The Big Lebowski

“F**k it, Dude, let's go bowling" 

1998
Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Writers: Joel and Ethan Coen
Cast: Jeff Bridges, John Goodman and Julianne Moore

A case of mistaken identity, not to mention a soiled rug, lands free spirit, Geff “Dude" Lebowski, in a whirlwind of chaos as he attempts to return millionaire Leboswki's wife. When films these days involve crooks, lost toes, trophy wives, crazy Germans and many more undesirable situations, they seem ridiculous and excessive, but here, it works. For starters, the Dude is iconic. Bridges' southern drawl, hippie clothing and casual demeanour makes for a funny and loveable protagonist whose Vietnam veteran sidekick, Walter (Goodman) is just as appealing. Add on Donny (Buscemi) and the stick he receives from Walter (did I mention he was in Vietnam?) and the trio is unbeatable - in comedic terms, that is, not in the plot. Don't forget about Philip Seymour Hoffman as Mr. Lebowski's (the rich one) employee either, who is equally amusing.

The film's other key selling point is the witty dialogue. I'll just let some quotes speak for themselves:

The Dude: Let me explain something to you. Um, I am not “Mr. Lebowski". You're Mr. Lebowski.
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder,
or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. 

The Dude: It's like what Lenin said....you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh....
Donny: I am the walrus.
The Dude: You know what I'm trying to say....
Donny: I am the walrus.
Walter Sobchak: That fucking bitch....
The Dude: Oh yeah!
Donny: I am the walrus.
Walter Sobchack: Shut the fuck up, Donny! V.I. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!
Donny: What the fuck is he talking about, Dude?

The Dude: These are, uh...
Brandt: Oh, those are Mr Lebowski's children, so to speak.
The Dude: Different mothers, huh?
Brandt: No.
The Dude: Racially he's pretty cool?
Brandt: [laughs] They're not literally his children. They're the Little Lebowski Urban Achievers - inner city children of promise but without the necessary means for a - necessary means for a higher education. So Mr Lebowski is committed to sending all of them to college.

The Dude: That rug really tied the room together.

8/10

Million Dollar Baby

“No matter where he is, I thought you should know what kind of man your father really was."

2004
Director: Clint Eastwood
Writer: Paul Haggis (screenplay)
Cast: Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman 

I had been looking forward to watching Clint Eastwood's boxing drama, about a tough trainer's decision to coach a committed female boxer,  for months but unfortunately, it did not pack a punch as much as I had hoped.

Though my focus was not completely on the film at the start, I found the beginning to be quite tiresome and not particularly captivating. It took too long for Maggie (Swank)  to begin training with Frankie (Eastwood) and then in a matter of moments she had become a great boxer. It was after Maggie had her accident, though, that the film hit its stride. The plot became more focused and the characters more engaging, with scenes between Frankie and Maggie becoming quite heart-wrenching.

I often find that a film's ending can dictate my opinion on the film as a whole. With the film in question,  the concluding sequences were impressive and I therefore leave with a positive opinion. I did, however, find the beginning of the film to be flawed and a slight disappointment following a viewing of Mystic River several months ago. With the latter, I was instantly gripped with the mystery and intrigue of the film as well as the stellar performances. Did I think Freeman's performance deserved an Oscar? No, not particularly. His voiceover may have added a special something to the film but he failed to significantly grab my attention like an Oscar winning role should. Swank's performance was excellent, and it is her character and evolving relationship with her trainer, leading to unexpected conclusions, that made the film.

Though a different style of film, I found last year's boxing flick, The Fighter, to be a more enjoyable, well-rounded film with perhaps even better performances from the supporting cast.

Rating: 7.5/10 (apologies for sitting on the fence...)

The Amazing Spider-Man

“We all have secrets: the ones we keep...and the ones that are kept from us”

Director: Mark Webb
Writers: Screenplay by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Sally Field, Martin Sheen

(Taken from previous blog written on release)

I had been anticipating the release of this film for several months, no way near as much as The Dark Knight Rises of course (an excitement intensified by the recent behind-the-scenes featurette), but didn't have any particular expectations in mind. I wasn't fuelled by the opinion that this film would be fantastic attempt, or a futile one for that matter, at rebooting Sam Raimi's super-hero franchise starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst so I could just sit back and enjoy; and enjoy I did.

First things first, the star of the film, Andrew Garfield, played a fantastic Spider-man. I'm not going to pretend that his erm attractive appearance didn't help slightly but let's be honest, he's clearly an improvement on Tobey Maguire. Not that this was his only drawing point. Garfield was successful in creating a cooler Spider-Man than Maguire with a bit of  rock 'n' roll edge thanks to his Ramones Tees and Hitchcock posters whilst still conveying that adorable, slightly geeky charm. His love interest in the film, Miss Gwen Stacey, is played genuinely and thoughtfully by Emma Stone but it is her  relation to the Head of Police, attempting to arrest Spider-man, that adds the most interesting element to her character. Perhaps not completely believable as a 17-year-old, I think Garfield's 28-year-old self even achieves this better, but she is not at all as irritating as Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane.

