'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'

'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' is unlike any other film i have ever seen. It is a thing of beauty, a culmination of the work of numerous artistic geniuses, the craft and emotional laden words in Charlie Kaufman's screenplay, the surrealistic cinematography and entirely unique visual look in the shape of Michel Gondry, as the auteur at the helm, and, of course, Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet as the two leads, Joel Barisch and Clementine Kruczynski (KRA-ZINCH-SKI), both going against their typical roles and crafting two utterly belivable, empathetic, humanistic and fallable characters as you are ever likely to see in any film.

This is unlike any other film that I have reviewed for this blog in that I am watching this film for about the fifth or sixth time, and am reviewing it accordingly. This is one of my favourite films ever made, possibly breaching the prestigous top three, and i think alot of that has to do with the complexity and multi-layering present within the film, much of which originated from Kaufman's pen, a man that is renowned for his nigh on perfect scripts that contain such of the man's intelligence and emotion and surrealism that it doesn't take much craftmanship to bring them directly to the screen, they are so alive and vibrant upon the page. Of course when this is teamed with the winning team of Gondry, Carrey and Winslet, the magic of Kaufman is only enhanced, which i feel may explain why 'Eternal Sunshine' is the most critically and commercially acclaimed of Kaufman's films. Although, despite my seemingly geeky enfatuation with Kaufman here I have not enjoyed his other works that much, despite appreciating his craft, i found 'Being John Malkovich' to just be odd, rather directionless and with no real protagonist to root for. I feel by grounding 'Eternal Sunshine's' more science fiction-y elements with what is a very true and honest love story is what makes it work so wonderfully.

The sensibilities of both writer and director ensure that this film is unlike any romantic comedy you have ever seen. There is a stationary medium shot about twelve minutes into the film, after Joel and Clementine meet for the 'first' time that epitomises the gorgeousness of this film, as our protagonist walks away from Clem's apartment, buoyed up by his budding romantic feelings, a slight snow fall beginning to gently patter the pavement, a soft and incredibly sweet song playing in the background. The music carries us through into the next scene as Joel calls Clementine, softly speaking into the phone, nervously, a genuine smile of happiness crossing his face, and it is just beautiful. Those few minutes just portray romance to me. The mastery of Kaufman and Gondry manage to present the wonderful feeling of love in just a few short minutes of film and that is what instantly hooks you, emotionally, as an audience member to the fate of these characters.

As I said before though, the film is brutally honest about romance and following the opening sequence (which culminates in the heart wrenching title sequence appearing eighteen (!) minutes into the film) Kaufman and gondry proceed to deconstruct the romance between the two main characters, taking us through their painful descent into heart ache, to the point where the impulsive Clementine decides to have Joel erased from her memory, an action that propels the film forward, as we find ourselves taken through the many memories shared between the couple, both good and bad, all bringing us closer to the characters, Joel in particular for me, and all presenting love in a fashion that you would never see in mainstream cinema. I cannot think of any other film, or play, or piece of literature that presents love in such a way that generates such a strong emotional reaction from me and actually shows you how painful and how fantastic it can be. Carrey and Winslet's performances have alot to do with this, having a natural chemistry that without, would have ensured the failure of the film. Carrey's opening voice over made me fall in love with this film almost instantly, as he just sounds so lost and so empty, quietly mumbling his thoughts, which all say so much about his state of mind when not with Clementine, my favourite being;
'Sand is overrated. It's just tiny little rocks.'

I feel like anything I write within this review could not possibly do the film justice, as it is itself such a beautiful marriage of language, visuals and sound that mere words could not recreate the profound effect that it has on me, every time that I watch it. This is a reminder of why I love films and find the medium so fascinating which, contrasted with 'Inglorious Basterds' which i said very similar things about, shows the wide spectrum of the possibilites of cinema and how magic can be crafted in very different ways. I perhaps should have reviewed this later on, getting a few poorly made films between this and the review below so I don't look like I am distributing the high class of five stars too frequently but, this is one of my favourite films and so it is receiving FIVE STARS OUT OF FIVE. If you haven't seen this film already and class yourself as a lover of cinema then i urge you to do so, and if you haven't got a tear in your eye at at least one point within 'Eternal Sunshine', then you must have a heart of stone.

'Inglorious Basterds'

'Inglorious Basterds' was a film that immediately presented me with two discernable problems. The first was one that, i imagine, was shared by a legion of cinema lovers and followers of Tarantino's work and that was;

1. Was this going to be Tarantino's return to form? Or was it to be his next step along a short path to ineptitude and unoriginality, the first step of which was taken with his previous directorial effort 'Death Proof', a film that felt over indulgent in it's dialogue and characters that were lacking in depth. This was something that worried me as a lover of Tarantino's previous works and as an admirer in the fact that someone who loves the medium of film so much can make such a huge impact upon the business and isn't just a deluded geek. (Just a geek.)




