Miscellaneous film reviews by horizonblind

[horizonblind]

Funny people
Funny people is quite a misleading title for Judd Apatow’s latest offering, as this time round Apatow embarks on new emotional depths that his previous comedic ensembles did not fully investigate. This film brings a new meaning to the term ‘dramedy’ as it’s a look at the sensibilities and normality of the people in which society or the entertainment industry feasts upon. The film is aptly named as it shows that in the lime light these ‘funny’ people also have tragedies, depression and real-life problems just as much as any other person. This is Apatow’s out of the box look at his own profession and experiences, a satire on the fragility and superficiality of show business and at the same time proves to be an equally hilarious offering as such previous comedic heavyweights as ‘40 Year Old Virgin’ and ‘Knocked Up’, but also adapting the emotional anecdotes that were touched upon previously and exploring them with further depth resulting in the humour being that much more resonant or relevant.
Seth Rogen still plays your average stoner chuck down to a tea towel who through his determination to be noticed in stand up stumbles across the cancer-diagnosed depressed ‘fictional’ film star George Simmons played by house hold favourite Adam Sandler who out of some misguided sense of redemption takes Rogen’s character ‘Ira Schmira’ under his comedic wing to help make sense of his fate or lonely isolation. The notion of a ‘mentor’ becomes a clear motivation to his circumstances as the relationship between Ira and George takes its twists and turns and allows Apatow a suitable platform for comedic flurries while offering the audience an insight and critique of the business in question. Rogen adds a new found sense of compassion and consciousness to his character which proves that much more convincing and compelling to engage with. Now with Rogen’s impressive back catalogue (reading as a list of the best comedy films of the past four years), he is rapidly becoming simultaneously the most mature and most juvenile comedic actor in contemporary American comedy. Adam Sandler breaks further away from his type cast role of Happy Gilmore and Water boy to show us that he is now a veteran comedic method actor, which we first saw with Punch Drunk Love and Reign Over Me. ‘Funny People’ almost feels like a Sandler biopic, except from the whole cancer ‘thang’. But the film never really allows itself to get too serious, it manages to turn it around and be able to laugh at itself, which is in essence the message of the film if there is one.
There is an especially funny scene when Eminem insults ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’s’, Ray Romano, and when Sandler’s love interest convincingly played by Leslie Mann mocks her Auzzie hubby Eric Bana in an especially ad-lipped scene of hilarity. As the film is littered with comedic gems eager to contribute to the Apatow saga that is dominating Hollywood right now, and appropriately ‘Superbads’ Jonah Hill and ‘I Heart Huckabees’ Jason Schwartzman serve up two well placed co-lead parts as Rogen’s adolescently competitive roommates. The film loses its fluency a tad towards the end when the final ‘moral’ chapter that takes place at ‘Laura’s adulterous family residence’, prolongs and adds a notion of uneasiness to the script, but we are ultimately rewarded with a quirky fight between Bana, Sandler and Rogen. The soundtrack perfectly caters for each divergent chapter which is only strengthened by an entourage of strong comedic performances from unknowns such as Aubrey Plaza and ‘Observe and Reports’ idiosyncratic Aziz Ansari, proving how Apatow is now the Spielberg of Comedy, choosing to work with and cast who as he pleases and advocating and subsequently propelling any project that takes his fancy.
Nutshell:
Judd Apatow has now solidified himself as the comedic king of Hollywood; each new feature offers a fresh sense of comedic banter and satirical meandering while instilling an ability to create the right ingredients that makes his films funny, from the events and people that command the story to be compelling. Seth Rogen and his co stars once again provide a humility balanced with an adolescent charm that results in a supremely mature but yet infantile slice of dramedy.

Review by Stephen Mead
stephen_mead70@hotmail.com

[Grinch11]

Arrogantly promoted, Tarantino style, as “The third film from Judd Apatow”, he of the overrated and overlong Knocked Up and the rather sweet, but still lengthy The 40-Year Old Virgin. Funny People is not what you’d expect from the godfather of the “nerd herd”, which is perhaps why it has failed to perform at the US Box Office. It seems that punters seeking a dose of immature, frat boy shenanigans led by the genres poster boy, Adam Sandler, are disgruntled to discover a long (shock!), but often excellent character driven drama instead.

