'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