2. My second problem was one that was probably adopted by the more anxious of the general public and that was, when i get to the ticket booth, how do i pronounce the title of the film? Do i put on a slight German accent and read as pronounced, 'BASTERDS', inducing a nervous chuckle within myself and a filthy look from the underpaid, overworked cashier operator? Or just give it my best British accent, cockneying it up, 'Yeah, one for the bastards one, please. Cheers Mate'.

Thankfully, my worries were quickly put to rest. I adopted for the typical 'BASTARDS' at the box office and upon entering the cinema were plunged into a typical and instantly classic Tarantino lengthy dialogue scene. I was captivated instantly as, not only were Tarantino's auteur trademarks present, his style had advanced, the camera work seeming much more fluid, flowing more regularly than the set camera style that people love about his work, and is presented in it's purest (and arguably, amateurish status) in 'Reservoir'. However, it was not just the camerawork and the fantastic dialogue that impressed me within this opening scene (Or chapter, as the film presents the different sections of the narrative, using a classic white text on black card to differentiate each and bringing in Tarantino's trademark postmodernistic sensibilities) it was also the performances.

The two actors, neither of whom i was aware of prior to this, both being European actors, were incredible in the opening scene adding a powerful emotional punch to the dialogue and layering the scene beyond a simple good versus bad guy scenario. Hans, the nazi commanding officer, affectionatly dubbed the 'Jew hunter', is charming and his intentions aren't entirely clear from the offset as the farmer is a character who we feel we can trust and should be the hero and yet, when he subverts our expectations, my sympathies still lay with him as he was truly empathetic in his actions and still had heroic qualities in his submission to the Nazi. The performances only got better from here on out, making it difficult to pin point a particular actor for their craft, although Brad Pitt as Lieutenant Aldo Raine was, predicatably, entertaining, although due to the ensemble nature of this film, Pitt is as much the main character as newcomer, melanie Laurent, who portrays the Jewish girl with a love for film and a hatred for Nazis, Shosanna Dreyfuss, or Christoph Waltz, who plays the manipulative and sadistic 'Jew hunter'.

The film has tongue firmly in cheek the entire way through, Tarantino not looking to pay homage to and tell a true to life war story, but rather to tell a good war film story. A fun and violent romp through 1940's Nazi occupied France, with an extreme group of soldiers who have a very black and white view of the war and seem to remedy those that they see as the bad guys in a swift and violent fashion;

'All of you men owe me one hundred Nazi scalps. And i want my Nazi scalps.'

But despite this, 'Inglorious Basterds' remains Tarantino's most mature film to date, juggling almost a dozen main characters, a number of different plot threads that eventually intertwine in ways I wasn't expecting and following true harrowing moments that hearken to the horrors of the war with extreme and, often comical, violence. As stated previously, Tarantino's camera work has improved and evolved with this outing, as has his dialogue which is far more mature than his previous films, not finding it necessary to include a 'fuck' or a derogatory racist term in every other sentence, whilst still maintaning its impact and classic Tarantino charm.

The Basterd's black and white view of the war is something else that adds another interesting layer to the film, one which i wonder if Tarantino intended, as i noticed, observing the audience's reaction in my screening, that once Pitt and his group of Nazi killers are introduced the audience are very much sided with them to the point where they were laughing heavily at a scene which saw an infamous member of the group (Infamous to the Nazi soldiers, that is), dubbed 'The bear Jew', smash in the skull of a Nazi officer with a baseball bat, in a horrific fashion. Laughs were also elicited as Pitt's Raine takes his knife to one of the Nazi soldier's foreheads, offering up a quip as he does so. However, the audience was very much against the Nazis from the get go, in particular when the Basterds first appear, often staring in shock at the violence utilised by them, which is really, no worse than that used by the Americans. This thematic point ties into a point brought up in the first scene of the film by Hans, 'The Jew Hunter', as he compares the Jews to rats, offering up the idea that;

'You would greet a rat with hostility. You don't know why you would do this. You simply would.'

(Paraphrased. Apologies. I didn't take a notebook again.)

I feel that this idea can be applied to the film as a whole, as an interesting added layer of subtext, but it could just as easily be said that the reason the Nazis are portrayed as bad guys is that Tarantino is paying homage to the propoganda like war films of the fifties and sixties, where of course the Nazis were the villians. Americans are the heroes, after all.