Stand up comedian George Simmons (Sandler) has just been told he has a life threatening blood disorder, so with only a ten percent chance of survival he decides that its time to put his life in perspective, accept he’s lonely, and attempt to form a genuine friendship with up-and-coming comic, Ira (a newly svelte Seth Rogan). Facing up to his own mortality, a dubious legacy (he is the star of a kid’s film called Merman), and a married old flame, George must re-evaluate what defines his life. Doesn’t exactly sound like a barrel of laughs does it?

Unquestionably an attempted ensemble piece, the cast barely fit on the poster, and at a hefty 146 minutes everyone gets their shot at being a “Funny Person”, but it’s Sandler as the headline act that requires the most scrutiny.

Not even a marmite performer these days, apart from his wonderfully understated turn in P.T. Anderson’s Punch Drunk Love, he has the consistent knack of being wholly unlikeable, whether he’s whining his way through The Waterboy or using that same nauseating voice in Little Nicky. Here he is terrific, the obvious self deprecation of lampooning the very same movies that have made him millions, alongside a sometimes nuanced performance when required to err on the side of melancholy.

More importantly the movie never asks you to like George, he is what he is; accept him for all his faults. It’s these aspects of “reality” that permeate Apatow’s directorial efforts and separate them from the heightened silliness of the Superbad’s and Sarah Marshall’s that are also attached to his name.

It’s worth mentioning the performances of some of the warm up acts; Bana relishes in the chance to play it light again after all the brow furrowing of Star Trek, originally a stand up in his native Australia, and darkly hilarious in Chopper, he shines in this limited role. Rogen keeps his “guffaws” to a minimum, Mann is cute, Schwatzman just plain weird, and Jonah Hill is, well, Jonah Hill.

The stand-up sequences are all particularly funny and will make for some wonderful DVD extras, and those that have seen the awfully spoilerific trailer will have already seen the hilarious “Die Hard” doctor sequence.

Something of an Almost Famous for stand up comedians is an indicator of tone, and the film does lose its momentum at the half way point suggesting Apatow could probably do with a class in editing. The title may be misleading, in the fact that it’s not actually all that funny, but there’s no denying it’s surprisingly good.

[horizonblind]

A Serious Man


A Serious Man is the first outing for the Coen brothers since mastering both the thriller and the comedy (thriller) in 2007 and 2008 respectively, with the epic award-winning No Country for Old Men & the hilariously all-star fast paced Burn after Reading. The Coens’ have proved themselves to almost be the ******* twin children of Stanley Kubrick, if it were, in systematically mastering any genre they please. From the inception of Blood Simple in 1984 to 2001’s The Man Who Wasn’t There they were as Joel directing and Ethan producing unstoppable as a formidable cinematic force.


From the chilling Fargo and the cult genius of The Big Lebowski the Coen brothers have always had something inspiring to offer, despite a directorial drought between 2001 and 2007, they have made one of the most successful comebacks in Hollywood with their adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s brutal novel No Country for Old Men. Such success has now allowed Joel and Ethan to explore more personal roots with A Serious Man, which takes a semi-biographical role upon a fresh faced Larry Gopnik (played by newcomer Michael Stuhlbarg) who we learn is an unsuspecting Jewish family man and physics professor attempting to balance all the perils of his circumstances in life.


This film in particular proves to show the Coens’ at ease with themselves and their abilities, where before they worked fastidiously to achieve feats of extremes, with A Serious Man they have learnt to relax and tell a simple story that is both relevant on a personal and contemporary level. The genius of this film is its exercise in subtlety, in that it is at the film’s most uninventive or stagnant procrastinations where we find its most idiosyncratic charms and poignancy. From Richard Kind’s psychotic performance as Larry’s brother Arthur to Fred Melamed’s adulterating hippy Sy Ableman, each character brings an uncomfortable yet joyous twist of events to poor Larry Gopnik’s hapless series of disappointments he calls life.
There is an especially memorable sequence in which one of Larry’s students Clive, a young Korean man who attempts to bribe the ethical Larry into giving him an A on his coursework leads to not only Larry losing his faith in his work but perhaps his legs when Clive’s Father pays him a visit. However the films central connotations rest as a contemplation or critique of Judaism as it was in mid-60s middle America and the nature of a man’s purpose and role in the modern world, whether it be with his family, his work, his religion, his friends or his own goals.