Supernatural villains aren't usually my cup of tea, hence my preference for Nolan's Batman films in which they do not feature. That may sound like an odd statement because Spider-Man has powers but I often find confrontational scenes in super-hero films rather lackluster when powers are just thrown back and forth between protagonists and beings transform themselves into seemingly invincible monsters. Though a few action scenes in this film with the giant lizard, a.k.a Dr. Connors played by Rhys Ifans, were slightly tedious, this villain didn't ache on me as much as usual. His normal persona of a good-natured scientist with links to Parker's father  made the character's transformation into a mad reptile perhaps more affecting.

I haven't seen the original Spider-Man for a while but from what I can remember, this reboot maintains a much more mysterious element regarding the death of Parker's parents, including an after-credits clip foreshadowing the next film's plot. Though both deal with Parker's rise to superhero status, this new offering gives a deeper exploration of how being orphaned deeply affected the teenager.

Though I may in the minority here, I found this Marvel offering to be superior to its previous one (that little known film that's made no money...). Its humour may have been more sparse, but the leads were played perfectly and the action carefully selected to ensure that the film's key elements remained the struggle, survival and rise of one ordinary boy.

7/10

Ted

Director: Seth McFarlane
Writer: Seth McFarlane
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth McFarlane

An impromptu trip to the cinema last week saw me watching, and being extremely entertained by, this summer's biggest comedy, Ted.

The first feature film from Family Guy creator, Seth McFarlane, was thankfully not as close to his brash and in-your-face TV show as expected. A few moments were slightly tedious such as a five minute fight between Wahlberg and his talking teddy bear, reminiscent of that ridiculous chicken fight in the show (my brothers continue to find that hilarious) , as well as the party with Sam “Flash Gordon" Jones. As a British teenager, this character meant nothing to me and seemed to please the film-makers more than an international audience.

Many gags were great though: jokes about pop culture (“...whether you're Frankie Muniz, Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber or a talking teddy bear, eventually nobody gives a shit"), amusing lines from the narrator (Patrick Stewart) a few shock laughs about 9/11 showed McFarlane was the writer but this film was more silly than offensive.

Mark Wahlberg was an impressive comedic lead, a highlight being the reeling off of white-trash American girl names (“Wait; was it any of those names with a “Lynn" after it?"). As a reasonably frequent viewer of Family Guy, I found the voice of Peter Griffin to be a little too present in Ted's speech. Though they made a joke about it, I would have preferred it if McFarlane had created a new voice for this character.

Though not a flawless comedy, I hadn't laughed that much in the cinema since The Hangover or Bridesmaids and compared to the trailers for other upcoming American comedies including “The Watch" and “That's My Boy", this definitely seems the best of the bunch.

7/10

A Clockwork Orange

“Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?"

 

1971
Director: Stanley Kubrick

Writers: Stanley Kubrick (screenplay), Anthony Burgess (novel)

Cast: Malcolm McDowell, Warren Clarke 

On my to-watch list for months, I finally got around to watching Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange last night after finishing the book yesterday morning. On the knowledge that the film had been withdrawn from British distribution upon release due to its disturbing nature, I was expecting an extremely difficult watch but was surprised to find this was not exactly the case. Some scenes were indeed very unsettling, but having read the book where some acts were even more violent, nothing was particularly unexpected.

Though a big fan of the book, I’m not about to complain about every single little detail that Kubrick decided to omit. I often find it frustrating when book lovers overly criticise a film adaptation because it is “not true to the book but adapt is the key word there. One must realise that cinema is a completely different medium to literature and that certain elements need to be changed to visually please and excite the audience. For example, though I initially winced about the differences in the scene where Alex goes to “home” and discovers that the owner, Mr. Alexander, was once a victim of the former’s crimes, Kubrick’s alterations actually made for better viewing. As Alex lies in the bathtub, we quietly hear the words of “Singing In The Rain”, once heard before as he attacked his new-found guardian. The audience automatically makes the connection and is left tense, to see if the man will discover the truth: a close-up of a hysterical face confirms he does. That said, the tension is more acute in the book as Alex attempts to cover up the clues he drops accidentally (“I thought you didn’t have a phone”) and would have worked well in the film. I also found the scene where Alex is assaulted by old ally Dim and his fellow police officer to be positively modified for the big screen. By lengthening the sequence and involving a frighteningly long stay in a water trough unmentioned in Burgess's novel, the audience is put on edge and continues to somehow sympathise with our violent yet charismatic narrator. 

I will probably now sound as if I am contradicting my earlier statement that I won’t criticise the changes but I found a few to be slightly unnecessary, especially given the size of the novel. Firstly, the film excludes the references to its title, showing how Alex has been made “a clockwork orange” by his aversion therapy. Though not vital, the fact that Mr. Alexander  created the title and that it stuck in Alex’s head during their first encounter was an important, intriguing part of the novel and served as another clue to their meeting that Alex attempts to conceal. 

