Tag: film

NZFF: Candyman (NZ/USA, 2010)

Next flim fevistal offering: Candyman. NZ filmmaker Costa Botes went to California to make this documentary about David Klein, the inventor of the Jelly Belly jellybean. This was a candy product that, not to overstate the case, revolutionised candy production in the U.S. (and, some speculate, helped humanise Ronald Reagan). Klein sold out of Jelly Belly in the 80s, for a pittance relative to the worth of his invention. More importantly, he has been written out of history by the Jelly Belly company, who simply do not acknowledge his existence.

So the film is a character study of an interesting character who had a great idea, followed it through with his heart and soul, then lost everything.

Klein is fascinating. He’s entrepreneurial and good at business operations, with an instinctive eye for marketing and branding – the Mad Men advertisers could learn something from him. But at the same time he’s compeletely not cut out for business-as-she-is-played. That fateful act of selling out was a ridiculous decision from any sensible business perspective. More importantly, Klein’s heart is not in profit at all – he marries his business sensibility to a deep love of helping people, regardless of the cost to himself. Unfailingly, stupidly, generous, he was never going to thrive in the world of real business.

So this is a fascinating doco looking at Klein, at who he is and what makes him tick, as well as the ins and outs of the Jelly Belly story. It will particularly resonate in the U.S. where this candy brand is a genuine cultural icon.

However, I can’t recommend this unreservedly. It felt, to me, like a 45 minute documentary packed into a 75 minute package. There wasn’t enough in it to sustain my enthusiasm.

So: very good, but not great.

(And, special mention to the music by Lower Hutt’s finest, Tom McLeod. Music in a doco is often hard to get right, but this was a delight – it’s no surprise Costa made special mention of it when introducing the film.)

NZFF: The Illusionist (UK/France, 2010)

First Flim Fevistal experience of the year was this animated piece by the fine minds behind Triplets of Belleville. It’s an adaptation of an unproduced (and apparently deeply personal) script by French comic filmmaker Jacques Tati. In the fading years of Vaudeville, a stage illusionist travels where the work takes him, and in the Scottish Highlands he acquires a young girl who is enchanted by him and believes his magic is real. The remainder of the film plays out in Edinburgh, as the illusionist tries to make ends meet, and the girl – a true naif – starts learning a thing or two about life.

We bought the tickets to this one based on Katie’s recommendation on my grumpy-about-film post. It was indeed a stunningly beautiful rendering of Edinburgh, enough to load me with a heavy shot of missing the place. That mood sat well with the film itself, which was gentle and wry and shot through with sadness, right to its final frame. Not a happy movie at all. It didn’t fully transport me, principally because the story never quite resolved its fable-aspects with its realistic-aspects, but it kept me engaged and fascinated throughout, and the ending was marvellously right. (And endings are so very, very difficult to do well.)

So, a successful outing. Good flim. Has chipped away some of the film-grumpiness of recent times.

Next NZFF: Candyman. (Not the guy wth the hook – the guy with the jellybeans.)

Predators (USA, 2010)

Yeah, so, remember how I was all down on cinema and not interested in movies? Well we had a sporting break on another cheap night, and when the invitation came down to go see Predators, I couldn’t resist. After all, I have much love for the original film and its under-rated sequel, and it’s been a long time since we’ve seen the dreadlocked hunters in action. Because there have been no films featuring them since the 90s. None.

And it was mostly a great popcorn flick. I enjoyed it, on average. Some of it I really enjoyed. Some of it I was bored. The whole final battle made no sense at all, as did the introduction of a second variety of Predators who act exactly the same as the first variety, except they maybe squat-and-roar-in-triumph a bit more often. Having the classic monster humbled by the new monster is a fine way to garner cheap heat, but nothing at all was done with it.

But! Exactly as advertised, there were a bunch of morally-dubious anti-heroes being stalked and killed one-by-one by alien hunters, and that was fine by me.

The highlight: when all the cast gather ’round as one of their number spends a full minute describing, in some detail, the complete plot of the original film.

The other highlight: realizing that the key moment in the trailer wasn’t actually in the movie, but was a quite different movie scene digitally altered specifically to create that key moment in the trailer.

The recommendation: watch as a cheap video with friends, or as a cheap movie with friends, or don’t, because whatever. Actually, watch Predator 2 again, because Danny Glover and Gary Busey, that’s why.

—

So I guess I’m cured, right?

The Knifeman, following that earlier movie-blah post, sent me a challenge to only watch unpopular movies for six months. “At the end, your view of movies will almost certainly be altered forever.” It’s tempting, but I’m going to decline, if only because I don’t want to spend the last six months I have before baby arrives banned from watching movies that might be good…

I invite him to share the details of this challenge, or speak more of the value of such an exercise, if he is so moved.

