BBC Blog Network

User Profile

stephenglass

Listed below are comments made by stephenglass between Wednesday, 24th June 2009 and Friday, 2nd October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

What Jennifer Aniston's Best Friends won't tell her 7:26pm on 02 Oct 2009 Thanks for clarifying about Fish Tank. Sight & Sound listed it as 2:35:1 which confused me, having seen it in 1:33. I was puzzled in the cinema, since the shots seemed so perfectly composed for the smaller ratio; It just surprised me t'see a modern film shot in that ratio, so I suspected the cinema had cut half the image off.

Regardless, the cinematography's awesome.
Cost report 9:34pm on 18 Sep 2009 Whilst I agree completely, don't forget a large part of your criticism of Tropic Thunder; that once a comedy (such as it) gets involved with too much money, the ha-ha tends t'drain away.

I think that this is a valid point, but not a hard and fast rule. Not that you made out it WAS such a rule...I just wanted to undermine you a touch.

I also want t'let you know how gratifying it was to send an email to the Mayo show today, only to have you review the film in question - Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 3D - expressing EXACTLY the same views.

Not that your way is always right, I often disagree with you. But there's an odd sense of validation, agreeing so much with someone in a position of power over other peoples' evenings out.

Well, not power. Don't take that t'heart.
5 Live Review: Inglourious Basterds 10:26am on 21 Aug 2009 I don't see why The Green Mile gets slagged off so much. No, it's not the GREATEST FILM EVER like Shawshank, but it's a hugely rewarding watch.

It also should've had people expecting a film as Godless as The Mist; (and just incidentally, there are two hours before that ending, and they're JUST as nihilistic). The Green Mile is just as downbeat as The Mist, but it's packaged in a different box, one clearly more palatable to a mainstrem audience. Both films are hugely nihilistic come the finish, and in a smart move, rather than having equal-opportunities when it comes to life being meaningless, Darabont has karma fall on the "Good guy" and utterly spoil him.

It's almost as if The Green Mile was a dry run for The Mist, because the end blends the hopelessness of The Mist with the Shawshank aesthetic. Only when he went full-horror did people notice the chaos.
5 Live Review: Inglourious Basterds 3:21pm on 20 Aug 2009 Just saw it a second time and it was actually better. And it's Michael Fassbender and Diane Kruger who should certainly be getting more praise. And one point reminded me of There Will Be Blood, which isn't a bad thing, t'put it mildly.

And as a PS to the above comment: Mark can obviously have whatever opinion he wants about the film, but he failed to praise it on one important point; in the year of Valkyrie, The Reader, and Defiance, he should be lavishing praise on Inglourious Basterds for flawlessly blending at least four languages and several accents of those, and proving that a film can be just as effective in Foreign as in English...(Save, possibly, for the Canadian-Brief-Encounter tones of Mike Myers, who I still thought was alright). And I'm also guessing the film will make enough money to prove that audiences can live with this blend of tongues.
5 Live Review: Inglourious Basterds 10:41am on 20 Aug 2009 Seeing it again in little while, but on first viewing, I think it may well be his masterpiece. His flawed masterpiece, but nevertheless his masterpiece. And I don't think I'd be saying so had I not seen The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - Tarantino's favourite film - recently.

As much as I love Jackie Brown, it seems t'me Tarantino clearly prefers to make MOVIES, whereas for the purposes of this Jackie Brown is a FILM.

Good/Bad/Ugly is all about what's in the frame, projected onto the screen. Not that Good/Bad/Ugly is entirely superficial and doesn't make moral and political points, but there's no extended story, no lifelong character arcs, no "Jackie-Brown-maturity"; it's about the ride of enjoying interesting characters in a thrilling environment, it's excitingly written, stylishly directed and VERY well-performed. And a complete and utter artifice.

The moment when Angel Eyes makes his "sneak" attack on Blondie and Tuco - in the middle of a FLAT, LIFELESS DESERT - is heralded by his entering the side of frame with a shovel. So while all rational thought says they'd see him coming literally a mile away, it's when he enters their shot that they're rumbled.

This is what Tarantino wants t'do. Mirroring Good/Bad/Ugly, Inglourious Basterds is not a completely disposable treat - it's VERY much about cinema and Tarantino's belief in the power of film - but while showing us this, it's a hugely gripping ride to the finish.