Your  Humble Narrator, Alex

The most controversial change, though, occurred in the film's conclusion.  In the novel, the ending is optimistic; we see Alex growing out of his sociopathic tendencies, even after he is cured of his therapy, and deciding to lead a better life. In the film, he is seen collaborating with the autocratic government and the viewer is left unsure whether Alex will return to his villainous ways or not. Though the positive ending was satisfactory as a reader, I do not completely oppose to Kubrick's unintentional editing, as it seemed more realistic in the vision he put on screen. 

 Keeping the Nadsat dialect was vital, and it is used most effectively in Alex’s narration. A few words seemed to keep their English variation, but unlike the reader, the viewer is not given a glossary of terms and needs to be gradually introduced to this unique style. Though not all first-person narratives need be maintained in film format, it was necessary here and most effective during the film screenings. 

Though initially uncertain about the casting of Alex, his voice in particular was not what I had imagined, it was in the scenes after Alex goes to prison where I believe Malcolm McDowell portrayed him fantastically; the hospital scene with the Minister of The Interior feeding him being a favourite and another positive addition to the book. 

This was the first Kubrick film that I had seen, and I was therefore incredibly impressed. Though not a knowledgeable film critic, I appreciated the experimental aspects of the film: a close-up of Alex’s haunting face to start, the change to animation as the cat-woman’s face is about to be squashed, the slowing down and speeding up of various sequences. The use of music was particularly ingenious and not only did the classical music reflect upon our protagonist’s love for the genre, but it gave the film the satirical edge needed. 

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this film as a motion picture in its own right and also a impressive adaption of a classic novel. 

9/10 

The Dark Knight Rises

“There's a storm coming”

2012
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, David S. Goyer
Cast: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Michael Caine, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman

No, I'm not just slow on the uptake, this was in fact my third viewing of the final instalment in the Dark Knight trilogy. After the adrenalin rush and excitement of the first viewing have faded away, I can now attempt to write a more impartial view on the...well, not exactly impartial, don't expect to find too many criticisms of  Nolan, a.k.a God, here.

With the release of The Dark Knight four years ago, a film often hailed as the best superhero film of all time, thrilling both audiences and critics alike, Nolan created the challenge to surpass himself. In the build up to The Dark Knight Rises' release, I thought this to be impossible and even though I don't believe it was fully achieved, the film rises to the occasion even more than I thought it could.

The running time of two hours and 45 minutes has been one of the main causes of criticism for the film but I have to say, I don't completely agree. On my second viewing, I thought that the pace of the first half was perhaps a bit slow, but this time I found each scene to be just as important than the last. A few moments around the half way mark are perhaps lengthy as our protagonist seems to take a back seat during his time in prison - a stay that could have possibly been shortened - but it was still necessary to see Bruce Wayne get back on his feet and find the strength, of body and soul, to return to Gotham and beat Bane. It is after his return that the film's pace really picks up and a the sense of urgency arises with shots of the ticking time bomb creating suspense and fear in the audience. This film more than its two predecessors really steals away the audience's faith in Batman and the masked greatness of Gotham  as one is really unsure if Batman can actually save his city.

The villain offered to us in Bane completely surpassed my expectations and is the reason for this loss of confidence in our anti-hero: Ra's Al Ghul and the Joker appear friendly compared to this beast. Not only is he written to appear everywhere and be behind every wrongdoing due to his meticulous planning but Hardy himself pulls out a great performance particularly with his bellowing voice; concerns about his voice are almost unfounded with only a few words dissolving away.

The other characters were also better than expected. The images and clips of Hathaway in the film's trailer did not do her justice as she added a sultry edge not yet seen in the trilogy. Gordon-Levitt as Blake was also a more interesting character and without giving away too many spoilers, I actually hope that Nolan doesn't get roped into a spin off by Warner Brothers.

The music was spectacular, as is to be expected from Zimmer, its crescendos creating suspense in dramatic moments and being effectively stripped away for emotional scenes with Bruce and Alfred as the latter's painful confessions echo through the walls of Wayne Manor. It is such scenes, Alfred's unsuccessful hopes for a better life for Bruce beyond the mask and a little bit of the classic fatherly banter we love ("Well you're welcome to try it, Alfred"), that give a special something to the trilogy's finale: emotion. Yes, we saw it in the other films as Bruce's parents and his true love die but it is here that we really seen the pain in Wayne's existence. As Nolan has dubbed the films themes: Fear, Chaos and Pain respectively.

I still hold The Dark Knight in higher esteem due to the thrill ride it gives the audience: the ups and downs, the unexpected deaths, the havoc the Joker causes along with his chilling performance and the comedic elements it entails. Amusing lines are not excluded here nor is the element of surprise (Marion Cotillard couldn't have just played the love interest, could she? ) and luckily it is the desire to reach the finish, the need to discover what happens to our Dark Knight that keeps the audience hooked. I'm glad to say, however, that even after discovering all of the above and starting the film again, it's still an exciting, epic conclusion to what I believe to be the best trilogy of our time.

9/10