Melancholia (2011)

This film doesn’t give you quite what you might normally expect from an apocalypse film. Or, if you didn’t know that it is an apocalypse film, quite what you’d expect from a film about a woman suffering from depression. It’s a film with seemingly two agendas, presented in two sections, and it took me three attempts to actually make it all the way through. It’s quite slow paced, not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, but I found myself easily distracted and twice paused the film to briefly do something else and just failed to return to it.

The opening sequence introduces the film dramatically with an arrangement of scenes in ultra slow motion set to some startling orchestral music (Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde). Not being one for lengthy opening titles though, I didn’t enjoy them, in spite of how impressive they undoubtedly are. I just found myself waiting for the film to begin and, after a while, stopped noticing the pictures and just enjoyed the music (a highly emotive piece which is repeated frequently throughout the film). While there is the danger that it might be ignored by many, this prelude may have been better placed at the end of the film with the credits. I don’t mean to belittle it by saying that – after all there seems to be a fashion at the moment for impressive credits (Suckerpunch for example). I re-watched the opening scene after finishing the film and found it much more engaging than I had the previous two viewings. The visual links with scenes throughout the film are much clearer (obviously), something which is lost to you if you haven’t actually seen the film yet. This dramatic beginning is also at odds with the first scene of the film, which is bright and up-beat – possibly the only scene that is – so it doesn’t give us the smooth transition into the film that one would assume the role of most opening sequences is.

Smooth transitions don’t really seem to be how writer/director Lars von Trier works. The arrangement of the film into two sections seemed to completely separate the two themes running through this story. The first section follows Justine (Dunst) struggling to get through her wedding day with feelings of depression and apathy, and upsetting several people in the process. The second follows her sister Claire and her family as they follow the progress of Melancholia – a planet which is about to pass very close to Earth but, they hope, not actually collide with it. Melancholia is not mentioned in the first half, nor is the new husband mentioned in the second. They’re almost two films. Separate, but happening to have the same cast. The opening sequence for me really represents what is the best thing about this film – visual artistry. Storyline aside, the scenes are truly beautiful and I enjoyed that aspect greatly, particularly in the second half when we are shown some almost breathtaking images of the planet as it hurtles towards Earth.

I would recommend that no one watches this film if they’re in a good mood. You can’t relate to the depression felt by Justine if you’re feeling happy and content. It just leads to frustration with her when she fails to perform seemingly basic tasks (such as getting into a bath). Equally though, I would not recommend watching it if you’re feeling low. You still can’t sympathise fully (well I couldn’t) and you get annoyed with the insensitivity of the other characters. No matter what mood you’re in, you may well find it difficult engaging with any of the characters in this film.

Melancholia was brought to my attention largely because of its cast. I haven’t seen any of von Trier’s other work (though I do need to see Dogville) but the names Kirsten Dunst, John Hurt, and Kiefer Sutherland were enough to interest me. After some initial research however, my first instinct was to leave it be. Apocalypse films aren’t usually my thing and nothing in this one screamed out at me as particularly special. For whatever reason though I changed my mind and I almost wish I hadn’t. I didn’t enjoy it. The second half is more enjoyable than the first as it gains a sense of momentum, but really the only reason I persevered in finishing it after abandoning it twice was that I would have felt silly posting it back to Love Film without having watched it all. I also didn’t feel I could have a proper opinion on it based only on the first 45 minutes and I do so love having opinions.

Magic Mike (2012)

I’ll own up to some things first:
1. Before all the hype about this film I didn’t really know who Channing Tatum was. (Dear John? What? Definitely not my kind of film). I think I thought he was the same person as Taylor Lautner – generic man with muscle that people seem to go on about.
2. I thoroughly dislike Mathew McConahey. I have never seen him in anything remotely approaching acceptable (although I do hear good things about Killer Joe) and I will never forgive him for being so incredibly annoying in Sex and the City.
3. The only reason I watched this film is because of the mostly naked men.

Given the above, you’ll probably appreciate that my expectations of this film were pretty low. I don’t trust Steven Soderberg as a director after the disaster that was Ocean’s Twelve, and I don’t really understand the fascination with seeing Mathew McConahey strip (why does no one ever mention that Alex Pettyfer is there too!?). I imagined there would be lots of loud music, bright colourful lighting, and excessive quantities of fake tan and baby oil - The Chippendales meets Chicago or Suckerpunch. More burlesque, fewer bow ties.

No bow ties thank God, but the costumes were your classic male stripper costumes – macs and umbrellas for ‘it’s raining men’, firemen, army guys, and the American sailor. Not my personal cup of tea but there we go. Not that I’m critiquing the stripping, although that really should be the point when talking about this film. Frustratingly, I actually feel the need to mention the plot. The highly frustrating and completely superfluous plot.