The characters are interesting, well-performed, well-written, and very well-performed (forget Christoph Waltz, Michael Fassbender needs his due).

The chaptered structure, historical ambiguity, intertitles, subtitles introducing characters in-frame, narrator, and anachronistic music (such a bête noire for some in Cannes) are Tarantino's artifice, and all add to the CINEMA experience.

It's his masterpiece because it's Tarantino's most thrilling CINEMA. He clearly takes pride in his best dialogue; this has terrific dialogue.
As Mark said, he can execute a wonderful conversational set-piece.
He can contruct a shot, and run of shots, as enjoyable t'look at as any from a classic Leone.

At his best, he can pass his love of film onto the audience, and IB does this.

(Unlike say, the scene in Death Proof in which Stuntman Mike lists a series of unknown, cult TV shows he's performed in to stony-faced young women. And it just feels like Quentin showing off his knowledge of things WE'VE not heard of. Just a quick slagging off of Death Proof there...)

It's not an immature film, this is CINEMA from someone who's trying to regain the sense of a no-consequence-thrill from a film. Y'don't have to think about the morals of the characters until your head hurts, y'just enjoy them going about their business and coming across one another.

Fin. I think.

I don't know if that's at all clear, it really rambles.

Incidentally, if y'look at what is - or WAS - the Wikipedia synopsis of the film, it's clearly based on the leaked script, as it mentions several incidental scenes not in the theatrical cut. These all sounded promising t'me, and I'm sure they'd help those looking for the complete, mature, Jackie-Brown-esque film arc - such as Mark, and in a way myself. They tie characters together more, and seal up some of the cracks which the intertitles simply tile over. The film would be near 3-hours in total, but I'd happily see it.

Who knows if we'll ever see it...

But anyway, I've rambled my piece. Enjoy.

PS - Is Mark seeing the preview of Avatar this Friday? Or should I say, this AVATAR DAY?! I managed t'get a ticket and was just curious if Mark was going to see it and be as converted as so many respected filmmakers; most impactful for me was Ridley Scott having said it's "phenomenal", this being a guy who builds universes for a living.

Anyway, over and out.
Review: Vincent Cassel in Mesrine 1:59pm on 10 Aug 2009 Mesrine was great, even better thinking back on it, and I'm disappointed cinemas aren't showing both films in one, as some did with Che. It worked well for Che, and I'm sure it would for Mesrine. Vincent Cassel was superb, as was Cecile De France and Gerard Depardieu. And everyone else t'be honest. It's also quite true what y'say about it being Cassel's film moreso than that of the director. I thought about this during it; how much it resembled say, Paul Greengrass and wasn't put together in any way that was startlingly new. That said, this doesn't mean it was badly put together, I thought it was great.

The actor/director balance also comes into play with something like Half Nelson, in which Ryan Gosling was superb, and the directors clearly know this, but the rest of the film doesn't quite equal him.

On another topic, Mark's said a few things in Antichrist - which impressed me - make him think "Oh, LARS!" and I'm intrigued as t'what they are.
Ich got some issues mit Brno's ichssues 3:53pm on 10 Jul 2009 Apologies if that's rambling.

To conclude more clearly the film is two films needing to work together better, if indeed they CAN.

I'd rather have the box-office bomb which is purely vicious satire, uncomfortable as watching it may make me feel.

Fin.
Ich got some issues mit Brno's ichssues 3:47pm on 10 Jul 2009 Very difficult to make my views on Bruno brief but intelligible. It really did a number on me.

Regardless of the disclaimer, it was clear to me that Sacha Baron Cohen is all about tolerance and equality, so this idea didn't cause a problem, because one thing the film IS, is fair; much like Munich I think it manages to stay on the fence effectively.

However my problems come in when I remember the several 'laugh-tracks' that came with both Bruno and Borat. Some people seemed only to laugh at sex or nudity while other sides split during sequences of politicians in discomfort. And I think Baron Cohen's characters for this reason can't make a classic comedy-satire.

