rather unexpectedly, then, i am one of the (many) millions in, on, around and across the world, look you see, who has more "free" time available than had previously been anticipated as likely. and, just like a fair few, i would suspect, there has been something of a wrestle in mind as to what to do with the expanse of moments.
once more like a fair few, it struck me as an ideal time to "catch up" on, or otherwise get down to, watching a film or two. well, more than two. in this brave era in which one can barely move for having thousands (and then some) of films "streamed" into our homes, so often the temptation is to browse what is available to watch rather than actually watching anything. this has mostly been true for me.
for anyone remotely interested in such, here are not four, not five, not seven and not twelve, but six movies which i have had a watch of. with mixed levels of success. if such information is at all relevant or of peculiar importance, just about all were watched at around 8am on one day or the other. that would be because by then i would generally be up and have spent the requisite time needed to do any given range of household tasks, but yet all else are asleep, and so i would be left to myself to find entertainment, stimulation or amusement.
yes, indeed that is a sort of quasi "collage" thing of the six films which i watched. mostly, i would have every reason to suspect, you will instantly know the title of each one from those specific, iconic images. but yes, i will give names as i go.
those of you who like statistics, provenance, data and so on, well, yes, this paragraph is for you. some 33% in total of the films watched were via the conduit of digital disc technology, be it dvd or blu ray. further, 50%, as you will have noticed, feature performances by Nicolas Cage. and of that 50%, 100% of them are from that strange, weirdly specific era (or period) of the 21st century in which Nicolas Cage chose to channel his acting prowess via the conduit of wearing glasses or spectacles of varying purpose and degree of reason.
right, then, a look at each of the 6 (six) in separate ways. do please be warned, as whereas i shall do everything i can to avoid such, inevitably in the eyes of someone somewhere what might be considered or classed as 'spoilers' will feature. so a **** POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING *** is in place.
what's this one all about, then? it is based on the HP Lovecraft story of (i think at least) the same name, and is concerned with an unknown thing crash landing from space, spreading pretty colours, and aliens or some mystical force or something like that infecting or taking over people, causing all sorts of problems and issues. things like that. yes, it gets a bit violent and tragic.
if all of that above sounds overtly, or maybe even slightly, familiar, well then that is because it probably is. other than the some three hundred and twenty eight "official" adaptations of this particular title (you would think maybe someone would consider filming a different Lovecraft title, but no), the concept has been "borrowed" frequently, in everything from The Thing to Invasion Of The Body Snatchers to, in a weird roundabout way, E.T., kind of.
any good? kind of. to focus on the positives, Cage is not sh!t in it, the "colour" light effects and visuals are really impressive, and shows what a promising director we have missed out on for many years, since this is the first "major" film what Richard Stanley has done since the "incident" that was The Island Of Dr Moreau. there's some fairly gruesome visual effects, so do be warned.
worth watching? tough one to answer. yes if you really wish to see some amazing shades (and variations) of purple, and Nicolas Cage giving a halfway decent performance. but there are some also rather troubling, upsetting visuals, the pacing goes from excellent to dragging to let's just wrap this up, and there is absolutely zero new, "fresh" or from a different perspective in the fundamentals of telling a story that has been told many, many times.
plot? a construction worker (Schwarzenegger) dreams of going on holiday to Mars. his wife (Sharon Stone) wishes him not to. despite her advice, and indeed that of Harry from verk (Robert Costanzo), off he goes to a company called Rekall, which can plant fake memories of any holiday or event in your mind to make you "feel" like you did it. the wheels fall off, and lost of violence follows, when it turns out that someone prior to Rekall has implanted some memories in his mind......
a story, or concept, which has several high level thinking levels of philosophy is, but of course, pretty much turned into an exploitative ultra violent action film, thanks to the presence of him what did RoboCop (Paul Verhoeven) and the Arnold. despite such, much interested debate or conversation happens, partially to this day, about which aspects of the film are "real" and which are just implanted memories, or if you like "dreams". mostly, though, i would expect, think or indeed imagine that the film gets rather fondly remembered for the outrageous violence and witty one-liners.
