all, and sometimes it needs pushing so far it needs breaking so that we can learn to trust that our morality isn't a ploy...comedians are the only people capable of representing that kind of cleanse properly in society, and the accordant level of daring is more or less unprecedented. I mean, my God, look at some of the so called comedy America pumps out. You call him childish, I call the culture he has revealed far worse. The fact that Cohen is clearly enjoying himself playing a contradicting, confused childish homophobe, pot shots aside, was a lot of fun too, and what a great, ballsy performance. Literally. In conclusion? If you're saying you're above toilet jokes (or a nude invasion of a hotel), you're probably a liar. 8/10
10 years ago
Scratch47's avatar

Scratch47

This intolerable dreck made me long for the bottom of the ocean.
10 years ago

Showing items 1 – 25 of 469

View comments