It's obviously not his intention, but he has two parallel audiences. One understands to look past the surface - the extreme racism of Borat or the extravagant campness/sexuality/fame obsession of Bruno - and find the prejudice in everyday life in America, the zentrum of the world's media. This audience, which I count myself part of (without trying to sound arrogant) is probably just as likely to think the film's a comedy as sit silent and concerned watching the casual hatred so many people have. I for one laughed out loud very rarely during Bruno, and never at large prank-scenes which revealed some people's horrible ideals.

The other audience - many of which I went to school with when Borat was released, and who obsessed over it - find the racism, bad-taste and soft-peddling laughs at easy targets funny. Now this isn't a bad thing; it's not that they're agreeing with the character's views necessarily, but they want bad taste, social awkwardness and offense to come thick and fast. Nothing wrong with that, but Baron Cohen wants more.

It's clearly hugely difficult to marry these two sides, but this again is NOT Baron Cohen's fault. When Ali G became a superstar is does the exact opposite of what I suspect Baron Cohen wanted. As soon as you make his characters icons they lose their power; they are the doors through which Baron Cohen sneaks into the innerspace of society's concious, and reveals the views they'd rather keep quiet at dinner parties. Once these people are recognisable this idea is dead in the water.

I think Baron Cohen knows this audience split, as is evident in Bruno. The opening 20 minutes contain quietly satirical points about fashion and body fascism but is more about gross-out - a long sequence of wild sex for example. This seemed t'me to be there (again, not that it's not funny) to wean the second audience in until at one point it really went straight for the throat with a scathing satire against the Brangelina-stalking-gutterpress.

Phew.

I like it more than Borat. And SBC has unbelievable balls.

But then if he was killed by those he pranks it would almost be the ultimate vindication for what he does.

Steve G. Signing out.
Five Live in Edinburgh: the Best Bits 9:08pm on 24 Jun 2009 WHEN will people storm the projection booths and CUT THESE FILMS TO PIECES?

I refer you t'my comment on Terminator Redemption's list.

But surprisingly for me, I actually have to disagree about Shia LeBeouf. While Transformers 2 is vile and he's working with a crap script, it stuns me how much 'believable' conviction he gives his lines. He does have charisma, can't deny that.

And on the subject of Bay's horror remakes, remember Gunnar Hansen's review of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre remake; the major problem being the camera's stasis at breast-eye-level.

And the fact that it's just bad.
Terminator Redemption? 00:11am on 24 Jun 2009 Let's forget this Terminator debate, Transformers is STAGGERINGLY bad, and needs genuine attention.

While Terminator may not be anything memorable, it has reasonable intentions compared to Transformers, which is so IRRESPONSIBLE id depressed me. Now a film as childish and single-minded as it is isn't a bad thing, but the problem is Bay's irresponsible nature; I'm not going to assume that he is as chauvinistic and neanderthal as the film makes him seem - he may be filming Megan Fox slathered over a bike with a postmodern eye.

HOWEVER, with this comes a responsiblity - the responsibility of his audience, which is meant to be families. I'm unsure as to whether children soaking the film up will think twice about ogling the women/cars/explosions etc or whether it instead just promotes the ideals of six-pinter-blokes-on-a-Friday-curry-bender.

This relates in some way to Crank 2, which I thought was decent; most of the film is so clearly self-aware that it's a videogame that it's disappointing to see the stripper-massacre, which IS a misogynistic sequence. However because of the rest being so self-aware, I don't feel that the filmmakers are that hate-fuelled. Bay doesn't have any self-awareness like this, which makes me question his morals and if he should be in charge of something so popular.

But then this is just censorship for the left, so it's a difficult/impossible topic.

It's policing your audience. Also goes for Bruno/Last House On The Left/Borat/Scream....etc.

I had a genuine urge to follow in the footsteps of anti Last House On The Left protesters and storm the projection booth to slash the celluloid. While the actions would do nothing on a big scale, they'd get some vague attention, and I'd feel briefly purged.

But IMAX reels are about 15ft across, it would've taken days.

That rambled a bit.

PS - On the subject of Crank's stripper-massacre, Andrew Collins is UNFORGIVABLE for walking out and still thinking he can review the film.

Well, not unforgivable. I'm not THAT aggravated. It's immature.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

stephenglass