Talking Movies

May 31, 2018

Re-appraisers of the Lost Archives

It has been an odd experience this past six weeks trawling through the pre-Talking Movies archives, finding reviews of films I haven’t seen or even thought about in a decade.

It’s startling that of the 17 films I’ve re-posted the now deleted Dublinks.com reviews to Talking Movies, I’ve only watched 2 of them again since the press screening. And one of them was 10,000 BC. Which was kind of research for my 2010 Dramsoc one-act play Roland Emmerich Movie, but mostly just to share its delirious nonsensicality with friends. A DVD extra that nearly killed us all revealed Erich von Daniken as an official consultant. Erich von Daniken, who a court-appointed psychologist decades ago concluded ‘a pathological liar’ whose book Chariots of the Gods was ‘a marvel of nonsense’, was telling Roland Emmerich what was what on science and history. The other film was a recent re-watch – again in the cinema! There Will Be Blood appealed to me more second time round, and on a battered 35mm print it seemed far older than its actual vintage, which perhaps added to its mood. But, while I found more nuance in Day-Lewis’ turn this time round, I still don’t think the film deserves nearly as much adulation it receives. The only thing I would change about my sceptical review is noting how Greenwood’s score echoes the frenzied 2nd movement of Shostakovich’s 10th Symphony; which allegedly represents the demonic energy of Stalin – not a bad counterpoint when you realise Plainview is Capitalism made flesh. And 10,000 BC, likewise, I wouldn’t change a thing. I would now claim that, like the first Velvet Underground album, it was seen by few people, but everybody who did see it went on to write a trashy screenplay in Starbucks. Per my own words; “It’s less a film and more of an illustrated guide on how to write a really cheesy, dumb blockbuster. This is a very bad film indeed but it’s gloriously ludicrous. I haven’t enjoyed myself this much watching rubbish in quite some time”; I certainly set to screenwriting after it.

There are several reasons I haven’t re-watched 15 of these films. I saw so very many films for reviewing purposes in 2007 and 2008 that I had little desire to revisit any of them, indeed I had a strong desire to explore older, foreign films as an antidote to the industrial parade of clichés emanating from the Hollywood dream factory. I then took a break from cinema for most of 2009, to the displeasure of one, which left me hungry to discover as many new films as possible rather than obsessively re-watch familiar ones. It was the same spirit that simultaneously motivated me to read The Crack-Up, This Side of Paradise and Tender is the Night in quick succession rather than simply continuing to re-read an almost memorised Gatsby. I then moved on to wanting to round out certain directorial oeuvres. This impulse reached its zenith in 2012 when I substantially completed Woody Allen and made decent progress on Welles and Malle. Life then got in the way of such plans. That’s the macro perspective, but on a micro level I would only have wanted to revisit Stop Loss, Street Kings, Son of Rambow, Juno, and maybe Be Kind Rewind. Keanu’s disappearance from multiplexes put Street Kings out of my mind, Stop Loss disappeared from public view after the cinema, Son of Rambow was charming but I remembered the jokes too well, Juno suffered my increasing disenchantment with Jason Reitman, and Be Kind Rewind I remembered as being just about good – and it should never be a priority to knowingly watch bad movies when you could watch good movies. Talking of which… 27 Dresses, The Accidental Husband, and Fool’s Gold are high in the rogue’s gallery of why I hate rom-coms, Meet the Spartans is only of interest (and barely at that) as a time-capsule of internet memes c.2007, Sweeney Todd and The Cottage were unpleasant agonies to watch even once, Shine A Light verily bored me into a condition of coma, and Speed Racer, Jumper, and The Edge of Love were hard slogs by dint of dullness. Who would willingly re-watch any of them?

Advertisements

May 21, 2018

From the Archives: Fool’s Gold

A dive into the pre-Talking Movies archives reveals a true nadir that may well have inspired the mending of his ways that became the McConnaisance.

It’s rare that a film can cause vitriol to dry up, but this film fails so comprehensively that it is hard to know where to begin. So I shall start with accents, to groan hereafter at everything else. Donald Sutherland is meant to be British and so intermittently adopts the sort of plummy accent used by toffs in the 1950s, the rest of the time he uses his normal accent. Why he is in this film is a mystery. We should all thank God that he accepted the great role of Tripp Darling in Dirty Sexy Money which should keep him too busy for the foreseeable future to do dreck like this. Ewen Bremner is meant to be Ukrainian which he plays by adopting the sort of super-Scottish accent which English people have always thought sounded rather Polish. Ray Winstone meantime is distractingly trying to hide his cockney inflections behind a Kentucky Fried accent.

Matthew McConaughey tries his damndest to do his best Owen Wilson impersonation but fails miserably while Kate Hudson who is at least semi-conscious has the good grace to look miserable throughout in obvious shame at having stooped so low for the sake of an easy paycheque. To say this film fails is to state the obvious. It’s not a romantic comedy or an action adventure or any combination of the above. Its tone veers wildly and it appears to be terminally confused as to whether it’s pitching for a 12s audience or a 15s audience. There are only three laughs in the entire film. Two of which are provided by Kate Hudson hitting annoying men very hard with blunt objects. First she knocks out McConnaughey with a walking stick (more of that sort of thing!) and then nearly castrates the uber-annoying walking cliché gangsta rappa with a well aimed shovel blow while on a motorbike. The third act offers some perfunctory satisfaction as various plot machinations finally click but this is a thoroughly disheartening experience.

What really baffles is how all concerned could have gone through a whole film-shoot making something they knew to be rubbish. Did no one have the guts to stand up and demand an on-set rewrite to inject some good lines into the mechanically plotted proceedings at least?

0/5

Blog at WordPress.com.