The Master

Paul Anderson's unequivocal account of a controlled demise into insanity is played through with a brilliantly delirious soundtrack that leaves you stunned and in awe at its grandeur.

Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is introduced almost like dishevelled shipwreck, hacking at coconuts, letting out his frustrations on a female sand sculpture with his fellow soldiers before hunching over and masturbating in public in what you come to realise is a man broken by war. His obsession with sex is rife from the start as the Rorschach test proves with every picture jokingly described in a crude way before he is let loose on society as a man trying to find a path in a new America.

Not being able to settle himself in any place for too long in what appears to be the effects of post-traumatic stress syndrome, Freddie stumbles upon a helping hand in the form of Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). He quickly makes Freddie his new project, putting him through something called “processing” as he tries to tame the animal.

The Scientology parallel of the film is there, but it isn’t the central focusing point, rather it is looking at the human relationships formed around Dodd and the manipulations that occur through a beautifully shot 65mm film. Malaimare’s cinematography is one to remember here and the first film to be shot in this format in 16 years catches every glance, reaction and detail in a slightly gritty fashion. The horror edge is delivered through Johnny Greenwood’s beautiful soundtrack which reminded me strongly of the work Alberto Iglesias has done for Pedro Almodóvar. It’s refreshing to hear percussion being used effectively in a film as too often it is simply a forgettable backbeat or emphasis on a crescendo; sometimes sliding in and out of synch in a disorientating manor fitting perfectly into the surroundings and this is before even mentioning the dreamscapes which I’ll allow you to discover for yourself.

For anyone interested, there is one copy of the 70mm print circulating UK cinemas in December. Personally I’m interested to see the difference in this traditional picture size. After a year of failing 3D sales and with The Artist cleaning out most of the awards last year, could this be the start of cinema looking for its roots instead of worrying about how many fps you can squeeze out? Probably not but it’s nice to see some directors still experimenting with the old.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/

SKYFALL

I have finally joined the human race and watched Skyfall. And I loved it.

I should point at this stage that I am not a fan of Roger Moore’s Bond or the invisible car era buffoonery of Die Another Day, I like my Bond films to not just be Bond films, but good films.

Let’s be honest, Bond films have never been the most serious of films, always self aware and tongue in cheek. For me, Bond films have all too often stepped well over that line and into parody and farce.

Skyfall does not do this.

The opening scene has to be one of the best I have ever seen, not just the obligatory pre-credits action sequence (which is breathtaking, thrilling and well, Bond) but the opening twenty seconds or so.

I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t seen it but let’s just say Sam Mendes’s perfectly pitched opening shot lets us know exactly what kind of a Bond film this is; seriously good and very cool.

Much has been made in the press of how good Dame Judi Dench is in this, I can’t add much more other than to say she carries the film as much as Daniel Craig does. It’s fantastic to see a Bond film with such incredible acting in it.

Speaking of which, Ralph Fiennes also crops up in the cast list as an ambiguous government minister. For a man with so few scenes and not all that much dialogue, Ralph manages to achieve an extraordinary amount. Creepy, mysterious and yet assertive, it really is exemplary stuff.

PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE

This is meat to be on of the worst films of all time and so I decided to see what all the fuss was about. It turns out it is. Everything in this film is woefully bad, disorienting in how poor it is and to be honest, really dull. Very little happens for large sections of the film, its amazing how they managed to make 79 minutes seem like purgatory. To see what I mean you really have to watch it; for proof here’s the intro:

 

This got me thinking, Plan 9… is often regarded as a cult classic, but what really is cult? The way I understand it is that they are niche films, often flawed, but loved by a devoted fan base. I heard Pulp Fiction described as a cult classic, but I don’t buy that, everybody loves Pulp Fiction and it was a widespread critical success when released whereas most cult films are not that way. I see The Rocky Horror Picture Show as being a cult film, maybe even Blade Runner but it’s not an easy thing to define. Easier to figure out is the whole ‘so bad they’re good’ type films; The Warriors, Batman (the 60’s incarnation) and probably Plan 9… as well.

Basically I’m stumped any help would be greatly appreciated!

LAWLESS

I went to see this at the UK premiere as a part of the Film4 Summer Screen season; my (needless to say outstanding) girlfriend bought us tickets as a surprise present. Obviously this reduced me to a child like frenzy of excitement, being as manic a Nick Cave fan as I am. Despite how overexcited I was during the film I will try and review it in as sober a fashion as I can manage.

The first thing that struck me was that the script felt more mature to me than Nick Cave’s previous cinematic outing (The Proposition), maybe this was because it was based on a historical novel, but how it went about its business to me felt different. For example there is a lot of mention of legend in the film, not unusual considering Nick Cave loves the mythology of American folk and blues. Throughout there is a lot of talk about how invincible Tom Hardy’s character seems, which is deconstructed in a single sentence by Jessica Chastain. For all the gruff and lyrical brilliance of Tom Hardy in this film, this small piece of dialogue exposed the humanity beneath legend, which for me improved the film and separated it from the Proposition in terms of scope.

Lawless treads similar ground to The Proposition; brotherhood, mans relationship to violence and life in a brutal environment. However, I felt that the plot of Lawless allowed for broader themes to be looked at. The film set as it is in 1931, runs its course during the Great Depression, and is backlit by economic issues. As such, without addressing it directly, the film demonstrates the despair that drove all manner of men into desperate measures which we see clearly in the character of Cricket, the brewer of Moonshine for the Bondurant brothers. This broadening of theme means that the film is all the richer for it.

As with The Proposition, Nick Cave and Warren Ellis provide the soundtrack for the film. I had read about the track listing of the film before seeing it and to be honest was worried. The soundtrack includes Captain Beefheart and Velvet Underground covers which sounded awesome, but too much like what I’d like to hear on the next Bad Seeds album. I shouldn’t have worried. The soundtrack was brilliant, deftly switching styles and moods; definitely one of the best bits about the film.

The film has a superb cast, just brilliant. My personal highlight was Tom Hardy who has, let’s face it, had a blinding year. I never thought I’d see a man manage to look menacing in a cardigan, but he manages it in spades. In a recent interview Nick Cave said that Tom Hardy told him he would play the character like an ‘old lesbian’, emphasising the maternal nature of the character. I’m not entirely sure what he meant but it definitely worked; sensational work from Tom. Even Shia LeBeouf was great, impeccably playing the younger brother trying to assert himself in a violent world; I even forgot about Even Stevens when he was on screen. To be honest, there was not a single bad performance and I think Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska also deserve special mention. That brings us to Guy Pearce. Guy plays a cruel and unusual man, a reptilian bellend who’s driven by all sorts of complexes to belittle everyone else and enforce some weird interpretation of justice. I thought of a prototype J Edgar Hoover, with no eyebrows. It must be hard to play such a monumental dickhead but Guy Pearce pulled it off with aplomb.

Gary Oldman is billed highly in all the posters and trailers for Lawless which meant when it came round to watching the film I expected to see a lot of him. Most of his scenes are already in the trailers. Gary plays a big league gangster with a line in moonshine and as I saw it was in the film to demonstrate that there was a criminal world outside of the Bondurant brothers and to provide an outlet for Shia LeBeouf to try and prove himself. However, because of him being Gary Oldman and because he is sold as a large part of the film, this confused the hell out of me. I have read several reviews which were critical of this role but I think this is the fault of the distribution company. This brings me to my major gripe with the film, how it is advertised. The film sold in trailers and posters is nothing like the film proper. Trailers show a generic gangster flick with lots of gunfire and lots of Gary Oldman; they’re wrong. Lawless is much more nuanced than all that and the violence that there is, is brutal, dirty and fast. I think of it as a gruffly stylised historical portrait whereas the trailers seem to think it is, well, shit. I worry that this will damage how the film performs and is seen but there is little that can be done about this now.  

Final thought: go and see it! 

NA-NA NA-NA NA-NA NA-NA DARK KNIIIIGHT!

First things first, this post is going to be a) INCREDIBLY SPOILERIFIC, and b) PRETTY NERDERIFIC. But mostly the first one, so if you haven't seen the film (shame on you!), then avoid the second half of this review.

I'll start with the non-spoilery bits. As a film, The Dark Knight Rises is, of course, amazing. As amazing as The Dark Knight? No, but then again, that was the pinnacle of what the superhero film can be. As amazing as The Avengers was a couple of months ago? Absolutely, but in a different way. While The Avengers was a masterclass of wry humour and CGI fight scenes with weird alien thingys, The Dark Knight Rises is a Nolan film. Nolan films can be characterised by several things - aerial shots of buildings at twilight, sudden changes between loud doses of Hans Zimmer and silence, and a general lack of humour throughout. TDKR contains all of these things, and in fact might even be the most Nolan-y of the Dark Knight trilogy. It certainly looks beautiful, the director's penchant for IMAX definitely paying off in that respect. The soundtrack (again from Mr Zimmer, who seems to score every other film these days) is slightly more subtle than the one in TDK, though far less memorable. Christian Bale, while not given much to do as Batman, gives his best performance as Bruce Wayne so far, perfectly balancing the tortured recluse and the charming playboy. Tom Hardy (one of the coolest guys ever), as the villainous mercenary Bane, also does a bang-up job, considering that he has a weird sort of gimp mask on for 99% of the film. The eyes are the window to the soul, people! For me, he has been the first antagonist in the series that inspires true fear. Sure, Heath Ledger's Joker was the second best ever (after Mark Hamill, duh!), and kinda scary in a "what is he going to do before Batman inevitably defeats him?" way, but as a physical presence, Bane is pretty darn terrifying. Ann Hathaway's Catwoman/Selina Kyle, however, steals the show (geddit!? Cos she's a burglar). Where Michelle Pfeiffer was vampy and over-the-top, Hathaway is just the right amount of sexy yet ambiguous. You never quite know who's side she's on, yet when she's onscreen, you don't really care.

                                                              For obvious reasons.

Props also to the other players in the film, of whom there are many. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman play the father figures of Alfred the butler and Lucius Fox, with a surprisingly small amount of screen time considering the length of the film. The best of the rest has to be the mini buddy-cop film within a film, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake and Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon.

SPOILER TIME! DO NOT READ UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN THE FILM!

Now it's time for some good old-fashioned nerding! This biggest thing, for me, going into this film, was the villain Bane. Any Bat-fan worth their salt will know exactly what happens when Bane and Batman meet. The scene in TDKR where they fight in the sewers and Batman gets the Bat-shit kicked out of him gave me the shivers, but mostly because it reminded me of this from the Knightfall saga:

The point is that most Batman fans would have been well aware of what the story would entail as soon as they heard that Bane was going to be the antagonist. This isn't a criticism, more an unavoidable consequence of adapting from previously existing material. Knightfall isn't the only comic storyline that Nolan and company borrow from. No Man's Land, where Gotham City is cut off from the rest of world by an earthquake, is heavily plundered, as is Hush, where Batman and Catwoman start a tenuous romantic relationship.
Admittedly, there are some problems with the film, the largest and most sickening being the ending. Early in the film, Alfred the butler tells Bruce that during Master Wayne's previous disappearance from Gotham, Alfred's one hope was that he would settle down and find happiness somewhere else. He recounts a story about a cafe in Florence, and hoping to see Bruce there. At the very end of the film, after the day has been saved and Alfred is sitting in the cafe yet again, there is the perfect opportunity to suggest that Bruce Wayne survives, without saying it outright as the film actually does. The 'happy' ending stinks of studio interference, and it feels very unlike Nolan to include something so sappy. An Inception style ending would have been a lot more satisying, suggestive and ambiguous rather than flat out cheesy.
The inclusion of Robin is, in my mind, quite controversial. He's not the Boy Wonder as such, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Blake is intended to fill that niche. The character would have been just as satisfying had he just been a regular policeman. It is also implied that he becomes the next Batman, a suggestion that I rather enjoyed, as it completes the theme of 'anyone can be Batman'.
As for sequels, spin-offs and reboots, the latter is by far the most likely. Chris Nolan and Christian Bale have both said that this will be their last Batman film, and it seems unlikely that either will return. A sequel with Gordon-Levitt as Batman? Unlikely as well, as it would risk the ire of fanboys who would loath the idea of a Batman that isn't Bruce Wayne. Vulture has suggested that Hathaway may star in a Catwoman spinoff, but that doesn't seem realistic either. What's probably going to happen is that Batman will be rebooted in 2015 with a new cast, and just in time for the inevitably rubbish Justice League monster-mash.
Ah well, we'll always have the Dark Knight Trilogy. Viva Nolan! Viva Bale! Viva Batman!

