In Bruges

Two Irish hitmen have to stay in Bruges and wait for a call. Ray (Colin Farrell) is a whiny, loveable man-child and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) a cultured man with a heart of gold. These are the two nicest hitmen you’ll ever see (hopefully) and both are excellently acted, radiating charisma. Harry (Ralph Fiennes), their boss, is a complete bastard though (though just as well acted).

Whilst waiting for the call, they explore the “fairy tale” town of Bruges, Ray meets a cute Belgian and asks her out to dinner and later on, both find themselves with a pair of prostitutes and a racist dwarf snorting cocaine off a coffee table in a hotel room. Very surreal without being abstract and art house. The dialogue is consistently excellent - sharp, snappy, full of black humour and witty lines with the correct spattering of un-pc remarks. Never does it feel tacky or like its dragging on. Along with very sympathetic and engaging characters, this movie has a theatrical feel to it.

That’s not to say that the setting isn’t taken advantage of. Great care has been taken in choosing the locations and keeping a consistent, sombre theme in the “best preserved medieval city in Europe.” A blanket soft greyness over the daytime scenes and plenty of dark indoors and night time ones keep the atmosphere fitting to the film - grim, but very classy. One particular artistic scene stands out in my mind - a man has been shot and staggers through a film set, surrounded by warped figures in masks and costumes.

Initially I thought there would be very little action; the movie based around the relationship of the two very different main characters. That would have been an interesting enough film. But there is, and the writer/director Martin McDonagh gets the perfect balance of shock and suspense. It’s thrilling, it pulls no punches and it utilises the quick-witted characters with plenty of great exchanges amongst the combat.

I can’t find anything to fault right now (shock! horror!), still euphoric after my viewing - this is a movie I would definitely watch again, despite now knowing all the twists and turns. Fine acting, fine writing and fine production, In Bruges is a modern classic.

*****

Slumdog Millionaire

I don’t see Slumdog Millionaire as a realistic film, but that’s not a problem for me. It solves the problem of people fretting over the naïve, tourist’s view of Mumbai - so what? The filmmakers haven’t sacrificed story for realism and Slumdog Millionaire plays as a sort of grim, elongated fairy tale, with one misfortune rapidly followed by the next for Malik (Dev Patel).

Patel never quite convinces me as a “slumdog” or as a romantic lead - I’m not going to dwell on that too much though as his acting was decent, if not outstanding. The child actors were superb, as was the menacing Indian Aphex Twin villain and the Millionaire host. There were plenty of interesting support characters and all were imbued with realistic, nasty human qualities. That said, occasionally the evil appeared a little over the top. Surely Malik and Latika aren’t the only good people in Mumbai?

The soundtrack was magnificent, perfectly supporting and enhancing the action. Many scenes are memorable thanks to excellent artistic camerawork and fine editing. There’s a constant cinematic richness to the very poor locations captured. It’s clear to see that Slumdog is the work of Trainspotting director Danny Boyle - he’s obviously very competent. Slumdog Millionaire is stylish and its production an exemplary example of how to do it. I also liked the idea of having a chapter of Malik’s life with each Millionaire question - innovative.



It’s a bit too sentimental. Dev Patel’s not brilliant. The slums aren’t that realistic (so I hear). Also, as is the current plague of many recent high budget movies, it was too long. Cutting some sectiosns wouldn’t have harmed the quality of the movie but would have made it seem less like it was trying to be an epic poem. Despite these issues, it’s a good movie, highly glossed and polished.

***

Eagle vs Shark

Jemaine from the Conchords stars with Loren Horsley in this New Zealand(ish? er?) Napoleon Dynamite-esque movie but sadly it doesn’t work. I thought I’d like it! Jemaine, from the Conchords! It’s dire, though. It is very hard to discern what makes some subtle humour movies work and others fall painfully short but I suppose it comes down to the standard of humour and likeability of the characters. Jemaine’s character Jarrod is deliberately rude & inept to the point where you’re wondering if he’s meant to be autistic (he’s not) - he’s next to impossible to sympathise with. Lily (Horsley) is easier to sympathise with but her infatuation with Jarrod makes the entire plot feels uncomfortable and unlikely.