quite class, it is, to be sure. this was made as the 80s gave way to the 90s, and one did not give many, many millions of lovely, lovely dollars to Arnold Schwarzenegger to be in their film unless they were going to utilise his immense talents and looking smart whilst absolutely battering many, many people. i am certain that i went to the cinema to see this twice, and it's possible i went more. one big draw would be the superb supporting cast, with Michael Ironside in particular being proper smart in it, very nearly almost as smart as he was in that boss V tv series.
overall, i would think this film is mostly remembered for being the last time Arnie was ludicrously, care and consequence free violent for just the sh!ts and giggles of it all in a film. after this it was all morality and reason, be it the wet blanket "i swear i will not kill anybody" of Terminator 2, or Kindergarten Cop, or even the "hey i am a good guy" of good but needlessly bloated True Lies. well, them were the days, and at least Arnie didn't make Stop! Or My Mum Will Shoot.
the plot? one which is, apparently, more or less based on real events. a copper (Nicolas Cage) is made to become aware of a serial killer (John Cusack) on the prowl in Alaska when one of his would-be victims (Vanessa Hudgens out of High School Musical) is rescued. steadily he pieces together a frightening number of previous victims, over time and distance, that no one had ever linked together before. with some resistance from the powers that be (of course), he sets about tracking down the killer and, yes, of course, bringing him to justice.
a frustration of Nicolas Cage appearing in four, five or even six films every year (believed as a result of his well documented financial and legal "issues", highlights of which include owning more than one f*****g castle and a dinosaur skull or two) is the assumption that they will all be poor or mediocre, a la other rather prolific "actors", be its Seagal or Snipes. they are not. well, to be clear, so far in my exploration of the multiple films of Cage of the 2000s i have not found any lost gem or overlooked masterpiece, but they almost always turn out to be "good" or "just above average". and, yes, in some instances his performance, or presence, is what takes it up to that level.
i am not sure what the "point" of The Frozen Ground is. whilst it was good, what was it that the film is supposed to be saying, i find myself wondering. should the idea have been to give an account of the real life killer at the heart of the story, Robert Hansen, then one just gets fleeting, peripheral glimpses and no insight. mostly, i would say, my lasting impression was the illustration of how "real" police work goes, with the astonishing resistance Cage's character gets from his own side to diverting resources in the direction of tracking down and stopping a killer. but also an impression would be that Alaska was, or maybe is, absolutely laced with prostitution and drugs. this was quite interesting, as my assumption was that the place was simply dull, cold and boring.
worth watching? yes. a pretty good Nicolas Cage performance, but perhaps more so good casting choice for John Cusack. he plays the role as it should be done, which is to say that he looks and seems intelligent enough to have gotten away with so much for so long, and also compellingly deviant enough so that you would believe his character would do such unspeakable things.
plot? a highly traumatised, disturbed chap called Joe (the apparently ever excellent Joaquin Phoenix) uses his apparent proclivity for violence for good, which is to say as a hired quasi mercenary, specialising in rescuing lost or stolen young girls and dispensing stark, graphic violence on both those who abducted the children or those he feels might either be involved with it, or get in his way, or just look like they deserve it. when called in to rescue the daughter of a prominent politician, the consequences come thick and fast. the juxtaposition of dealing with these consequences with his perpetual, internal struggle as to why do this, why live at all, makes for some strong stuff.
it feels wrong for me to just say "this film was brilliant". the temptation to exist is there, but i need to resist it some. much of the ostensible, or given, plot, is discarded or given superficial treatment in advancing the complex psychology which seems to be the true crux of the film. how, for instance, the protagonist is able to locate the missing with such simplistic ease is given only superficial attention. yes, i get that it is because the psyche / psychosis of the character is the real story being told here, but still, it serves as a distraction.
this film is dark. none more dark, really. if the ostensible plot presented is not dark enough, then the exploration of alienation, isolation and chronic, crippling and very much unresolved mental health issues explored (magnificently) by Joaquin Phoenix should certainly be. this is a towering, astonishing performance to watch, but not one you would rush to witness a second time. if that makes sense. but also you do want to watch again, to see if you can somehow "identify" if at any stage some of the narrative switched between "dream" and "reality", or if indeed any of it might be a flight of fiction upon the death of a character.
