I found this film showy and way too self indulgent. The whole film is devoted to parodying itself, and acting, and theatre, and its cast and itself again. Yet it lacks the requisite humour. We get it, Keaton used to play Batman and is now washed up, and Norton is a method actor. Knowing this before hand, as would most cinema-goers does not make this parody particularly worthwhile.
The film takes a typical pot shot at theatre critics, and then attacks theatre for being bourgeois. Yet the film is filmed like a theatre play and it never escapes its stagey setting. Aside from Keaton and Norton, overacting at the centre, a variety of good actors are left on the sidelines in throwaway roles. Andrea Riseborough is particularly neglected and then cast aside for the majority of the film.
The middle of the film drags along as well before picking up at the end. But the finale is risible. The scriptwriters don't seem to have fully decided whether Keatons character is actually a birdman or just delusional so they go for both in a clichéd ending.
The film had potential, a great cast, some good cinematography, but ultimately it was a disappointment. Certainly shouldn't be the Oscar favourite all the critics seem to be raving about.
Monday 1 February 2016
SPECTRE: Formulaic, boring Bond!
SPECTRE contains all the famous elements of a James Bond film - fast cars, beautiful women, explosions, dastardly villains in secret lairs. The problem seems to be that the director and writers seemed more concerned with including all these elements than creating a coherent plot or memorable characters.
The film begins with a superlative tracking shot following James Bond through downtown Mexico City during the Day of the Dead festivities. The sequence shows great technical skill but it is brought to a shuddering halt. Too often in the film, good sequences are ruined by jarring moments that don't fit. Later, a car chase in Rome, contains moments of attempted humour that jar against the overall dark tone of the film. And SPECTRE is certainly dark, almost all scenes take place at night, and often in the dark of abandoned buildings. At the same time, the car chase lacks the tension of a classic Bond chase scene, seeming more like an advert for the beauty of Rome than Bond escaping with his life.
This chase follows a largely unnecessary diversion to meet Monica Belluci's gangsters moll. Her role is completely inconsequential to the film other than to send Bond to a meeting with the films main villain, Franz Oberhauser.
Too quickly, the meeting is over, and overall, Oberhauser features far too little in the film. Of course, this could just be a set-up for appearances in later films, but it leaves SPECTRE lacking in villainy. This isn't helped by the fact that Oberhauser's dastardly plot is incoherent, and not a particularly frightening prospect. Oberhauser's plot is to take over global surveillance systems which suggests the films desperate attempt to appear relevant in a world following the revelations of the NSA and Edward Snowden. Oberhauser's plan doesn't appear any worse than the reality of what is actually going on in the world. Furthermore, Oberhauser's intentions are complicated by his seeming desire for revenge against James Bond over old family connections, a plot point borrowed from Skyfall and Silva's desire for revenge on M.
And as has become de riguer for Bond films, there is a mole within MI5 who is working for the villain, but its obvious from the start who it is so there is no surprise in the reveal.
The film borrows heavily from earlier Bond films with references to From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and You Only Live Twice amongst others, as well as tying up loose ends from the previous three films.
This determination to pay homage detracts from the film as there is little original on show. Its a shame as the film has an excellent cast but in particular Christoph Waltz and Monica Bellucci are wasted. Lea Seydoux is good, but at times falls into the tropes of the Bond girls of old instead of the more nuanced female characters of the more recent films. It was nice to see more of Ben Whishaw as Q, but Ralph Fiennes is a huge step back from Judi Dench as M, while Moneypenny played by Naomie Harris fails to justify her larger than usual role in the film. Most worryingly Daniel Craig is on autopilot, seeming disinterested, no longer the perky young Bond of Casino Royale.
Overall, the film then is a disappointment. Sam Mendes brings nothing new here, hopefully the talk of him signing on for Bond 25 comes to nothing as the series needs a new direction.
The film begins with a superlative tracking shot following James Bond through downtown Mexico City during the Day of the Dead festivities. The sequence shows great technical skill but it is brought to a shuddering halt. Too often in the film, good sequences are ruined by jarring moments that don't fit. Later, a car chase in Rome, contains moments of attempted humour that jar against the overall dark tone of the film. And SPECTRE is certainly dark, almost all scenes take place at night, and often in the dark of abandoned buildings. At the same time, the car chase lacks the tension of a classic Bond chase scene, seeming more like an advert for the beauty of Rome than Bond escaping with his life.
This chase follows a largely unnecessary diversion to meet Monica Belluci's gangsters moll. Her role is completely inconsequential to the film other than to send Bond to a meeting with the films main villain, Franz Oberhauser.
Too quickly, the meeting is over, and overall, Oberhauser features far too little in the film. Of course, this could just be a set-up for appearances in later films, but it leaves SPECTRE lacking in villainy. This isn't helped by the fact that Oberhauser's dastardly plot is incoherent, and not a particularly frightening prospect. Oberhauser's plot is to take over global surveillance systems which suggests the films desperate attempt to appear relevant in a world following the revelations of the NSA and Edward Snowden. Oberhauser's plan doesn't appear any worse than the reality of what is actually going on in the world. Furthermore, Oberhauser's intentions are complicated by his seeming desire for revenge against James Bond over old family connections, a plot point borrowed from Skyfall and Silva's desire for revenge on M.
And as has become de riguer for Bond films, there is a mole within MI5 who is working for the villain, but its obvious from the start who it is so there is no surprise in the reveal.
The film borrows heavily from earlier Bond films with references to From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and You Only Live Twice amongst others, as well as tying up loose ends from the previous three films.
