xamsx Reviews

Black Swan (2010)

Black Swan

[9/10 · 21 April 2011]

Visceral, beautiful, at times uncomfortable to watch and yet utterly compelling, Black Swan is a tour de force of modern cinema. The cinematography, lighting, camera work and performances from Aronofsky's cast are all nothing short of Oscar worthy, but the real stand out is Natalie Portman as leading lady, Nina.

Without giving too much away, the plot of the film drives toward the opening night of the ballet itself, with the performance building to a crescendo as Nina descends into obsession, paranoia and madness. Seeing the ballet from her perspective is truly spectacular and I was left open- mouthed and captivated, by some of the most breath-taking visuals I've seen of any film.

I was considering writing a full review and giving an account of my opinions, but I quite honestly don't feel I have a full enough command of the English language, to express just how astounding this piece of cinema is.

In short, SEE THIS FILM. It's worth it, just to have your own opinion.

Thor (2011)

Thor - A comic book movie worthy of the Gods

[7/10 · 21 April 2011]

Given his Godly nature, Thor could have easily been the most difficult member of The Avengers to translate to screen. Any fears have soundly been laid to rest though, as Kenneth Branagh and his team have pulled together several interpretations of the character, to create perhaps the most definitive version of Thor yet.

Despite a somewhat information laden opening, the backstory of Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and the family dynamic between his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and jealous brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is fantastically realised, in a beautifully architected Asgard. Simultaneously seeming archaic and futuristic, Asgard perfectly fits the film's ideology that magic and science are one in the same, something that I think will translate perfectly as the Marvel films start to more deeply explore the other worldly nature of the Marvel Universe. The marketing boys did a grand job of not letting on just how much of the film is set there and the production team created a breathtaking realm through a combination of CGI, outlandish sets and costumes.

The film is at it's best when the father-son triangle relationship is being explored, with Hemsworth, Hiddleston and Hopkins all giving very different but equally as impressive performances. Hemsworth's physical, fun loving, but fiery tempered Thor gives the film its heart, particularly during his tenure on Earth, whilst his jealous and manipulative brother Loki, is given layers of depth by Hiddleston, who has created perhaps the most memorable on- screen Marvel villain yet. However, it's Anthony Hopkins' Odin, who steals every scene he is in. Despite his lack of knowledge of the source material, he applies himself to the role using every ounce of his shakespearean nature and overpowers louder performances with a whisper. Much of the supporting cast is never given much time to shine, with Natalie Portman's role being particularly under developed, whilst Sif and the Warrior's Three are entertaining if not particularly memorable.

Amongst all of this heartfelt drama, is also a brilliant action blockbuster. You will believe that Gods can fly and the climactic battle between Thor and Loki is better than anything the Iron Man movies produced. And whilst there is the cross-over element as with the other Marvel films so far (including a scene involving a certain archer and the almost obligatory post credits moment), it's nowhere near as jarring and enables Thor to stand on its own two feet. It's just made me that much more excited to see the God of Thunder alongside the rest of Earth's heroes. I only hope that Captain America: The First Avenger is this good.

Buried (2010)

Buried

[8/10 · 21 April 2011]

Buried is a picture that I missed during it's limited theatrical release and one I have only recently managed to see; I am now just more disappointed I didn't see it at the cinema.

From a technical outlook, this film is astounding. Shot in just 17 days and in chronological sequence, you share every terrified breath with the only man you see on screen, Paul Conroy, portrayed magnificently by Ryan Reynolds. His limited light resources (initially a zippo lighter and phone) are the only ones the audience are privy to and as such, they have to be used in increasingly inventive ways. Due to the action never leaving the wooden box, there are plenty of other techniques used to keep you captivated. Take for instance the fact that no one shot is repeated in the entire 94 minute run time, which by the way, is the real time of the events themselves. To achieve this, 7 different coffins were used, enabling the director to think up some incredibly cunning shots.

As you can imagine, if you never see another person on screen for an hour and a half, that person needs to be engaging in a manner of ways. Ryan Reynolds is somebody I have personally liked and held a high opinion of for a few years now. Whilst a lot of his work is usually more light and breezy, something that he does well, I think this film will open the eyes of many, to the talents this guy has. Portraying a wealth of emotions from panic through to anger and despair, I was never once anything but convinced that I was watching a man buried alive. The physical demands he put himself through are admirable as well, reportedly enduring multiple burns from the lighter and severe joint and muscle pains from being prostrate and contorting himself for such long periods.

This is the bravest film I've seen in a long time, both in content and execution. I was anxious about watching it as I thought it may set off my claustrophobia, but even though it made me uncomfortable, it was so engaging and brutally intense that it was marginal.

And besides, it's a dude buried in a coffin, you're supposed to feel claustrophobic.

The Town (2010)

The Town

[7/10 · 21 April 2011]

Through no fault but my own and from no reason other than just being slack, I missed The Town during its theatrical run. I had wanted to see it regardless, but once I heard/read the positive reaction from both critics and friends, it made me regret having it pass me by that much more.

Having recently viewed it, I can't help but echo the praise lavished upon it by my friends and such critics as The New York Times' Anthony Oliver Scott. Cliché thought it may be in it's depiction of the "rough and tough" crims of Boston and despite the somewhat contrived love story, I nevertheless found myself drawn into the world of career-criminal Doug MacRay, portrayed superbly by co-writer and director, Ben Affleck. Supporting him, is a superbly casted group of actors, including the sublime Jeremy Renner, who is thoroughly deserving of his various award nominations for his violent and menacing portrayal of MacRay's lifelong friend and cohort, James "Jem" Coughlin.