Jarrod has the abruptness of Jemaine in Flight of the Conchords but with none of the redeeming naivety and without the other half of the team, Bret. In a quirky rom com like Eagle vs Shark we need to be able to enjoy watching the main character, if not like him. This movie fails to be engaging and funny enough to warrant recommendation.

*

Son of Rambow

A delightful comedy about two sharply contrasting boys making a loose remake of Rambo: First Blood together. Will Proudfoot is shy and fragile from a deeply religious family (with a deeply creepy would-be step dad) while Lee Carter is borderline psychopathic thanks to parents constantly off gallivanting and a cruel, neglectful older brother. When we first see Lee, he is a menace, kicked out of a lesson and lurking the corridor, where Will is patiently sitting while the class finishes their video. The way Lee abuses Will’s shyness and naivety made me really hate him at first but gradually, as we learn more about the background and as Lee starts to show good qualities as well, my opinion had really changed - I was impressed with the subtlety in which the film fostered that transformation from Bully Lee to Plucky Lee.

It’s really a good will movie with very memorable scenes and themes. The French exchange student Didier was excellent; adored in the film by boys and girls alike because of his rebellious look and nonchalant demeanour. Seeming perpetually bored, his interest is piqued by the filming project and he joins in with his entourage. The ironic twist at the end made me laugh a lot. Son of Rambow had the right mixture of fun and seriousness, blended well together so as not to be severe or manipulative.

****

The Good Shepherd

An interesting movie often inspires me to Google search it after watching and find out its background, who and what the characters and plot were based on. The Good Shepherd, starring Matt Damon and directed by Robert De Nero was most successful in my eyes for tapping the wealth of fascinating history around the beginnings of the CIA and making me want to learn more. Archie Cummings in the movie was based on Kim Philby, a double-agent in British Intelligence and one of the Cambridge Five… you can follow the Wikipedia link trail on these characters for hours.

The movie, however, falls short of expectations. Or, maybe, falls exactly where you’d expect a film starring Matt Damon to fall: mediocre. Damon’s character, Edward Wilson, is the most boring man in the world thanks to his dialogue and Damon’s portrayal. I can’t think of one character I strongly liked or strongly disliked in the film; they were all clipped and sterile. Amazing, considering the material De Nero was working with. That considered, however, watching it for its history was interesting enough - things like American agents trading Nazi scientists for Jewish ones with the Soviets - and though the movie was overly long and I wouldn‘t watch it again, it wasn‘t terrible!

It would have gotten another star if Alec Baldwin had a bigger part.

**

Flight of the Conchords - Season 1

What would you call Flight of the Conchord’s kind of comedy? Offbeat, deadpan, characterised by lack of canned laughter, revelling in social awkwardness, and of course, musical. Reminds me of Spinal Tap (naturally), British comedies like The Office and also of, strangely, Napoleon Dynamite, and it deserves to stand alongside them! All the characters are played by comedians and it shows in their use of comic timing, expressions and tone of voice - it creates a slightly ironic feel to the whole thing that is affably daft, when it can often be in other shows and movies, pretentious. It’s helped by the Conchords amusing willingness to lampoon themselves and their homeland (New Zealand) frequently.

Murray Hewitt stands out especially as the Deputy Cultural Attache to the New Zealand Consulate by day, band manager of the Conchords by… day as well. He can‘t manage them at night, the band isn‘t allowed to do gigs at night because in Murray’s words “You could get run over, pickpocketed, erm... fall down a manhole, bump into people, murdered... imagine that. Or even just ridiculed.” Every episode, Murray seems to be sitting under the Sword of Damocles trying to juggle his two jobs, the unreliable Bret and Jemaine and his on/off wife, and of course burdened by their collective yoke of ignorance.