It’s all great with the new kid learning the ropes from the seasoned professional – it’s a tried and tested story and something we can all get on board with, so why the almost compulsive need to start making everything go wrong two-thirds of the way through? It’s something that has ruined several, otherwise very good, films. Why the decision to suddenly start making things fall apart? It’s practically a declaration of insecurity by the writers – they’re not confident that you’re still paying attention; that the main theme is good enough to keep you interested, so they panic and include some completely unnecessary drama when I’m sure most viewers would be quite happy with only modest plot-development. That way they could concentrate on what is, after all, the main point of the film – the visuals. Note to film-makers the world over – if the film is about looking good, and it looks good, that’s probably enough. Inception is the prime example of this. It was a fantastic new idea, it looked phenomenal and I loved it… until it all started going wrong. It would have been so much better letting everything all go to plan, allowing us to simply sit and marvel at the spectacle instead of worrying and getting even more confused than we already were. As it was, it made the film too long, too complicated, and made me lose patience. Sort it out Hollywood.

Back to Magic Mike. I now know who Channing Tatum is and I also now know that that guy can dance! Whether you enjoy the stripping aspect or not he is hugely impressive on-stage and I could quite happily sit at watch him for hours. As long as he’s dancing, not acting – he is much less impressive at that. The film mostly centres around his character but even after watching it all I’m not really sure who it is he was trying to play. I’m not entirely convinced by any of his decisions nor by his interactions with the obligatory love interest – Brooke – the overly-sensible sister of ‘The Kid’ (Pettyfer). Mathew McConerhey’s character is an odd one as well. In theory he’s one of the good guys, but I didn’t like him. But maybe that’s because I find Mathew McConerhey almost repulsive to watch (an unpleasant combination of face/accent/attitude). Nor did I like ‘The Kid’ by the end when he’d gone and messed everything up. Or Brooke, a character that had all the depth of a paddling pool.

So the plot was annoying, the characters unconvincing, and it involved Mathew McConerhey. But I don’t care. I really enjoyed this film. It was fun, it was lively and it was actually funny at some points. As long as you take this film at face value, all the little flaws don’t matter at all and I would happily watch this film again. As long as I can fast-forward through Mathew McConhery in the PVC thong.

3.5 Stars

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Now, I don’t think I’d be doing myself a disservice if I were to admit that this film thoroughly confused me. I like to consider myself reasonably competent at following a plot, but I found myself feeling exceptionally stupid as I stumbled through this film, more than once having to pause the DVD with a “hang on, what!?”. Maybe it would have been easier to follow in a cinema where nearly all of your concentration is on the film. You just can’t achieve those same conditions at home; especially after a day at work, especially with a glass of wine in hand. In the end it became a joint effort, with the additional occasional use of Wikipedia for clarification.

Being able to follow a storyline as it is told to you will not get you very far with this film. You are not told the story. What you are told are a few key facts, supplemented by visual clues. Plot is revealed by the putting on of a shoe, or a drink of vodka. You are left to fill in the gaps. And woe betide you if you don’t learn the names of the characters immediately.

Feeling really rather baffled throughout did not though, spoil the film for me. The cinematography is wonderful and the acting fully deserving of the umpteen award nominations. There are also several images that will stay with me for a while, for better or worse (Benedict Cumberbatch I’m looking at you).

It could do with being a bit longer. At less than two hours there’s room for better explanation of some of the twists and turns and expansion of a few of the scenes. A few fewer meaningful looks and a little more conversation between characters to give us an extra half hour and a little more comprehension.

I look forward to watching it again armed with a firmer grasp of the key characters and concepts. I might then be able to appreciate it fully for it certainly is a fantastic film.

4 Stars

Irreversible (2002)

This film is the reason I joined Love Film in the first place, so it seems appropriate that it's the first review. Due to its rather... controversial nature, no one I knew had this on DVD, and asking people if they'd seen it began to seem overly-personal. No DVD shops seemed to stock it, and even Amazon failed me. Apparently Love Film doesn't have it either - that or they just didn't want to lend it to me.

As far as I was aware though, this was a key film for me to watch, given my rather odd taste in cinema. With ridiculously strong violence, a lengthy rape scene, and a camera that never keeps still I knew its reputation and was prepared (when I finally got hold of a copy) for a difficult couple of hours.

I was not prepared however, to feel bored. In the first quarter of an hour or so nothing happens. A man (Vincent Cassel) runs round a club looking for a man, with whom apparently he has a problem. The camera’s swirly and the music’s loud which gives a good atmosphere, but that’s only exciting for so long.

The film plays out, with the beginning of the film showing the end-point in the story. We discover the motivation behind the characters’ actions as we go along. The acting is great, and it’s definitely a good plot. Why, then, did I feel something was lacking?

Maybe it’s because it had such a build-up. I expected great things from a film I had heard about from several people as a film I ‘definitely had to watch’. Maybe it’s because of the extended ‘have you seen this man’ scene at the beginning. Maybe it’s because I felt the length of the rape scene actually detracted from its impact, rather than amplified it – the feeling of shock does wear off after a couple of minutes.

I did enjoy the film (if enjoy is the right word), but I was disappointed. I do agree though, it was a film I definitely had to watch.

2.5 Stars.

And so it begins...

Apparently I watch quite a lot of films. And apparently I've become very opinionated about those films. So rather than ranting on Facebook as I have begun to do of late, I have created this as a more suitable platform for my boundless praise and derisive comments.