Double-Hit Films

My grumpy post about how I’m not excited by film at the moment has sparked lots of great comments about good movies (and good television).

Svend asked, “Are you disenchanted with the act of communal cinema-going, the film format, or the sorts of stories that tend to be told in film?” To which my answer is, “yes”. Which isn’t helpful. I haven’t self-analysed very much, and suspect that I’m just going through a DIFFICULT PERSONAL TIME in my relationship to movies. But it’s still the case that I think I want sitting down in a cinema to feel like a significant jolt away from the ordinary run of things, and I’ve half-convinced myself I’m not going to get that. If I was to click back through this very blog I would probably find evidence to the contrary in the recent past, but enthusiasm is low regardless.

So I got to thinking about times when I got that jolt enough that I went back a second time. Movies that I went to see twice on their first run, while they were fresh in the cinema and in my memory. How many? And what does that say about me?

I can think of five:





Diagnoses welcome.

Over Film

I don’t watch many movies at the cinema these days. Time was, I’d see one a week, sometimes two. So much cool stuff to see and pick over with friends afterwards. Good times.

Now, not so much.

I find it hard to believe movies have changed for the worse. My peak moviegoing was in the cultural nadir when Independence Day and Godzilla were chart-topping extravaganzas. Nor a lack of choice – Wellington’s lost a few screens since then, but not many with the arrival of the Lighthouse and the expansion of the Penthouse and Paramount.

And I just don’t have much enthusiasm for filmic expeditions these days. I like it when films show me something I haven’t seen before, Inglourious Basterds for example, but I didn’t chase down Antichrist when that (incredibly) got a cinema release.

And now, the new International Film Festival programme arrived, and I can find precious little in it that calls to me.

What is up with me? Someone fill me with the romance of cinema again please!

This Tuesday is a rare cheap-film-night when I don’t have sporting commitments. Tell me, O sages, what is worth going along to experience? (See what’s playing in Wellington here.) Or should I just stay home and read a book?

Funny People (USA, 2009)


IMDB entry. (We watched the extended version on DVD, so I might refer to bits missing from the cinema cut.)

My affection for the works of Judd Apatow is well-known, so it pains me to say that this one is Not Great. However, I liked it a lot anyway. Your mileage may well vary.

Seth Rogen is a young comedian, starting out. Adam Sandler is an old comedian, jaded and terminally ill. There are two stories running here: young guy gets a break from old guy, and old guy tries to find a way to patch things up with his old flame.

This is mostly a dramatic film set within the world of comedy performers, and so it gets to have its cake with the funny stuff and eat it too with the serious stuff. Mostly that hangs together well, although there are one or two funny-but-real moments that don’t work at all, like Seth Rogen man-blubbing.

In fact, Rogen is a weak link throughout. And that’s the second thing that pains me to say, as my affection for Mr Rogen is also well-known, dating from his Freaks and Geeks days. He’s out of his depth here though, and although he’s game as anything and tries really hard the engine just doesn’t run for him here. Sandler is great, once again showing off the dramatic chops that mean “Best Actor Adam Sandler” is surprisingly likely to be a real event some time in the future. Leslie Mann in the part of the Director’s Wife is actually pretty damn good too.

Those two stories mentioned above? It’s clear throughout that they don’t fit in the same movie. An attempt to unify them with a climactic race-to-the-airport scene just falls completely flat. But I enjoyed this film anyway, because it felt almost painfully truthful now and then, and was really funny a bunch of times, and coming away from it I actually thought I understood what being a comedian might be like. (Plus, Eric Bana’s small role as the husband of the ex-girlfriend is marvellous, and I could watch Eminem yelling unwarranted insults at Ray Romano all day.)

So it’s even more of a big, rambling structural mess than Apatow’s other films, but it’s always watchable and sometimes even surprising. It’s not a classic for the ages, but its certainly not a failure. Watch it sometime, if only for the glimpses into comedy behind-the-scenes.

Four reviews

Things I’ve watched recently on DVD or big screen, in order of release date:


Adventureland (USA, 2009)
Boy becomes man at theme park job. Another comedy-drama male POV film as exemplified by the Apatow stable. Slow, meandering, generous in every sense. Not well-crafted drama, which actually works in its favour, a lot of it feels like biography in how loosely it plays out. However, this sits uncomfortably against the heavy, contrived schtick of minor characters like the comedy managers and the villainous stepmother. Martin Starr (Bill from Freaks & Geeks) is the only one who successfully straddles the divide, delivering delicious broad comedy and solid, affecting dramatic work in a seamless whole. Kristen Stewart nervously adjusts her hair a lot but there’s some depth to her that won me over anyway – girl could go far if she escapes the Twilight eternity trap. Overall: ramshackle, fun, not worth swerving for but watch it if it comes on TV.


An Education (UK, 2009)
The delightful Carey Mulligan anchors this film, which is a little bit Lolita and a little bit… er… something else? Schoolgirl is wooed by older man, finds out older man is not actually perfect, cue tears and decisions and personal growth. A small story well-told, with an absolute commitment to its 1961 setting. Although the schoolgirl-older man relationship is central, the best energy in the film was between schoolgirl and teacher (Olivia Williams from Dollhouse, Whedon fans) and schoolgirl and headmistress (Emma Thompson, who is just great). It’s an odd script from Nick Hornby that mostly plays its beats gently, but can’t resist making The Dad a caricature. Crucially, though, the big turning point in the film didn’t play for me at all. When the girl finds out for the first time that the older man isn’t perfect and starts walking away, he chases after her and gives her a big speech and slowly she relents and goes back with him. This is probably the most important scene in the film, and it didn’t convince me. In fact it failed so spectacularly that it bumped me out of the film and I annoyed poor long-suffering Cal by ranting and raving about how unconvincing it was. It just wasn’t enough – there was nothing in the scene that made me believe in her turn, which was the one on which the entire drama of the film rested. Even more frustrating: in the very next scene, the girl gets a big speech in which she figures out the hypocrisy and pointlessness of the world and asserts her right to find her own path. THAT should have been the turn! That scene I believed absolutely – it got me back into the film and I shut up again, all the way to the ending (which inexplicably uses a “now I’m older and wiser” voiceover to daft effect, but never mind). Overall: engaging and heartfelt but wounded by odd scripting, probably worth it just for the period detail and the great performances. A worthy DVD rental.


Boy (NZ, 2010)
Kid has his life change when Dad comes home. Taika Waititi’s new film is side-splittingly hilarious for the first 15 minutes if you’re a Kiwi kid born in the mid-70s like me. And if you don’t fit that category then you’ll probably still laugh a hell of a lot because it’s funny as. The rest of the film is still really funny, but also quite sad. If you’re a New Zealander you will end up seeing this film. If you’re not from Aotearoa New Zealand, well it’s still not a bad night out I reckon. See it.


Kick-Ass (UK/USA, 2010)
Teenage nobody decides to be a superhero, fails his way into a mad adventure. Good lord, this film made me laugh and wince to almost painful degrees. Breathtakingly over-the-top violent like some of those crazy Asian films that used to play late slots at the Incredibly Strange Film Festival. Completely, unrelentingly loopy throughout. It almost never makes a conventional decision. Dogged in pursuit of its strange, wet-suited vision of movie bliss. You’ll be hearing a lot about the 13-year-old sweary assassin, and I almost cried with laughter telling Cal about the scene where the hero finally gets the girl, but the best thing about this movie is Nicolas Cage. NICOLAS CAGE. The guy is an enigma wrapped up in a hunk of wood wrapped up in a feverish hallucination. His performances left behind anything that might be called “real human behaviour” about a decade ago, and seriously, does anyone understand what he’s doing now when they point a camera at him and say ‘action’? I can’t see him receiving direction. “For this take, dial it up a couple of notches, okay Nicolas?” No. Not credible. They just must point the camera and pray. In this film he is AMAZING. I never wanted him to leave the screen, except that his exits are some of his best moments. MOAR NIC CAGE. Dude, do you remember when he was a huge action movie star? Doesn’t that seem more and more like it was a weird dream you once had, rather than something that actually happened? Overall: See. This. Movie. It earns its (NZ) 18 rating, so be prepared for a few moments of hands-over-face violence, but it will be like nothing else you see all year.

Shutter Island (USA, 2010)

Saw this a week ago, still haven’t talked about it. It was very enjoyable. It’s a grand operatic noir, an unnerving psychological thriller that doesn’t make much sense (do any psychological thrillers make much sense?). Great intensely-imagined visuals, gripping and moody atmosphere, pitch-perfect performances (heavily stylised and just OTT enough). The film offers very few surprises but is a great ride nonetheless.

It’s a big screen film, but probably not worth the big screen ticket prices unless you’re a particular fan of Leo DiCaprio or Marty Scorsese or Michelle Williams or Mark Ruffalo*. So watch it on your home cinema with surround sound, or go to the fillums on cheap night.

To its enormous credit, the film absolutely nails its very final scene.

* Hah! No-one in the world is “a particular fan of Mark Ruffalo”!**
** I stand corrected