The episodes are obviously contrived to fit around the band’s songs, not that that’s a problem! They range from straight parodies (Inner City Pressure) to completely abstract pieces (Mermaids). Naturally, fitting with the calibre of the show, they’re all clever and enjoyable, but I think the pastiches of popular songs are definitely the best. The Conchords have a keen ear for satire. In a take on (what I assume to be) Black Eyed Peas “Where is the Love?” we get delightful lyrics like: “Now there's junkies with monkey disease // Who's touching these monkeys, please // Leave these poor sick monkeys alone // They've got problems as it is”. Keeping up the quality of these amiably mocking songs will be their biggest challenge in the second season (now showing on BBC er… well, one of them).

Despite the difficulties of bending a plot to fit around very varied indeed songs, Flight of the Conchords manage to pull it off - the sitcom part of the show is smooth and well written. Besides, the songs don't need to fit exactly, the daftness is what's so endearing. Bret and Jemaine, playing Bret and Jemaine, have great charm and acting skills as parallel versions of themselves, though I admit I can’t picture either playing any other roles. Except Figwit, of course.



Flight of the Conchords is high quality throughout, with only one bad episode (their Bowie impressions aren’t as good as they think they are) out of twelve. If you have any sort of sense of humour, give this a watch! If you don’t, well, try Bremner, Bird and Fortune.

****

Gran Torino

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

The whole audience laughed uproariously at each and every growl from grizzled, leathery Walt Kowalski, played by Clint Eastwood. Every grumpy, laconic one liner caused a wide grin from us, and every glare a chuckle. Walt Kowalski is angry and with good reason, his family are no-good, spoilt exploiters, trying to peck at his skeleton before he’s even dead. We see them through his eyes, and we laugh because the contempt he lambastes them with is utterly deserved and perfectly well put. When Walt’s granddaughter “pays her respects” at her grandmother’s coffin in a belly top, a growl fits exactly what we‘re feeling. It’s an interesting perspective, the point of view of the family elder, almost always the supporting character in any given movie.

The film is an exploration of isolated Walt slowly getting to know his immigrant Hmong neighbours, through the Hmong teenagers Sue and Thao. It’s an unlikely but convincing relationship, as despite Walt being extremely bigoted and racist, he comes to realise that the Hmong community has the values he wishes his own family had, such as a respect for elders and a hard work ethic. Walt takes Thao under his wing, doing his disgruntled best to help Thao become a man by pushing him to ask the girl he likes out, getting him a job in a construction site and trying to protect him from the local gang. I wasn’t very interested in Thao at the start, finding him boring and unsympathetic, but he vindicates himself and becomes very likeable by the end.

Gran Torino’s consistent washed out, white and green look gives the film a distinctive personality and cohesive feel. I liked the way the camera followed Walt into the Hmong household, making us feel like him, a stranger in a bustling, alien home. The frequent Walt close-ups keep us up to date with his thoughts and opinions via his expression (he’s a man of few words!) and as most of the film is following him, we feel close to the cantankerous old man.

The story is predictable, most of the time. Not an awful thing in itself but I was cringing at one of the last scenes, with Walt lying in a crucified pose, having sacrificed himself to get the gang imprisoned. It felt a bit contrived and blunt; it made sense, but I think I would have preferred Walt to go out in a blaze of glory or some other non-Jesus comparison based solution. The movie doesn’t make us think, much. It’s not a terrible thing, not every movie should make us question our beliefs or inspire debate, but Gran Torino didn’t feel very challenging - the bad characters could have been made more sympathetic, the good more flawed (yeah, Walt was racist, but he got over that and it was mostly limited to un-PC insults).

Despite this, Gran Torino is a magnificent movie and I was transfixed throughout. There are hilarious moments, such as Walt the 78 year old confronting the black gang pushing Sue and her wigger boyfriend around. The various insult matches between Walt and his hairdresser and Walt and quick-witted Sue also stand out as very funny. There are, however, also scenes where you really appreciate the vulnerability of the Hmong family, culminating in real grief (even anger) when the gang exacts their vengeance. A film that can command such varied feelings so potently is worth high praise.

****