oddly, and this does feel peculiar, as You Were Never Really Here went along, with each passing key sequence a little shine of Joker was rubbed away. this film was made a year or two (give or take) before, and seeing this now gave me every sense the direction given to Joaquin on Joker was along the lines of "well do that thing you did in You Were Never Really Here, but only with no beard".
plot? when a shipment of cocaine goes missing, the bosses send who they think is the best and most trusted (Nicolas Cage) to trace the smuggling steps and see what may have gone wrong. as we watch him take those footsteps, we are treated to the life of another supposedly trusted member of the gang (Laurence Fishburne), whose reckless ways give the authorities a clue to the operation, and who also might know of the missing shipment.....
where this film is brilliant is in following Cage following the path of cocaine. it is remarkably insightful into the world of just how the devil this drug makes it all the way from plants in South America to the widely used drug in the "western world", and beyond. the trail is never anything short of fascinating, and Cage gives a really very good, convincing performance, be it part "bad guy", part tourist travel guide on the journey the stuff makes. this aspect of the film alone makes it well worth watching, even if you are not particularly interested in the subject.
mostly where the film goes wonky, or rubbish, is the Laurence Fishburne character. he does a reasonable job, as ever, and at times gives flashes of why i like him usually, why i tend to be patient even when he is in rubbish and is being rubbish. it all goes wrong, or went f****d, with a very ill-advised, poorly executed and frankly absurd scene involving him and a bizarre pastiche or "homage" to a scene from A Clockwork Orange. unnecessary comic relief that is plain distracting and very quickly makes you lose interest in the film. an extremely bad idea, and i would wager a release of the film with that scene missing would get far more positive reviews across the board.
i really do miss A-list, truly excellent Nicolas Cage, where the plot, cast and production matched his talent. here i speak, of course, and among others, stuff like Wild At Heart, Con Air, Face/Off, that one he got an Oscar for, National Treasure (both of them, and where is the third please), and stuff like that. but, at the very least, when he is doing these films which seem more focused on resolving any legal or financial peculiarities he has, he is putting in the effort and does deliver a decent performance.
oh, dear me. what a disappointment this movie was. should you be an acolyte or advocate of the film who believes it to be a masterpiece, or genius, or brilliant or similar, then you may wish to cease reading now so as to not upset yourself.
the first fifteen minutes of this film are superb, as it generally does what it is spoken of as doing. which is showing how ostensible lead actor Leonardo Di Caprio and his merry gang gain access to the dreams of others and pinch things from the subconscious. it is perfectly executed, engaging, and makes a relatively high end concept very pleasant viewing. alas, the following two (or so) hours are dedicated to doing the reverse, which is putting ideas into a dream. with no clarification or explanation as to how this is done. unless is was there, somewhere, but got lost in the disjointed, confusing narrative track for it they opted to use.
i had been led to believe this film was revolutionary, groundbreaking, innovative, creative and genius. alas, no, not really. there is absolutely nothing new here. virtually everything on offer here, be it the high-end, complex plot intricacies or the "stunning" (dull) action bits, has been done twice over. should you have never, ever seen things like Blade Runner, The Matrix, Vanilla Sky, A Clockwork Orange, Total Recall, even Plughead Rewired and a few dozen others, then yes i guess i could sort of almost get why you might think this film is in some way innovative or original. but it really is not, and isn't even a decent homage to any of them.
my basic understanding is that this film was a "pet project" for director Christopher Nolan, one he always wished to make. from what i can tell, such films always go awry. well, nearly. for years it was said that Scorsese wished to make Gangs Of New York. when he did, well, it turned out to be a film which was effectively three hours of watches being stolen. how very strange that the same lead actor links both films.
just about everyone with any sort of interest in seeing Inception has probably done so by now, or this point. if not, well the answer is a frank and stark just don't. it's just sh!t.
right, well, that's about that for each of them, then. as would be usual, and perpetually shall no doubt be the case, i have no concept or notion of this has been of any use, interest or value, but here it is, or was. but yes, still, my thanks as ever for reading.
oh, yeah. there was another film i watched, if i forget to include in the next similar post. it was on the Horror channel on the tele, and was called Retreat, featuring or starring Cillian Murphy and Thandie Newton. really good it was, to be sure, but some aspects or elements of the plot may be a little too close to the home of the world in which we now live.
anyway, off and on i go.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment