Vertigo- 3 Stars

In 2012 Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo was voted the best film of all time on the critics Sight & Sound poll composed of all the major critics in the world. I do not agree.

Theatrical Release Poster

I am a big fan of Hitchcock (Psycho is one of my favourite ever films) but this film, concerning John 'Scottie' Ferguson (James Stewart) a retired policeman with acrophobia and vertigo tasked with tailing his old friend Gavin Elster's (Tom Helmore) wife Madeleine (Kim Novak) because he is afraid she is being possessed by the spirit of her dead-by-suicide great grandmother, is not Hitchcock's best.

So what's not to like about it? Well the first half of the film is quite good. It's a Hitchcock film so of course it's brilliantly (and even beautifully) shot with music ratcheting up the tension. The mystery is gripping. However, the problems start coming when Scottie falls in love with Madeleine. The romance is all done in a very melodramatic style with bursts of music playing every time they kiss. This rather put me off the film although I suppose it was very typical in its day taking inspiration from popular films such as Gone with the Wind and Casablanca. It also could be redeemed through its use of contrast with Scottie's relationship with his girlfriend Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes). As opposed to the melodramatic, completely unreal relationship of Scottie and Madeleine, Scottie's relationship with Midge is very down to earth, real and touching. Their scenes together are certainly the best scenes in the film with Barbara Bel Geddes lighting up the screen. But the problem is Midge is basically not in the second half of the film yet the cringey, over the top and melodramatic romance scenes continue although this time with a different woman, Judy Barton.

James Stewart as Scottie and Kim Novak as Madeleine

My main problem with Vertigo involves basically spoiling the plot of the film so be warned that this next paragraph contains spoilers. SPOILER ALERT. Okay so when Madeleine commits suicide, supposedly because her dead great grandmother told her too, Scottie is left distraught and starts to obsess over Madeleine seeing her everywhere. He eventually meets a woman by the name of Judy Barton who looks exactly like Madeleine. It is revealed (although not to Scottie) that she was in fact playing Madeleine and the whole suicide was arranged by the real Madeleine's husband for as Barton ran up the tower pretending to be Madeleine Mr Elster was at the top with his wife who, when Barton arrives at the top, he promptly pushes off the top of the building and then hides with Barton making Madeleine's death look like suicide. Due to Scottie's acrophobia he cannot reach the top of the tower meaning he witnesses the 'suicide' but does not see that it was actually murder. Did I explain that well? No? Yeah that's because it is so contrived and complicated that it is laughable and as a result rather difficult to explain. When watching it unfold I laughed out loud because I thought it must be a false story it was just so laughably forced and contrived. After that point in the film I stopped being interested because it was quite obvious where the film was going and, especially now Scottie was rather unrelatable due to his obsession with Madeleine, the film became boring, melodramatic and predictable. When it came to the ending you couldn't predict what exactly was going to happen but at that point I was really beyond caring. There was little of Hitchcock's trademark tension. I will admit the startling appearance of the nun at the end was good- it certainly sent shivers up my spine- but this was then ruined by the underwhelming death of Barton as she trips and falls off the edge of the same tower Elster's wife was pushed off. Although of course this death was clever as it mirrored the real Madeleine's death showing that Barton was becoming her (also shown through Scottie's obsession with getting Barton to dress exactly like Madeleine).

Alfred Hitchcock, the producer and director

I've been very critical so far and that is because the film, especially the second half, was not particularly enjoyable. However, this is a Hitchcock so there are of course redeeming features. Vertigo is reasonably intelligent with its idea of identity. Madeleine is obsessed with Carlotta showing her desire to be someone else and for those who have watched the film or read the last paragraph the pretense is also obviously referring to the theme of identity. It is also, as I have previously stated, beautifully shot and the first half of the film is intriguing and tense in areas. I was also pleased that, however contrived the resolution was, that it was not supernatural, although it being a Hitchcock film maybe it was naive of me to think it would be. The acting was also good although perhaps slightly wooden in places. However that is most likely to do with the lines rather than bad acting.

I am of course aware that perhaps my negative review of this film stems from my expectations that this film would be a masterpiece. In light of this I will watch the film again and update my review accordingly. My first impressions, however, are that this film is overrated.

So in conclusion, Vertigo is a very visually good film, with tense areas and some good characters and performances, but plot contrivances and the melodrama surrounding the love story mean this film does not live up to its lofty praise.

Ratings: Entertainment: 6 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 13/20 ***







http://jonbateswrites.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/vertigo-poster.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Hitchcock,_Alfred_02.jpg
http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/WanadooFilms/Thriller/VertigoBos.jpg

Slumdog Millionaire- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Slumdog Millionaire is a rare film in the fact that it is very feel good and moving but at the same time extremely tense and paints a very good picture of extreme poverty in India. Comparisons with Danny Boyle's  previous film trainspotting are inevitable in its simultaneously bleak but optimistic picture of poverty.

The films protagonist is Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) who competes on the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Due to his background as a street urchin or slum-dog he is arrested on suspicion of cheating. In order to clear his name much of the film is told in flashbacks as Jamal tells the police how he came to know the answers.

Dev Patel as Jamal

So let me start by saying that this film was a lot better than I was expecting. I thought it would be a rather naive rag to riches tale but in fact it showed the poverty in India very well but at the same time was uplifting. However, it does have some flaws. So firstly there is some questionably dialogue in place such as 'We are destined to be together' which made me cringe no end. Some of the characterisation was also pretty basic, with there being several just straight bad guys. Now obviously that is necessary for the plot and isn't too major an issue but still, human beings are never all bad so I would've liked to see some more complex characters. Another flaw is the quite heavy handed theme of destiny with the beginning shots asking why Jamal won in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire style with 4 answers with letter D being 'Destiny'. This whole idea of destiny was made insultingly obvious and just felt cringe inducing and out of place in this otherwise very good film.

Danny Boyle, the director of Slumdog Millionaire

Now onto the good things. Well all the performances are good, with special praise going to the very solid child actors. The presentation of poverty is also well done. Striking enough to make the average well off western viewer feel uncomfortable and to show the class divide inherent in India but also not so depressing that the film is prevented from being uplifting which leads me onto my next point. Through the use of well developed character arcs, a well thought out, moving and fairly realistic love story and a tense climax followed by a well done resolution the film manages to be engrossing and uplifting. The relationship between the 3 main characters of Jamal, Latika (Freida Pinto) and Salim (Madhur Mittal) feel realistic, are well developed and are moving. The love story, although slightly ridiculous at times and predictable at others is well done and such is the attachment to the characters that it makes even a stony hearted guy like me feel warm inside. Technical wise it is fine -there are some nice shots although during the opening stage there was a bit of an overuse of side shots. But this is a Danny Boyle film, it is of course fine technically.

In terms of a comparison with Trainspotting both films depict extreme poverty and an individuals struggle to get out of it after falling into ill habits- in Slumdog Millionaire Jamal's struggle to get out of the slums after his involvement in crime and his friend Salim's gang experience, and in trainspotting Mark Renton trying to leave his drug addled life behind him.

So in conclusion this film serves as both an uplifting, moving and tense drama as well as offering a striking presentation of poverty in India.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 16/20 ****





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Slumdog_millionaire_ver2.jpg
http://andrewsteele.co.uk/reviews/slumdogmillionaire/jamal.jpg
http://thefilmstage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/slumdog.jpg
http://topnews.in/light/files/Danny-Boyle01_0.jpg

Apocalypse Now- 5 Stars

Apocalypse Now is the best film I have ever seen. It is probably as flawless as you can get with a film. It is brilliantly entertaining, intelligent and gripping. Just fantastic in every way. So this review is going to be a little different from my last ones because it is basically going to consist of me running my mouth about how good Apocalypse Now is.

Theatrical Poster

Okay, so for those of you who are completely uncultured Apocalypse Now is a 1979 Vietnam war film from director Francis Ford Coppola (the director of The Godfather) loosely based on Joesph Conrad's book 'Heart of Darkness'. The basic plot outline is that Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) is sent on a mission down the river Nung to kill the American rogue Colonel Kurtz (an excellent Marlon Brando) who has allegedly gone insane.

Well what to talk about first. Let's start with the characters. The protagonist Willard is a soldier at breaking point. We first see him at his hotel room completely wasted and destroying everything. He lacks the purpose or drive that war gives. Already here we are seeing the dark allure of war. So he requests high command to give him a mission, which they readily give him- to kill Kurtz. During the film Willard is completely passive towards everything, only intervening in order to aid his mission e.g. killing an injured Vietnamese woman so that the crew won't waste time helping her and will instead press on with the mission. However, during the course of the film we see Willard begin to develop a fascination for Kurtz. It becomes more and more ambiguous as to whether he will kill Kurtz or join him. Willard's obsession with Kurtz displays one of the films major themes- an idea of not lying about the brutality of war, or at very least recognising the arbitrary laws of being able to kill a man one way but not another. Willard is so obsessed with Kurtz because it seems to him that Kurtz is just like every other man in the war- killing violently with obscene acts of brutality. The difference is however, that Kurtz is honest about it and does not operate within the superficial bounds set by the military.

Martin Sheen as Willard

The character of Kurtz also shows this idea of truth and lies. Coppola said about the film 'It is not so much an anti-war film than anti-lie...' What Kurtz represents is the man who has a moral compass and realises how  destructive the war is. But what he also ultimately accepts is that war is no place for morals. That the ultimate soldier must be moral but must also simultaneously be a man who is prepared to do anything. Kurtz has become such a man and the question by the end of the film is will Willard become that man too? Of course Kurtz's madness has been caused by his indulgence of this destructive instinct. His final words in the film 'The horror. The horror.' create an ambiguous idea of whether he regrets the fact that he has been consumed by the depravities of war or whether he is still enchanted by their powers and dangers.

Marlon Brando as Kurtz

A recurring motif throughout the film is the question of the god vs the animal. Kurtz has become to his native people like a God, living in a pyramid and having them worship him. But his brutality is of such a nature that the audience is left questioning is he really any more than an animal? Okay now for this next point there is a spoiler and it will continue to the end of the paragraph so SPOILER ALERT. Right so this idea of Kurtz as both the animal and the God is backed up during his death for when Willard hacks Kurtz to pieces in the temple, outside Kurtz's worshipers are sacrificing a cow. This obviously links Kurtz to the cow. Perhaps Coppola is trying to say that in the end we are all animals and we will all die like animals? However, there is always this Godlike image in the background. For instance at the end of the film, after Willard has killed Kurtz, the natives lay down their weapons and bow to him as if he, Willard, is now a god too. This idea of white supremacy is obviously a stab at American interventionism thinking that they are gods doing as they please. However, it also shows something about mens passions during war. The weak want to be led by the strong. Kurtz was consumed by this own power because it put no restraints on him allowing him to kill at will. The ideas in Apocalypse Now are very unholy as they place no hope in punishment after death or at least show people are not constrained by their fear of God's retribution.

'I love the smell of Napalm in the morning' Robert Duvall as Kilgore

The film has a blatant anti-war message which is why I am so surprised that some critics thought that the film was pro war. The best example is when Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall) orders a search and destroy mission on a village, killing lots of women and children, purely so he can see a famous surfer at work on the better waves in that area. During the previous scene there are blatant anti war images as well such as a Vietnamese soldier lying on the floor holding his guts in when Kilgore comes across him, offers him water and then is immediately distracted by the news that a famous surfer is in the company. The fact that death has become so much the norm that you could leave a dying man just to see a sports star just shows the baseness and depravity of war. Another example is when two American soldiers are standing in the village centre telling the villagers 'we're here to help you' as the rest of the US forces destroy these peoples homes.

One of the main themes in Apocalypse Now is that why is the destruction of entire villages with Napalm less mad than Kurtz's own brutal methods? Again the only difference is that Kilgore remains in the arbitrary laws set down by the US military whereas Kurtz doesn't. This theme of the lies of war are again shown here. This is why Willard is so drawn to Kurtz- because at least Kurtz is open about his methods, he does not seem false.

Basically I could rattle on for days about Apocalypse Now without even touching the surface of all there is to say about this truly amazing film. But for those of you who are perhaps less intellectually minded Apocalypse Now is also a brilliant film in 'regular' film terms. Production wise it is epic- everything looks completely real. It has a compelling plot and it is shot with beauty which is ironic concerning the brutal content of the film (that's another point- during the famous search and destroy scene Kilgore plays Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. The juxtaposition of this highly artful and skilled piece of music with the complete and brutal destruction of a village again shows the films anti war leanings).

So in conclusion, this film is utterly compelling, tense, intelligent and on rare occasion moving. After watching Apocalypse Now you will never think the same way again.

Ratings: Entertainment: 10 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 20/20 *****






http://3.bp.blogspot.com/M06z3N8QXzk/TXVAwAQro_I/AAAAAAAAADg/czvWr3RJCcA/s1600/Apocalypse%2BNow%2BPoster.jpg
http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Martin-Sheen-in-Apocalypse-Now-sheenism-religion-for-sheen-addicts-31901524-1222-617.png
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Brando,%20Marlon/Annex/Annex%20-%20Brando,%20Marlon%20(Apocalypse%20Now)_15.jpg
 https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwQGEMa5DbuVKPdaMnxuecTe6DRs2TnkMimq0A0puAmSYXS-0vAlarwy_XthGfweLKQ6FHEkIvZGdt6ww6qzXkp-GDS_aTVrTlTFpayoei-rROZzSkPZaTxRYImKCCyi2NdfC8ewsQgKRu/s800/ApocalypseLanceKilgore.jpg

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind- 4 Stars

The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a beautiful sci-fi romance from brilliant screenwriter Charlie Kaufman. It stars Kate Winslet and Jim Carey as a couple in an alternate universe where it is possible to remove someone from your memory.

Theatrical Release Poster

The film is all that you would expect from a Kaufman film- it's funny, moving, thoughtful and even romantic at times. The cast are of course brilliant as you would expect from Winslet and Carey, and with a supporting cast that includes Elijah Wood, Mark Ruffalo, Kirsten Dunst and Tom Wilkinson the acting is very strong. You should be warned, however, that although the film stars Jim Carey, his ability to pull silly faces is kept to a minimum.The film is, like all of Kaufman's films, rather surreal and non linear with most of the plot actually taking place in Joel's mind as he tries to stop his memories of Clementine (Kate Winslet) from being erased from his memory.

OK so is there anything bad about the film? Well Joel is a little hard to identify with, especially at first. He's quiet and rather uninteresting. But of course, as time goes by the character grows on you as you get to know him. Now perhaps the impatient viewer might find this annoying but actually it is a brilliant idea from Kaufman. Just as Clementine gets to know Joel over time so do we the audience. We see him grow and become more out going as a character. Kaufman is of course, very subtle in his character development. There is no cliched hero arc for Joel- his character does not completely change from a shy, generally nice guy to a gutsy action star. No his character rather changes in a more discreet way. Instead of being overly shy he becomes slightly more confident. By the end of the film he is no longer content to watch things pass him by and instead is willing to actually try and help himself out. Not a huge change, but a more realistic and touching one instead.

Are there actually any proper criticisms of the film? Hmm, well the supporting cast, although essential to the films plot do feel a little underdeveloped and certainly the least interesting scenes in are the ones away from Carey and Winslet. The relationship between Mary (Kirsten Dunst) and her boss Howard (Tom Wilkinson) feels a little contrived. The film perhaps slows in some areas, again scenes without Carey or Winslet. However, all in all, the film is very solid and has few flaws.

Eternal Sunshine is full of Kaufman wackiness

So what are the good points about the film? Well the most important point is that the relationship conceived between Joel and Clementine is not only utterly believable but very touching as well. The complete contrast in their personalities (Clementine being very outgoing and forthcoming about her problems whilst Joel is shy and quiet) creates both awkward humour and a realisation that perhaps love isn't about finding someone just like you but in fact someone who fits with you well. The 'you complete me' cliche springs to mind. However, this is a Charlie Kaufman film so cliches are strictly prohibited or if found are done in such a way that you a) don't recognise them or b) they are in the middle of so much wacky stuff that they feel comforting rather than laughable.

Who knew you could do so much with hair?

Kate Winslet's hair is another brilliant touch to this film ( I kid you not). Clementine's hair changes with her mood e.g. red when she's angry. This again fits with her character of expressing herself in contrast to Joel's closed personality which is shown by having his hair over his eyes, trying to bar him from the world.

So before I end this review I do have to talk about the themes of the film. Right, so the main theme of the film is obviously memory. Joel tries to have his erased but then regrets it as does just about every single other character in the film. Therefore, what I think Kaufman is saying is that we shouldn't try ignore or blank out horrible sections of our lives. Instead we should learn from them and move on. Improve ourselves as human beings. This is particularly apparent through the character of Joel. We see how he is before his relationship with Clementine- awkward, shy and slightly creepy. Then his experience of a relationship makes him grow more confident and expressive. Part of the tension in the film is created through the worry that if his memories of Clementine get erased then Joel will go back to being the boring, unexciting guy from the beginning.

Related to memory is the theme of identity. Patrick (Elijah Wood) steals notes from Joel's relationship with Clementine in order to woo her himself. In a way Patrick has assumed Joel's identity. What Kaufman is trying to say is that if we have parts of our memories erased are we still the same person? If our experiences make us what we are surely when we have them erased we lose part of our identity?

In conclusion, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is moving, intelligent and occasionally funny film with brilliant acting and direction, thoughtful themes, sharp dialogue and a genuinely beautiful and realistic romance.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Intelligence: 4 Technical: 4= 17/20 ****





http://derekwinnert.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/355.jpg
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338013/
http://twi-ny.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/eternal-sunshine.jpg