This film has a feel good factor that cannot be described without seeing this masterful piece of work, having the audience punching their fist in the air throughout, laughing, wincing and crying, carrying you deftly through the emotional spectrum whilst providing you with a great escapist story. This is the sort of film that reminds me what it is I love so much about film as a medium and it's potential and also how much I am inspired by, and adore, the works of Tarantino, so much so, that the moment I got back from the cinema I decided to rewatch his backcatalogue. (Excluding Deathproof.) For that reason alone i am awarding the film an unprecedented FIVE out of FIVE STARS, and urge you to go and see 'Inglorious Basterds' as soon as is humanly possible. Congratulations, Mr Tarantino. It's good to have you back.

'Bruno' review

‘Bruno’;

the spiritual sequel to ‘Borat’, seems to take the ideas used in Cohen’s original mock-umentary-esque comedy and ramp them up to eleven on the shock scale. This means at times the film seems less like a conventional cinematic experience and more of an experiment in shock and how far Cohen can push his audiences and his ‘victims’ in creating comedic situations. I mean, I enjoy shocking comedy as much as the next filthy teenager but there were moments in this film where I had to self censor and also self censor the desire to be violently sick. It really is that extreme that it makes the naked tussle between Borat and his manager in ‘Borat’ seem like an innocent kiss stolen by Zac ‘BOLTON’ Efron in ‘High School Musical’.

It is because of this unrelenting shock that I find it difficult to review ‘Bruno’ as a traditional film as, I am sure Cohen would agree, it is anything but, starting with the writing team accredited which confused me no end. The film has four writers. A film that is, essentially, a sequence of gross out sequences and only runs a little under two hours has four writers. This lends itself to help suggest the true successful quality of the film lies not in the writing, the camera work, the production team, but in Cohen himself and his ability to create over the top and ridiculous yet engaging characters that serve to shock and, amazingly, generate emotion within his viewers. One moment that stood out to me, as a lover of cinema and the magic it can craft, follows a scene in which Bruno and his assistant Lutz are chained together in an S ‘n’ M gay outfit walking around Alabama, in one of the less subtle moments of exposing America’s seeming latent homophobia but a scene that generates many laughs none the less. Anyway, following the ridiculousness of the previous scene Cohen provides us with an exchange between Lutz and Bruno that genuinely served to stir emotion within me as Lutz confesses his love for the Austrian model as he proceeds to spurn his assistant in a moment that conveys his egomania;
‘I am Bruno! BRUNO! I don’t need you! I don't need anyone!’
(Para phrased. Maybe I should take a notebook into the cinema with me.)

It is moments of genius like these that hearken back to the brilliance of ‘Borat’ but if Cohen is attempting to mock and highlight the homophobia of America with this film I’m not sure he can be said to have succeeded. The extreme stereotype presented here isn’t immediately mocked and ridiculed by the people he associates with, this only comes following extreme behaviour on the eponymous character’s part that would surely elicit such a response from most people. For example he is somewhat accepted initially by the terrifying Southern Hunters, even Donny with the intense murdering stare, and it is only when he continues to open their tents at about three o’ clock in the morning completely naked that the gay barbs begin to be thrown about and he is forcibly ejected.

But then if not for his extreme behaviour he wouldn’t elicit such HILARIOUS results from those around him and despite my critique of his unsubtle latent homophobia, I can appreciate that this may just be seen as an over the top and extreme comedy and on that part I really cannot complain as I was forcibly laughing throughout, from the unconventional and inventive sex between Bruno and his midget boyfriend to the distraught fat American breaking down at the side of the ring at the conclusion of the film (Which I won’t spoil here). ‘Bruno’ was funny. Very funny, in fact, hence my awarding it Three out of five stars and urging you, any potential readers to go and see the film yourself to see if you agree with my critical view or whether you think it is indeed the equal or, superior (?) to ‘Borat’.

'Public Enemies' review

'Public Enemies' is a tour de force of charisma, intelligence and violence. A film that exuberates sexiness at all times with Depp's turn as the protagonist/ antagonist in John Dillinger being electrifying to watch despite his somewhat understated and subtle performance. Mann has crafted a true crime epic here, presenting Dillinger's rise to prominence and fall, or in actuality, the minor setbacks he experiences along the way in achieving and receiving just what he wants.

Depp is the driving force behind the almost three hour film, a running time that at no point seemed lengthy to me as i remained constantly gripped by the back and forth battle between Dillinger's gang and Purvis's specially tailored FBI squad. I am not ashamed to say, as a confidently heterosexual man, that Depp's Dillinger was inherently sexy and charismatic, constantly dressed to a tee and reeling off numerous lines that could immediately be immortalised as catchphrases, my favourite of which being;

'I like baseball, the movies, fast cars, nice clothes...and you. What more do you need to know?'