Taking just enough inspiration from Michael Mann's Heat without it becoming overtly distracting, Affleck's direction is tight and self assured, with the action scenes being particularly impressive. There is little to no "shaky-cam" here, just tight shots and lean editing, leading to a kinetic yet clear portrayal of such fast paced events as robberies, shoot- outs and car chases. The film certainly doesn't lack pace, with the FBI's pursuit of MacRay and co, growing ever closer and more tense, along with the motives and emotions of the group, clashing and intertwining.

This is a movie that I maybe expected to impress me, but not to immerse me in the way that it did. Also, as somebody that has visited the city of Boston before, it certainly made me want to go back and try to see more of it and perhaps in different ways too. Hopefully, for those that have never been, it may intrigue them into a visit.

Beowulf (2007)

Modernisation of a Timeless Fable

[6/10 · 28 November 2007]

are there any fans of the original tale that were as disappointed as i was by the changes to the story? i was less than impressed with changing the portrayal of Grendel's mother to some sort of mystical seductress; for the sake of sexual overtones the movie's plot was changed where it didn't need to be. however i admit that in my opinion this led to an interesting and well performed portrayal of Beowulf's character in the first two thirds of the film, showing predominantly his arrogance leading to a lust and weakness for power. equally in the third act Beowulf's remorse and willingness to admit his failings as a man are further well acted by Winstone, who i must admit surprised in his diverse approach to the character. i felt that the scene where he is almost begging the invader to take his life was particularly powerful, showing an almost desperate desire to be rid of a life that he is now ashamed of, that can still be seen as arrogance and great leadership by his followers.

however the change of Grendel's mother also led to one of my biggest ills with this picture, with her offspring now being the cause of men of power laying with her. whilst this did lead to an interesting take on the character of Grendel it was something again that i felt wasn't needed. the original fable told Grendel and his mother as true monsters and whilst the reason for Grendel's killings did interest me, the original telling where he has no explained reason, makes him more of a monster. i didn't think that Grendel needed to be given human aspects to his character to make the audience sympathise with him, we only needed to know that there was a bond between him and his mother to explain her revenge killings.

this could all have been excused though, but for the inclusion of the dragon that kills Beowulf being the son of himself and Grendel's mother. this element was only written in because of the portrayal of Grendel's mother and to tie all the stories together full circle; i see no reason why they couldn't have kept the story the same as to the book and just show it as Beowulf's last great adventure.

there were other more minor changes to the story that i didn't agree with (such as the over elaborate way Grendel's arm was taken off rather than just displaying the brute strength of Beowulf ripping it off) but i didn't think they detracted from the story too much.

overall i felt the film itself was solid, there were some entertaining performances from Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovitch and Ray Winstone plesantly surprised me in a more diverse role than i've seen him play for some years. visually it was impressive, with varied interesting camera techniques implemented which made use of the limitless boundaries of using CGI and the realism of the human characters was quite astounding. the script i found was suspect in places ("how about a quick gobble?") but i did expect there to be some instances of this due to making it appeal to a wide audience.

for those that had never heard of the tale before or only knew a limited amount about it, this would prove to be an epic adventure about a complicated man caught between the notions of honour and power. however for fans of the original fable, it doesn't live up to such a timeless story.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Die Hard 4.0

[6/10 · 6 July 2007]

When I first heard that a fourth Die Hard movie was being made, I cringed. Whilst many of my friends tried to convince me otherwise, I always thought it would be an above average modern action movie, but not a good Die Hard movie. The whole concept of making a fourth Die Hard movie twelve years after the last one just further strengthens my belief that Hollywood has run out of original ideas; this is the summer of sequels and heavily laden source material movies after all.

The movie started off in a promising way with the introduction of McClane (Willis) in a scene with his daughter Lucy (Winstead), the dialogue in which reminding me of the McClane of old. By the time the first action scene roles around it still has the feel somewhat of the older Die Hard's with a good old fashioned shootout, culminating in an explosion. The subsequent conversation between McClane and his new sidekick Farrell (Long) reflecting on McClane's age and the fact he hasn't been in a situation like this for some time, was a nice way of mirroring within the film that the Die Hard franchise has been gone for a while. This is something that I felt could maybe have been played on a bit more, but unfortunately wasn't and for me this is where it stopped being a Die Hard film and just became another generic Bruce Willis action movie that he has been making for the past 10 years.

The script I felt had promise and in parts was indeed funny, but overall it didn't have the wit or charm of the previous instalments, despite some solid acting and enjoyable scenes between Willis and Long. The direction was very disjointed and confusing in places (notably one conversation between two characters where there must be 10-15 cuts and 5 different shot types) which I found distracting, but maybe was just me being too scrutinous.

The villains did not only not compare to previous Die Hard films but were pretty unbelievable and badly acted, with the lead villain Gabriel being played very wooden by Timothy Olyphant. This perhaps was not entirely his own fault due to his limited locations and surroundings, but his henchman that seemed to survive massive blunt force trauma at high speeds, falls from high heights and huge explosions with minor injuries were quite laughably unbelievable. Especially the parkour frenchman that was seemingly capable or running faster than bullets.

This air of ridiculous seemed to transpire to the later action scenes, that whilst being grand and impressive, were frankly just entirely unbelievable. The previous instalments did indeed have some quite outrageous scenes, but nothing compared to these. The charm of the previous ones were based around the fact that McClane was just your average guy that was put into these situations, never thinking himself a hero but always acting as one. In this film he seems more like an indestructible comic book super hero.

Overall this film just feels like a modern Bruce Willis action flick with the Die Hard title slapped on to make it a bigger draw and to gain more revenue. It is enjoyable in parts as long as you're not willing to take it seriously and if you can sit through the "war on terror" propaganda. If you're looking for a Die Hard movie though, watch or indeed watch again the original, instead of this watered down and censored summer "blockbuster".