This determination to pay homage detracts from the film as there is little original on show. Its a shame as the film has an excellent cast but in particular Christoph Waltz and Monica Bellucci are wasted. Lea Seydoux is good, but at times falls into the tropes of the Bond girls of old instead of the more nuanced female characters of the more recent films. It was nice to see more of Ben Whishaw as Q, but Ralph Fiennes is a huge step back from Judi Dench as M, while Moneypenny played by Naomie Harris fails to justify her larger than usual role in the film. Most worryingly Daniel Craig is on autopilot, seeming disinterested, no longer the perky young Bond of Casino Royale.
Overall, the film then is a disappointment. Sam Mendes brings nothing new here, hopefully the talk of him signing on for Bond 25 comes to nothing as the series needs a new direction.
The Big Short: A witty expose of the Wall Street crash of 2008
The Big Short focuses on four individuals on Wall Street who predicted the sub-prime mortgage crisis and banking collapse of 2008. Knowing that the housing bubble was going to burst they decided to bet against the banks by buying credit default swaps. Christian Bale plays Michael Burry, a hedge fund investor who in 2005 makes the prediction and starts the market on credit default swaps. Other investors, played by Steve Carrell, Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt soon get wind of Burrys prediction and decide to follow him.
The banks laugh about them as they are so confident about the security of the housing market but sell the credit default swaps thinking its easy money. But of course, as we know, these people were proved right as a mortgage crisis led to several banks collapsing while others were given huge government bailouts. When the housing market collapsed, these investors made billions, with Burry making a 489% profit on his investment!
The film does very well to explain the jargon behind the banking. It does so by regularly breaking the fourth wall as characters talk directly to the audience.
At the same time the film highlights the bravado of the banks and bankers who were so sure of the housing market that they walked straight into the crisis. Bankers are shown as narcissistic, greedy individuals who care only about making money and don't care who suffers. At the same time, the four who bet against the bankers are shown as the heroes of the film, as if they, unlike the bankers, have a conscience. This is despite the fact that they made huge amounts of money as a result of banks going into crisis which lead to millions in the USA losing their homes and jobs
Some of the characters do try and warn the banks they are heading for crisis, and also tip off the media, but they are ignored and ridiculed. One particularly memorable scene sees Carrell speaking at a debate at a bankers conference in Las Vegas. He is laughed at and ridiculed by a banker from Bear Stearns, while at the same time, the banks value is shown plummeting, an event that helped precipitate the crisis.
Unfortunately the film does descend into Wolf of Wall Street style excess at times when showing the bankers lifestyles. This can be wearying and seems to be a desperate attempt to add a bit of thrill to what is otherwise a very dialogue heavy film. And women have a very small role in the film, other than when they are strippers being objectified. By the time Marisa Tomei reappeared near the end of the film, I had forgotten that she was in it. Although this can be said to be a reflection of the real banking world, which is very male dominated.
Overall though, the film is enjoyable and informative. The film is very well acted, particularly by Steve Carrell who is on top form as the most cynical of the four. He is also the one who most realises who will suffer most from the banking crisis, its not the bankers or investors. Its the people who are evicted from their homes.
The film ends with the frustrating note that the banks who survived the crisis, are now engaging in exactly the same practices that led to the crisis, they have just changed the jargon. As we know, capitalism is bound up in boom and bust cycles, during the bust, some companies like Bear Stearns will go broke but others will survive and continue on. And it will be the ordinary people who pay for the damage. Ultimately, we have to change the system that is tied up in these institutions. To protect people, and end the greed and avarice of the wealthy and powerful, we need to get rid of capitalism.
The banks laugh about them as they are so confident about the security of the housing market but sell the credit default swaps thinking its easy money. But of course, as we know, these people were proved right as a mortgage crisis led to several banks collapsing while others were given huge government bailouts. When the housing market collapsed, these investors made billions, with Burry making a 489% profit on his investment!
The film does very well to explain the jargon behind the banking. It does so by regularly breaking the fourth wall as characters talk directly to the audience.
At the same time the film highlights the bravado of the banks and bankers who were so sure of the housing market that they walked straight into the crisis. Bankers are shown as narcissistic, greedy individuals who care only about making money and don't care who suffers. At the same time, the four who bet against the bankers are shown as the heroes of the film, as if they, unlike the bankers, have a conscience. This is despite the fact that they made huge amounts of money as a result of banks going into crisis which lead to millions in the USA losing their homes and jobs
Some of the characters do try and warn the banks they are heading for crisis, and also tip off the media, but they are ignored and ridiculed. One particularly memorable scene sees Carrell speaking at a debate at a bankers conference in Las Vegas. He is laughed at and ridiculed by a banker from Bear Stearns, while at the same time, the banks value is shown plummeting, an event that helped precipitate the crisis.
Unfortunately the film does descend into Wolf of Wall Street style excess at times when showing the bankers lifestyles. This can be wearying and seems to be a desperate attempt to add a bit of thrill to what is otherwise a very dialogue heavy film. And women have a very small role in the film, other than when they are strippers being objectified. By the time Marisa Tomei reappeared near the end of the film, I had forgotten that she was in it. Although this can be said to be a reflection of the real banking world, which is very male dominated.
Overall though, the film is enjoyable and informative. The film is very well acted, particularly by Steve Carrell who is on top form as the most cynical of the four. He is also the one who most realises who will suffer most from the banking crisis, its not the bankers or investors. Its the people who are evicted from their homes.
The film ends with the frustrating note that the banks who survived the crisis, are now engaging in exactly the same practices that led to the crisis, they have just changed the jargon. As we know, capitalism is bound up in boom and bust cycles, during the bust, some companies like Bear Stearns will go broke but others will survive and continue on. And it will be the ordinary people who pay for the damage. Ultimately, we have to change the system that is tied up in these institutions. To protect people, and end the greed and avarice of the wealthy and powerful, we need to get rid of capitalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)