Horrible Bosses
It’s official. Gross humour is in fashion. While The Hangover 1 put a toe in the water, Hangover 2 simply jumped right on in while in Bridesmaids, the girls threw off their costumes. Now we have Horrible Bosses, a modern day farce from Director Seth Gordon, jam-packed with bad taste. Horrible Bosses, is appalling; it is coarse, it is vulgar, it has Jennifer Anniston as a foul mouthed nymphomaniac; it is also very funny.
The concept is simple; we are required to sympathise with the plights of three friends, Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeiki and Charlie Day, whose respective bosses, Kevin Spacey (bully), Colin Farrell (greedy) and Jennifer Anniston (nympho) are making their lives hell although the latter idea is somewhat difficult to grasp. Pushed to their breaking points, they hatch a cunning plan with the help of a “murder consultant” (Jaime Foxx) who goes by the pseudonym of MotherF***** Jones, preferable, in his line of business, to his real name of Dean Jones, the hero of Love Bug. The essence of this master plan is that each will murder the other friend’s boss in order to lay a false trail. Needless to say, the plan goes awry with the friends lurching from one crisis to the next.
Something clearly worked given that the movie recovered the majority of its costs ($35m) in its opening weekend ($28m). A heavy-hitting cast is part of the answer; Spacey convincingly psychopathic – “I own you… you’re my bitch” he viciously taunts Bateman denying his promotion – Anniston, persuasively slutty (but will she ever find a role that truly showcases her talent) and Farrell, replete with wig, surprisingly funny. “We need to cut some fat”, he demands of his company in between bouts of coke-sniffing and womanising, “let’s start with large Marge”.
While the humour is juvenile, it is quick, well delivered - Sudeikis’s sadistic revenge bringing a whole new dimension to DNA sampling – and politically incorrect from over frequent references to Day’s presence on the sex offenders list (for peeing in a schoolyard) to Farrell’s wish to fire his wheelchair-bound employee because he makes him feel “creepy”. Gordon manages this dilemma tongue firmly in cheek bringing order from chaos and yet encouraging the gags.
A new line in the sand has been drawn and for now, it’s far enough. Let us hope it stays where it is for just a little bit longer. Entertaining and amusing if unmemorable. 6/10
DM
August 2011
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Monday, 25 July 2011
Treacle Junior
Treacle Junior 15 – 2011 (82 minutes)
Stuck in a sticky rut
“Most men lead quiet lives of desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them”. The American philosopher, Henry James Thoreau could easily have been talking about the three protagonists of Treacle Junior, the latest offering from British, writer-director, Jamie Thraves.
Nominally, it tells the story of Tom (Tom Fisher) who inexplicably and recklessly abandons his comfortable, middle class existence for a homeless life on the streets of South East London.
Tom stumbles upon Aidan, (Aidan Gillen) a kind-hearted but over-exuberant misfit, whose outlook on life is as impossibly hopeful as Tom’s is dark. The uneasy alliance between two fundamentally incompatible souls is explored with both humour and sensitivity, their relationship made more complex by the introduction of Aidan's promiscuous and violent girlfriend, Linda (Riann Steele). The three cautiously rub along while running parallel lives; she turning tricks, Aidan with small odd-jobs and Tom a spectator looking on, too self-absorbed to help.
On a more subliminal level however, Treacle is an amusing but moving commentary on aspiration, our protagonists each on different points of the spectrum. Tom is at one end - a Doctor, married with a child, a house, a home, and yet dissatisfied with his lot – while Linda is at the other, hopeless and alone, aimlessly drifting from her violent boyfriend to Aidan whom she despises, her moment of self-loathing following her meaningless sexual encounter with Tom, particularly poignant. Aidan sits in the middle, aspiring to something more, something better although economically shackled, a set of drums, which he will never afford, the symbol of his hope. But at least Tom is free to choose, the discovery of a credit card his passport to freedom.
With its touching script, sharp dialogue and outstanding acting, Thraves was convinced of the movie’s success even re-mortgaging his home to raise the finance. Gillen, while unsympathetic, is outstanding, from his curious mannerisms to his spittle-covered beard, his energy almost physically tiring to behold. Fisher, while less loquacious, also convinces, distraught, upset and lost within himself and Steele's interplay with both shows great promise for the future. If Treacle has its limitations – it fails to explore the feelings of Tom’s wife or even the reasons for his departure - it is good to have Thraves back (after his ten year absence from the screen) ,and to hear the characters at least try to “sing their songs”.
A compelling if less-than-uplifting tale. 7/10
DM
August 2011
Stuck in a sticky rut
“Most men lead quiet lives of desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them”. The American philosopher, Henry James Thoreau could easily have been talking about the three protagonists of Treacle Junior, the latest offering from British, writer-director, Jamie Thraves.
Nominally, it tells the story of Tom (Tom Fisher) who inexplicably and recklessly abandons his comfortable, middle class existence for a homeless life on the streets of South East London.
Tom stumbles upon Aidan, (Aidan Gillen) a kind-hearted but over-exuberant misfit, whose outlook on life is as impossibly hopeful as Tom’s is dark. The uneasy alliance between two fundamentally incompatible souls is explored with both humour and sensitivity, their relationship made more complex by the introduction of Aidan's promiscuous and violent girlfriend, Linda (Riann Steele). The three cautiously rub along while running parallel lives; she turning tricks, Aidan with small odd-jobs and Tom a spectator looking on, too self-absorbed to help.
On a more subliminal level however, Treacle is an amusing but moving commentary on aspiration, our protagonists each on different points of the spectrum. Tom is at one end - a Doctor, married with a child, a house, a home, and yet dissatisfied with his lot – while Linda is at the other, hopeless and alone, aimlessly drifting from her violent boyfriend to Aidan whom she despises, her moment of self-loathing following her meaningless sexual encounter with Tom, particularly poignant. Aidan sits in the middle, aspiring to something more, something better although economically shackled, a set of drums, which he will never afford, the symbol of his hope. But at least Tom is free to choose, the discovery of a credit card his passport to freedom.
With its touching script, sharp dialogue and outstanding acting, Thraves was convinced of the movie’s success even re-mortgaging his home to raise the finance. Gillen, while unsympathetic, is outstanding, from his curious mannerisms to his spittle-covered beard, his energy almost physically tiring to behold. Fisher, while less loquacious, also convinces, distraught, upset and lost within himself and Steele's interplay with both shows great promise for the future. If Treacle has its limitations – it fails to explore the feelings of Tom’s wife or even the reasons for his departure - it is good to have Thraves back (after his ten year absence from the screen) ,and to hear the characters at least try to “sing their songs”.
A compelling if less-than-uplifting tale. 7/10
DM
August 2011
Monday, 18 July 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 12A – 2011 (130 minutes)
Thanks for the ride…
The journey is over. After 7 books, 1.2 million words and this, the last of 8 films, it is time to say goodbye, time for our trio to take a rest and time for us to reflect. What a journey it has been. Generations of children have grown up with the actors. Generations of adults have become life-long fans and generations of the future are in for such a treat.
But before we can rest, there is one final battle. Hogwarts is under siege and the outcome is far from clear. In a tone more sinister than anything hitherto, Harry must discover and destroy the keys to you-know-who’s soul. Director David Yates puts the relative disappointment of Part 1 firmly behind him in a breath-taking production of Part 2, the special effects of which are quite stunning. We plunge the depths on impossible rollercoasters only to soar to the heights on the wings of a dragon. We marvel at the treasures in the vaults of Gringott’s bank, we wonder at stone armies brought to life with one new spell.
We wonder too at the sheer strength of the cast. While our trio have been strong, Radcliffe particularly touching if unheroic, Watson increasingly persuasive and Grint, naturally funny – the support cast has been dazzling, Bonham Carter (Bellatrix) hysterically evil, Michael Gambon (Dumbledore) the personification of patience and Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall) endlessly reassuring. But above them all stands Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), his clipped tones so threatening, his penetrating eyes staring deep into the soul. His final scenes with Dumbledore are one of the highlights not just this movie but of the entire series.
As the battle nears its end and Harry wanders through the ruins that were his school, he is appalled. “I never meant for people to die” – he laments to his dead parents before seeking out his nemesis for the final confrontation. “The boy who lived has come to die”, Voldemort jeers mockingly, reckoning without, well, that would be telling.
But with closure there is sadness; never again will we queue up at midnight to purchase the new book; never again will we phone up for hours to ensure tickets for first night; never again will we buy the latest DVD. The brand will live on - the new theme park in Orlando is a roaring success - but the stories are over and it is time to move on.
Goodbye Harry Potter and thank you for the ride. 9/10 DM
July 2011
Thanks for the ride…
The journey is over. After 7 books, 1.2 million words and this, the last of 8 films, it is time to say goodbye, time for our trio to take a rest and time for us to reflect. What a journey it has been. Generations of children have grown up with the actors. Generations of adults have become life-long fans and generations of the future are in for such a treat.
But before we can rest, there is one final battle. Hogwarts is under siege and the outcome is far from clear. In a tone more sinister than anything hitherto, Harry must discover and destroy the keys to you-know-who’s soul. Director David Yates puts the relative disappointment of Part 1 firmly behind him in a breath-taking production of Part 2, the special effects of which are quite stunning. We plunge the depths on impossible rollercoasters only to soar to the heights on the wings of a dragon. We marvel at the treasures in the vaults of Gringott’s bank, we wonder at stone armies brought to life with one new spell.
We wonder too at the sheer strength of the cast. While our trio have been strong, Radcliffe particularly touching if unheroic, Watson increasingly persuasive and Grint, naturally funny – the support cast has been dazzling, Bonham Carter (Bellatrix) hysterically evil, Michael Gambon (Dumbledore) the personification of patience and Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall) endlessly reassuring. But above them all stands Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), his clipped tones so threatening, his penetrating eyes staring deep into the soul. His final scenes with Dumbledore are one of the highlights not just this movie but of the entire series.
As the battle nears its end and Harry wanders through the ruins that were his school, he is appalled. “I never meant for people to die” – he laments to his dead parents before seeking out his nemesis for the final confrontation. “The boy who lived has come to die”, Voldemort jeers mockingly, reckoning without, well, that would be telling.
But with closure there is sadness; never again will we queue up at midnight to purchase the new book; never again will we phone up for hours to ensure tickets for first night; never again will we buy the latest DVD. The brand will live on - the new theme park in Orlando is a roaring success - but the stories are over and it is time to move on.
Goodbye Harry Potter and thank you for the ride. 9/10 DM
July 2011
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
The Tree of Life 12 A 2011
"If God had not existed, man would have had to invent him". Thus spoke Voltaire in an effort to explain mankind’s eternal desire to make sense of the world and to justify what appears to be random, inexplicable and unfair. Is a world without reason truly possible to bear? Nothing is more unreasonable than the death of a child and this is the driving force behind Terrence Malik's latest movie and the catalyst for a two and a half hour reflection on life, love and creation.
Sean Penn plays Jack, a successful but disenchanted corporate executive who looks back on the his life to find some sort of meaning; his fear of his father, a demanding and disciplinarian bully (Brad Pitt) constantly angry with his boys; his contempt but love for his mother, a beautiful, ethereal but weak-minded angel (Jessica Chastain) devoted to her church and to her God; and his relationship with his soon-to-die brother, never easy, never normal and ultimately full of regret.
Suddenly, without notice, the film descends into a lengthy and over-indulgent-camera-fest on the origins of life, losing both its direction and its audience. We are swept from volcanic eruptions to the implosion of stars, from the dawn of the earth the birth of new life including a carnivorous dinosaur that inexplicably releases its prey. While the camerawork is spectacular (Emmanuel Lubezki) and the music (Mahler, Berlioz and Holst) suitably compelling, Malik's philosophical meanderings utterly fail to convince. While the questions are valid – the meaning of life, our place in the world, the existence of God - the responses are weak none more so than Jack’s mother who abandons her child - "take my son", she blasphemes, in a clear parallel to Jesus Christ and his Father.
The characters do their best with Malik's sparse, repetitive and poorly drafted script, despite continual interruptions from inappropriate voiceovers. Pitt is very strong, his aggression believable and his regret sincere. Chastain glides serenely through her part, although her levitation is frankly bizarre. But Hunter McCracken (the young Jack) is the star, tormented and tormenting, and desperate for the approbation and love of his father. While the scale of Malik’s ambition is to be commended – presumably the reason for winning the 2011 Palme D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival - his execution disappoints and the movie ends up falling between stools; lightweight documentary or unfinished drama.
To be avoided at all costs. Spurious and poorly thought through. 5/10. DM
Sean Penn plays Jack, a successful but disenchanted corporate executive who looks back on the his life to find some sort of meaning; his fear of his father, a demanding and disciplinarian bully (Brad Pitt) constantly angry with his boys; his contempt but love for his mother, a beautiful, ethereal but weak-minded angel (Jessica Chastain) devoted to her church and to her God; and his relationship with his soon-to-die brother, never easy, never normal and ultimately full of regret.
Suddenly, without notice, the film descends into a lengthy and over-indulgent-camera-fest on the origins of life, losing both its direction and its audience. We are swept from volcanic eruptions to the implosion of stars, from the dawn of the earth the birth of new life including a carnivorous dinosaur that inexplicably releases its prey. While the camerawork is spectacular (Emmanuel Lubezki) and the music (Mahler, Berlioz and Holst) suitably compelling, Malik's philosophical meanderings utterly fail to convince. While the questions are valid – the meaning of life, our place in the world, the existence of God - the responses are weak none more so than Jack’s mother who abandons her child - "take my son", she blasphemes, in a clear parallel to Jesus Christ and his Father.
The characters do their best with Malik's sparse, repetitive and poorly drafted script, despite continual interruptions from inappropriate voiceovers. Pitt is very strong, his aggression believable and his regret sincere. Chastain glides serenely through her part, although her levitation is frankly bizarre. But Hunter McCracken (the young Jack) is the star, tormented and tormenting, and desperate for the approbation and love of his father. While the scale of Malik’s ambition is to be commended – presumably the reason for winning the 2011 Palme D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival - his execution disappoints and the movie ends up falling between stools; lightweight documentary or unfinished drama.
To be avoided at all costs. Spurious and poorly thought through. 5/10. DM
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Larry Crowne 12A - 98 minutes
Larry Crowne - 12 A - 98 minutes 2011
Tom Hanks didn’t go to college. He didn’t get the grades and his parents lacked the money for the Ivy League schools. Like the hero of Larry Crowne, which he co-wrote, directed and plays the title role, Hanks made it the hard way, through graft and hard work.
If anyone has “been there, seen it and bought the T-shirt, it must be Thomas Jeffrey Hanks. A double Oscar winner – Philadelphia in 1993, - a hugely courageous decision given the perception of Aids at the time - and the incomparable Forrest Gump in 1994 - he is a friend of the US President and a recent dinner guest of Queen Elizabeth II. Even his TV productions – usually in association with Steven Spielberg - were enormously successful. With over $8 billion of revenues behind him, expectations run riot when new projects are announced. Larry Crowne was surely going to founder on Hanks’ tsunami of success. And largely, it does.
Hanks however, doesn't disappoint, his goofy charm as powerful as ever, his ability to move us - whether getting fired from his job or rejected by his girlfriend – still unbelievably strong. Hanks is also, and this is often overlooked, very funny. His timing great and his delivery is perfect - the scene where he resets his girlfriend’s satnav, hilarious. In everything that he does, he has surely become the ultimate professional in Hollywood.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Hanks’s good friend and co-star, Julia Roberts. She simply fails to convince either as a teacher disillusioned with her lot or as a wife, frustrated by her husband's constant blogging and endless search for porn. Grumpy, frumpy and boozy is not what Robert is about - and her sudden transformation simply beggars belief. Jennifer Anniston sprang to mind but then perhaps Hanks doesn't know her as well.
The screenplay, it must be said, leaves considerable room for improvement for which co-author, Nia "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" Vardalos must take his share of the blame. Despite some witty repartee with Larry's neighbour, Lamar (delightfully played by Cedric The Entertainer), the story is too full of holes; Larry's invitation to join the scooter gang – the ultimate oxymoron - is as bewildering as the beautiful Talia's (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) interest in an unemployed, middle-aged bachelor.
The movie is ultimately undermined by its inability to decide what it is; old fashioned romcom or a parody thereof. But Hanks has reached a stage in his career where he can do as he chooses and if he wants to exorcise some failure-to-go-to college-demons, nobody is going to mind.
Light-hearted and mildly entertaining. 6/10 DM
July 2011
Tom Hanks didn’t go to college. He didn’t get the grades and his parents lacked the money for the Ivy League schools. Like the hero of Larry Crowne, which he co-wrote, directed and plays the title role, Hanks made it the hard way, through graft and hard work.
If anyone has “been there, seen it and bought the T-shirt, it must be Thomas Jeffrey Hanks. A double Oscar winner – Philadelphia in 1993, - a hugely courageous decision given the perception of Aids at the time - and the incomparable Forrest Gump in 1994 - he is a friend of the US President and a recent dinner guest of Queen Elizabeth II. Even his TV productions – usually in association with Steven Spielberg - were enormously successful. With over $8 billion of revenues behind him, expectations run riot when new projects are announced. Larry Crowne was surely going to founder on Hanks’ tsunami of success. And largely, it does.
Hanks however, doesn't disappoint, his goofy charm as powerful as ever, his ability to move us - whether getting fired from his job or rejected by his girlfriend – still unbelievably strong. Hanks is also, and this is often overlooked, very funny. His timing great and his delivery is perfect - the scene where he resets his girlfriend’s satnav, hilarious. In everything that he does, he has surely become the ultimate professional in Hollywood.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Hanks’s good friend and co-star, Julia Roberts. She simply fails to convince either as a teacher disillusioned with her lot or as a wife, frustrated by her husband's constant blogging and endless search for porn. Grumpy, frumpy and boozy is not what Robert is about - and her sudden transformation simply beggars belief. Jennifer Anniston sprang to mind but then perhaps Hanks doesn't know her as well.
The screenplay, it must be said, leaves considerable room for improvement for which co-author, Nia "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" Vardalos must take his share of the blame. Despite some witty repartee with Larry's neighbour, Lamar (delightfully played by Cedric The Entertainer), the story is too full of holes; Larry's invitation to join the scooter gang – the ultimate oxymoron - is as bewildering as the beautiful Talia's (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) interest in an unemployed, middle-aged bachelor.
The movie is ultimately undermined by its inability to decide what it is; old fashioned romcom or a parody thereof. But Hanks has reached a stage in his career where he can do as he chooses and if he wants to exorcise some failure-to-go-to college-demons, nobody is going to mind.
Light-hearted and mildly entertaining. 6/10 DM
July 2011
Monday, 4 July 2011
The Cherry Orchard
The Cherry Orchard
The National Theatre screened live from the Greenwich Picture house
June 2011
Few people would suggest that Chekhov’s plays are intensively dramatic and Howard Davies's new production of The Cherry Orchard - screened live from the National Theatre to cinemas around the globe - is no exception. The greatness of his writing lies in the dialogue, in the tone and particularly here, in the powerful and prescient political symbolism.
The play, first staged in 1904, both identifies and foretells the strong social undercurrents flowing through Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century. When Ranyevskaya (Zoe Wanamaker) stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the severity of her financial plight and the inevitable loss of her home and beloved cherry orchards, she surely represents the ultimate decline and fall of the Russian upper and upper-middle classes. Both the character and words of the radical but eternal student, Trofimov (Mark Bonnar) are eerily indicative of the revolution to come - the Tsar’s Guards firing on peaceful protesters in 1905 and the abdication of the Tsar himself only a dozen years later.
But Chekhov is much more than political symbolism, light comedy and farce never far from the surface. James Laurenson as Ranyevskaya's older brother is both amusing and absurd, constantly hiding from reality with irrelevant diatribes and imaginary games of billiards – “yellow into the middle pocket”. Tim McMullan turns Simyonov-Pischik, the endlessly-scrounging landowner into a bumbling fool for whom "something will eventually turn up". The main characters themselves are contradiction in terms; Ranyevskaya now stubborn, self-absorbed charismatic fool, now broken hearted mother and penniless wretch; Lopakhin (Conleth Hill), the merchant, at one moment assuaging his filial revenge the next declaring his undying love.
Wanamaker conveys her emotional dilemma with great sensitivity but it is Laurenson who catches the eye, ultimately losing himself in his own make-believe world. Claudie Blakely (Ranyevskaya’s adopted daughter) is equally strong, resolutely and with feeling awaiting a marriage proposal that she knows will never to arrive. Despite some irritatingly anachronistic dialogue -such as people "earning 25-30k a year" from Australian writer Andrew Upton and a surprising absence of cherry trees, the production is excellent, the Bunny Christie designed set, particularly impressive. Howard Davies has directed a series of successful productions at the National from Gorky’s Philistines to Bulgakov’s The White Guard, and once again he captures that distinctive Chekhovian mood.
As the estate is closed up, the old family retainer Firs (Kenneth Cranham) is inadvertently shut in, his way of life, literally in his case, consigned to the past.
A demanding but ultimately rewarding night out. 8/10
July 2011
The National Theatre screened live from the Greenwich Picture house
June 2011
Few people would suggest that Chekhov’s plays are intensively dramatic and Howard Davies's new production of The Cherry Orchard - screened live from the National Theatre to cinemas around the globe - is no exception. The greatness of his writing lies in the dialogue, in the tone and particularly here, in the powerful and prescient political symbolism.
The play, first staged in 1904, both identifies and foretells the strong social undercurrents flowing through Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century. When Ranyevskaya (Zoe Wanamaker) stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the severity of her financial plight and the inevitable loss of her home and beloved cherry orchards, she surely represents the ultimate decline and fall of the Russian upper and upper-middle classes. Both the character and words of the radical but eternal student, Trofimov (Mark Bonnar) are eerily indicative of the revolution to come - the Tsar’s Guards firing on peaceful protesters in 1905 and the abdication of the Tsar himself only a dozen years later.
But Chekhov is much more than political symbolism, light comedy and farce never far from the surface. James Laurenson as Ranyevskaya's older brother is both amusing and absurd, constantly hiding from reality with irrelevant diatribes and imaginary games of billiards – “yellow into the middle pocket”. Tim McMullan turns Simyonov-Pischik, the endlessly-scrounging landowner into a bumbling fool for whom "something will eventually turn up". The main characters themselves are contradiction in terms; Ranyevskaya now stubborn, self-absorbed charismatic fool, now broken hearted mother and penniless wretch; Lopakhin (Conleth Hill), the merchant, at one moment assuaging his filial revenge the next declaring his undying love.
Wanamaker conveys her emotional dilemma with great sensitivity but it is Laurenson who catches the eye, ultimately losing himself in his own make-believe world. Claudie Blakely (Ranyevskaya’s adopted daughter) is equally strong, resolutely and with feeling awaiting a marriage proposal that she knows will never to arrive. Despite some irritatingly anachronistic dialogue -such as people "earning 25-30k a year" from Australian writer Andrew Upton and a surprising absence of cherry trees, the production is excellent, the Bunny Christie designed set, particularly impressive. Howard Davies has directed a series of successful productions at the National from Gorky’s Philistines to Bulgakov’s The White Guard, and once again he captures that distinctive Chekhovian mood.
As the estate is closed up, the old family retainer Firs (Kenneth Cranham) is inadvertently shut in, his way of life, literally in his case, consigned to the past.
A demanding but ultimately rewarding night out. 8/10
July 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