(Paraphrased slightly)

Of course, Dillinger's, almost, mirror image in Purvis is portrayed with just as strong a performance by the one and only Christian 'Get off the fucking set' Bale, as he is clearly a man tortured by the necessary violence and death that needs to be exacted upon the criminal underworld in order to catch their public enemy number one. The rest of the cast is just as strong, the other two stand out performances coming from Stephen Graham as the, seemingly, insane 'Baby face' Nelson, and Marion Cotillard as Dillinger's love interest Billie, the moment in which her performance was solidified for me as being a great one, being her reaction to her 'interrogation' at the hands of the FBI, her uncontrollable shaking causing me to want Johnny to bust down the doors of the Police precinct and exact revenge upon the 'fat one'.

Mann immerses us, as an audience, into this world immediately using low angle, frenetic camera angles to follow Dillinger's crew upon their prison break and introducing us to John as a man already fully entwined with the criminal world and, following the death of one of his friends in the get away, foreshadowing the death to come in Dillinger's subsequent rise to fame. The more static uses of the camera come when portraying President Edgar Hoover, or the inner workings of the FBI, suggesting a sense of stability in comparison to the hectic, 'live for the moment', lives of Dillinger and his gang. The lack of any discernible soundtrack during the extensive action sequences lends a sense of realism and a greater sense of historical accuracy to the gun battles, allowing us as an audience to experience the devastating noise and deathly silences of such encounters between the law and the criminals.

I thought this film was fantastic, in that i was completely immersed from the get go and wasn't released, Mann maintaining a tight grip on my eyes and also my heart, the ending proving to be quite an emotionally devastating one. Perhaps it was just in comparison to the dire film i saw yesterday but i truly believe this film could be worthy of five stars. But, five stars indicates no improvements could be made and I'm not entirely sure i am confident enough to say that, so, rather controversially, i will not only be awarding 'Public Enemies' four out of five stars, i will also be decreasing 'Year One's rating to one out of five stars. (Apologies again to childhood hero Mr. Ramis...but honestly? I'm surprised i didn't see the ironic humour in awarding the film one star yesterday)

'Year One' review

'Year One' felt the equivalent to me of being attacked and slapped repeatedly by a childhood hero and then discarded by the side of the road following the brutal removal of my funny bone. It is a film that is not the sum of it's parts, in fact, it's almost as if the equation was designed by someone so mathematically inept that they took the value of each part of the sum, miscalculated it and then shoved the pieces together in a hap hazard fashion. I mean let us have a look at the great components that should have caused this film to shine; Jack Black, Paul Rudd (Whose role amounted to little more than an over glorified cameo), Hank Azaria and of course, the one and only, 'Ghostbusters' co-writer and original 'Buster himself, Harold Ramis.

Harold Ramis, on whose shoulders i have to place the blame for this disaster and that is an accusation that does not come lightly, considering the love that i hold in my young and geeky heart for the inimitable Egon Spengler and the fantastic dialogue that flowed forth from his pen in both 'Ghostbusters' films. But there seems to be no way that this film could have lost so much direction and greatness in it's translation from page to screen; the script just wasn't strong enough. The film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be and this is where its problem lay, one that it couldn't recover from. It was too mainstream to provide a true satirical look and parody of the Bible stories featured within and yet too steeped in Biblical, expositional dialogue to provide mainstream, simple laughs.

Michael Cera was another large problem being that his shtick becoming boring moments into the film, providing us with another docile, softly spoken man child that struggles to get the attention of the girl he likes. I feel like i have seen this character a million times before from Cera and seeing that this film is, in a fashion, a buddy movie and one half of the team is beginning to be, somewhat, lackluster and uninteresting a number of moments into the film, does not bode well. Black was entertaining as always and provided the majority of the few laughs that i indulged within (forced) but he wasn't enough to recover the rest of the film which, seemed to drag for so long, i seriously considered leaving the cinema and going home early. I have never before considered such a thing, leaving the cinema before the conclusion of a film being the equivalent of giving up and going to sleep halfway through sex. It should be seen as a criminal offence and something that would just not naturally occur to me.

Much to my disappointment and sadness in Ramis i will award 'Year One', (award perhaps not being the operative word) two stars out of five and pray that the writing team buck their ideas up before they attempt to tackle 'Ghostbusters 3' or they are going to find a livid, writhing and inconsolable mass of geeks out for their blood.

(I feel the fact that i have discussed the Eighties cult classic of 'Ghostbusters' so much in a seemingly irrelevant review is more a reflection upon the poor quality of 'Year One' than upon the quality of me as a reviewer)

Smylie Boy