MUSIC TO MY EARS

CONTAINS SPOILERS!

The other night I noticed something in the films of Stanley Kubrick, it was one of those realisations that only ever seem to come during a sleepless night. It seems to me that Kubrick used wildly inappropriate songs to brilliant and often unnerving effect. The most obvious example to come to mind here is in A Clockwork Orange when Alex treats us to a rendition of Singin’ In The Rain during a rape. 

The next one that came to my mind is in Dr. Strangelove... where the nuclear-armed airplane flies toward igniting the Cold War, is accompanied by the ‘animals go in two by two’.

In Full Metal Jacket, after the devastating sniper showdown at the end, the platoon marches off singing the Mickey Mouse March:

Possibly the most strangely human moment in 2001: A Space Odyssey is the death of HAL 9000 at which point he reverts to his childlike early stage of programming and begins to sing ‘Daisy, Daisy...’

To me these are truly great cinematic moments, unachievable in any other media; these moments would not even necessarily work in theory, but do magnificently in practise. Maybe it is just personal taste but I love moments such as these, which has got me thinking about other films that demonstrate them. The only example that currently comes to mind is the torture scene in Reservoir dogs set to Stealers Wheels. Can anyone think of anymore? Is it just me that likes these moments?

p.s. Someone has probably already noticed this and if they have, I am sorry for that, there is no plagiarism intended. 

CON AIR

The most important thing to know about this film is that it stars Nicolas Cage, to the nth degree. Resplendent with an improbable haircut and uniquely bizarre delivery of lines, this is a must see for the legions who follow the rollercoaster-style trajectory of Cage’s career and let’s be honest, a must see full stop. This is not Seven Samurai, it is not an arthouse master class, but what it is, is a flat out ridiculous action film. What sets it out from the inbred pool of over the top action films is that it features great actors having a great time hamming it up; John Malkovich is exceptional as a psychopathic genius, John Cusack is a sandal and sock wielding US Marshall, Nic Cage a maniacally virtuous veteran and Steve Buscemi plays a deranged serial killer.

The plot of this film is not altogether that important, it just provides a narrative for some truly ridiculous dialogue and some brilliantly overblown set pieces. If you want camped up action with some stellar performances then this is definitely the film for you. I don’t want to say too much, not that spoilers would matter too much, but just watch it. What I will say is that standing alone, the elements of this film, such as the ludicrous wailing guitar in the soundtrack, wouldn’t work. In this case works though, and how.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118880/ 

PROMETHEUS

I had been looking forward to this film for a seriously long time. Even when the only thing I knew was that it was (nearly) a prequel to Alien and called Prometheus. It was inevitable then that I would be disappointed in some way or deflated when it came around to the cinema. Add to this a Blitzkrieg style of advertising and this was made even worse. I should have avoided all this and gone into the film cold, as much wiser people I know did, but I didn’t. I can safely say though that I enjoyed it even if it took me a while to realise.

The first thing that should be mentioned is the plot, expanding the Alien mythology into the existential and profane, verging onto 2001 territory. The script bites off far more than it can chew. Ideas are bandied about unnecessarily and bluntly, lacking some of the subtlety that I was hoping for. Still though it is intelligent, it conveys the surreal horror of just how vast space and existence can be. Certain touches to the script are fantastic though, mostly relating to Michael Fassbender’s David and without spoiling anything a scene involving Noomi Rapace (you’ll know the one when/if you see it) had me cowering in my seat. Overall though it lacks the streamlined brilliance of Alien and the gritty edge. In Alien the crew of the ship talk as people do and even though the crew of Prometheus were on a scientific expedition they lacked something that made them seem as real. Once you go down the road of comparing films to Alien though, the outcome is usually pretty one way.

It has been said by everyone but I will say it again, Michael Fassbender was great. In fact everyone was brilliant in it and it was particularly nice to see Idris Elba utilising his immense talent more than in his monosyllabic turn in Thor. I even liked the 3D in this, it is the best I have seen, due I imagine to the 48 frames per second. I’ll leave the technicalities to those who understand it. My only other problem is that the soundtrack to me, felt more like it belonged in a Spielberg film, for me it didn’t gel properly. The soundtrack suggested something much nobler than it was and obscured one of the more interesting aspects of the expedition, its flawed nature.

Go and watch the film, let me know what you think but what I will say is that it is best sci-fi to come out in a long time. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/ 

Jurassic Park

I thought that for my first review for this blog, I had better choose something appropriately magnificent. And when it comes to films, especially films from the '90s, and especially films from the '90s about dinosaurs featuring The Fly and Kris Kringle, none is more magnificent than Jurassic Park. Directed by Steven Spielberg, like many of his efforts it has become pop culture fodder,  inspiring parodies, references in TV shows, and weird art. It is easy to see how it has become so well-known, with dialogue that is eminently quotable, one of the greatest scores of all time, and stellar performances from its cast. One of the best films of all time? Maybe. One of the best films of the '90s? Definitely.

The plot is simple. John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) discovers a way to create living dinosaurs from prehistoric blood, and then puts these Frankenstein-osaurs in a theme park. To test out his park, he invites Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) for a tour, along with some annoying kids and various other expendable characters. Meanwhile, the double-crossing Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight) screws the pooch by turning off the electric fences that enclose the dinosaurs, in an attempt to steal some embryos. Dinosaurs run amok, escapades ensue. Or to simplify it, Sam Neill + Jeff Goldblum + Dinosaurs = Awesome. Whilst it may not seem like the deepest film ever, it does touch upon themes of the dangers of science, corporate greed, and environmentalism. However, these themes are for the most part subdued by the healthy amounts of quips, PG violence, and great special effects. The CGI and animatronics are really what make this film, and they even hold up almost 20 years later.

It would be remiss of me, as a self-confessed dino-geek, if I did not mention the inaccuracy in some of the portrayals of the dinosaurs (Wikipedia even has a page for this, so it's not just me!). More recent discoveries indicate that most dinosaurs had feathers, and were a lot more bird-like than previously imagined. By the standards of science in the '90s though (before the internet for god's sake!), the depictions in Jurassic Park must have been pretty darn cool.
Another slight issue with the film, though this may be an unhealthy dose of cynicism on my part, is how the film seems very well suited for spin-off merchandise, almost as if it was written by a marketing team. There is even a shot in the film of Jurassic Park toys in a gift shop. Who knew that corporate avarice could be so meta? Of course I may be reading too much into it, and in any case, it's quite hypocritical of me to complain, as I have cupboards full of JP stuff at home that I still haven't the heart to throw away.

In a nutshell though, most things about the film are greater than great. Especially this -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/

Scenes From a Marriage

I now want a divorce. I’m not even married, nor do I now plan to be. As Johan put it, marriage should only be a five year contract.

Through Igmar Begman, you watch a clear play of sex and power between Johan and Marianne. They’ve been married for ten years and seem like a happily functioning couple on the surface but it quickly becomes clear that they aren’t content when one decides to come clean.

The balance of power shifts dramatically and while one thinks they have the upper hand, it twists, violently at times, into the other’s palm as they try to cling onto what they have left.  The monologues that followed question what it means to be with someone and sometimes tried to define love, ticked over in my head long after the film had finished.

There’s no soundtrack and only two characters throughout which added to the confining element of this film. Even though a few other couples made a brief appearance, I get the impression they were just reflections of Johan and Marianne as they strive to make sense of their own marriages.

Ullmann really shined in her role as Marianne which shows just how sharp an actor she is. Keeping her emotions on the very surface, unlike in Persona, it was compelling to watch her every change in expression and the effect it had on the situation.

What upset me the most was the clear passion and love they at times had for each other that only the viewer can see. Simple gestures such as watching the other read or the ever so slight disappointment in a reaction, tell the other half of this film.

Maybe I need to have been married for a good ten years before I fully understand every detail but not once could I spot a weakness in the legitimacy of Johan and Marianne in what was the most convincing portrayal of a relationship I’ve seen.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070644/

Talk to Her

Pina opens the film with her famous Café Muller piece; showcasing a society stuck in a loop, forever playing their part in a kind of hopeless repetition. The bold strokes from the dancers are amplified when they wade through awkwardly placed chairs which grunt along the floor in a way they don’t want to be shifted.

Almodóvar contrasts this expertly in a very still hospital where a nurse, Benino, is doting over the every need of a dancer in a coma. With a surgeon’s control, he paints her nails describing the scene you’ve just watched as if she were awake.  The delicate way in which the camera moves makes you almost cringe as he cleans her naked bosom in such an invasive and routinely manner allowing you to quickly connect intimately with their relationship.

As ever, Almodóvar creates powerful female characters. Lydia Gonzalez, a female bull fighter, is introduced through a talk show. The presenter seems less interested in her killing credentials and would rather ask her about her personal life which results in Lydia walking off. Through a mutual loneliness, she befriends a journalist named Marco who genuinely seems interested in her career.

After an accident involving Lydia, Marco and Benino strike up an odd friendship. The way in which they each deal with the two women is interesting to watch and verges on the comedic when they start to make up what one would be saying to the other. It can at times become creepy and this is accentuated brilliantly through long time collaborator Alberto Iglesias’ music which plucks its way through your spine.

One of my favourite moments in the film is when you see Alicia’s body covered in a cloth very much akin to the Cristo Veleto at Cappella Sansevero, it was then that I realised that perhaps Benino wasn’t doting but rather polishing her.

This film is to be watched many times. After a second viewing, I realised just how many clues and metaphors Almodóvar had woven throughout.  What I love about this film is how personal it can be and how people come up with different interpretations. For me, I wonder if Pina had told the story in a much simpler way in the magnetic attraction between partners and in the cyclic nature of life. The powerful ending itself provokes many questions and you’ll be left knowing that Almodóvar is smiling somewhere at your yearning for more. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287467/

ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD

Werner Herzog became one of my favourite people very quickly. For me, this puts him up there with Tom Waits. This is not just because he saved Joaquin Pheonix or one of many other amazing feats, it would have happened just for his films. This 2007 documentary sees Herzog travel to the ‘end of the world’, to Antarctica. He makes his vision clear early on, this is not a film about ‘fluffy penguins’ but rather about the people he will meet, the world he sees and life at its most surreal and extraordinary.

The poetic Bavarian narration of Herzog takes us through the world as experienced by the population of the Antarctic, we meet a bus driver who had a near death experience with a tribe, a woman who seems to have travelled through Africa in the most bizarre ways imaginable and a scientist with a love for doomsday sci-fi. What is striking is the people we meet along the way, they are all lost souls and dreamers who find meaning and direction in this otherworldly existence.

I am not going to try to describe what Herzog found in the Antarctic, only he could do it justice. What I will do is tell you that this film is incredible; hauntingly beautiful, funny and profound, it is curiously life affirming. To describe this as a documentary is perhaps misleading as it suggests objectivity, this is not that. Encounters... is a subjective, almost gonzo like journey of discovery by a man of unique vision. It is many things, but above all, it is heart-rendingly human.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1093824/

Aguirre, Wrath of God

In his spare time, away from being shot , eating shoes, facing plane crashes head on and hunting tigers, Herzog actually directs films. Shot with a camera stolen from his film school and set entirely in a Peruvian rainforest in the 1700s; Gonzalo Pizarro sets out with his merry men to find El Dorado with the promise of gold, power and some native biff.

After a scene where a real horse is sent on an actual wooden raft, things quickly get awkward when the protagonist Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) gets all worked up as the men give his daughter the look. The film then mainly focuses on atmosphere and relies heavily on Kinski’s performance as you see his mental demies unravel in the form of failed calculations and frustration.

Behind the scenes, so mad does Kinski become that he threatens to quit the film in only a way a German would: shooting a rifle blindly into a tent and de-digitising a crew member. Hence forth, after a brief struggle with the gun, Kinski and Herzog became the very best of friends.

Forgetting for a moment that they’re meant to be speaking Spanish, it is thankfully the German cut that made it to our screens. This allows the actors to be more natural and concentrate on their performance which unfortunately was the main weakness in Fitzcarraldo. Most scenes were in fact unrehearsed and some reactions genuine to the evolution of the plot.

Measured camera shots reminiscent in places of an earlier film Fata Morgana, cleverly draws you in with the sense of utter isolation.Close ups of character’s faces are utilised throughout to express the damned destiny of the explorers and tense madness seeps from almost every scene which has you on the edge throughout. This is without a doubt one of the greatest films in history and Herzog’s true masterpiece.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068182/

NIGHT ON EARTH

I watched this film for one reason; Tom Waits did the soundtrack. It turns out this was far from being the highlight of the film, not to say that there is anything wrong with the soundtrack (although being  an obsessive fan I probably wouldn’t notice), it’s just that the film itself surpassed expectations. Tom Waits’ music is not a natural fit for a background soundtrack. What he produced was not like his normal output, rather it was Franks Wild Years style riffing that (for me) perfectly gelled with the plot, bookended with more typical creations of his.

Setting my (possibly unhealthy) obsessions aside, this 1991 film is the most accessible of all the Jim Jarmusch films I have seen. The narrative follows five shorts in five different cities following taxi drivers, their passengers and their journeys both physical and otherwise. Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Rome and Helsinki provide the settings, supposedly chosen because of Jarmusch’s desire to work with certain actors.

Without wanting to give anything away the five shorts oscillate in style, the opening starring Winona Ryder lays the seeds of humour, drama, existential musing and brilliant characters that are teased out over the following vignettes. The whole film is shot with a simplistic beauty, a minimalism that manages to express far more than blatant overwrought shots. This is not to say that it is pretentious arthouse fare but rather it is unfalteringly entertaining (the section in Rome left e close to incontinence with laughter) in a different way and doesn’t try for a blunderbuss message that patronises the audience. Night on Earth is funny, thought-provoking, seriously cool, beautiful to look at and above all, heartfelt. Put simply, this is a great film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102536/

DEAD MAN

Jim Jarmusch’s 1995 film shows just how expressive black and white can be, in a way that colour never could. Robby Muller’s renowned cinematography turns this piece of sparsely morbid celluloid into to an ever flowing work of art. The film stars Johnny Depp on sterling form, before he made a living from non-stop Keith Richards impressions, managing to understate despite the strange scenarios his character finds himself in. The plot itself has often led to this film being described as an ‘acid western’; a western in reverse with the protagonist heading on a spiritual journey toward death, amid the absurdity of the Western frontier. Despite this seemingly dense plot, the film comes across more as a stream of consciousness musing on death, resplendent with dialogue of biblical grace (especially in the broken English of the native American Nobody); not surprising considering Jarmusch is in a club with some of the best lyricists on the planet.

A personal highlight for me was a wonderful tracking shot from the back of a horse through harsh scrub land which just looks incredible, only just edging Iggy Pop’s cameo in a wonderfully tense but surreal scene around a campfire; immense cinema. This is a film that could be read in so many ways and to be honest I don’t know if I read it like Jarmusch meant me to, but I’m not sure that mattered; I really enjoyed it. This is an exceptional film that proves a departure from his other films in its sombreness (apart from perhaps Ghost Dog) married with an almost action plot. It’s a complex, ambiguous and impeccably produced film; WATCH IT. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112817/

p.s. Mark Kermode recently mentioned this in his excellent blog and provides some banging trivia regarding the film: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2012/05/my_top_5_johnny_depp_films.html. Well worth a watch.