Furthermore, A Serious Man may not offer the adrenaline of Old Men or the sharpness of Burn after Reading, but it will make you laugh-out-loud when you least expect it, teach you a thing or two about life, and charm your willing socks off with its realistic yet ultimately ridiculous expedition of one man’s normality.

[horizonblind]

Jacques Audlard's ' Un prophète' or 'A Prophet' is his first since the international stomper that was 2005's ' A Beat That Skipped My Heart'. This latest feature is also an international debut for the young Tahar Rahim who has subsequently been nominated for The Orange Rising Star Award for his performance.

Since the success of Audlard's film at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, it has gone on to exploit the Oscar fever and been hotly tipped as the big ' World Cinema' champion with this year’s academy and none more deservingly so. Audlard has entered the premier league of film-making with this installment, mirroring the recent master-class of Jean-François Richet’ ‘Mesrine’ films.

The film is about a young man ( Malik played by Rahim) who is sent to a harsh French prison for a crime we are not entirely certain of, but none the less as soon as he gets a chance to get cozy with his new surroundings his life is indefinitely and brutally threatened by a gang of Corsican thugs. The deal is simple, either Malik kills another inmate for the Corsicans or he is killed himself. This is just the beginning of what is a stomach wrenching 150 minutes of utter masterful madness.

On one hand, A Prophet can be seen as France’s answer to Tony Kaye’s 1998 ‘American History X’ in that it is a multi-faceted and uncomfortable look at the horrors of imprisonment. However, it can also be seen as a social commentary on the racial and political issues prevalent in contemporary French relations, whether that may be Sarkozy’s racial secularism or French- Corsican relations. Furthermore it can be interpreted as a metaphysical investigation into the nature of loneliness, desperation and the role of the conscience.

Where Audlard excels is in creating a film that can be enjoyed for so many reasons on so many levels, as a straight up crime caper, a socio-political thriller, a philosophical contemplation or a story of one man’s life and how he attempts to overcome the most dangerous of obstacles. Tahar Rahim is completely believable as the protagonist and conveys the character of Malik with such conviction that he earns our trust enough to believe the story and the spiral of chaos that awaits him.

This masterpiece of film-making will convert those who have not yet tasted the ever fruitful tree of world cinema as an alternative to the monopolistic tyranny of Hollywood. Whether you are yearning for another Reservoir Dogs or an intelligent and confident political thriller, then A Prophet is certainly a more than competent answer.

[horizonblind]

Michael Moore despite what people say of him is one of the most important documentary film-makers of the modern age, he is constantly inspiring, challenging, brave, controversial and ultimately intelligent in the way he conceives an argument and its subsequent investigation in film. His first international and arguably most powerful experiment was 2002’s Bowling for Columbine, which reflected on the issue of the casual arms trade within the U.S. Moore followed with 2004’s Fahrenheit 9/11 which obviously dealt with the aftermath and ramifications of such a emotional event, and more recently his 2007 Sicko had a stab at the U.S Health- care systems. None the less, whether it’s the N.R.A, Bin Laden or Cuban September 11th rescue workers, Moore has always shown his world view with a addictive sense of humour and a critical eye for filtering out the bull-****.

Moore’s latest plight is Capitalism: A Love Story, focusing on the global financial meltdown of the past two years. Moore attempts to use the film as a means of comprehension of what actually happened and what is happening, how did Western society allow the recession to manifest and how it has affected people’s lives. As per usual the film is centered on the United States, but perhaps more than just bias, Moore claims it is the country fundamentally responsible, and shouts where is our money? To anyone and everyone in positions of trust both politically and financially. Moore now a celebrity himself, struggles with his notoriety as ‘one to cause trouble’ and so many doors seem shut for answers. However, Moore is not one who easily gives up, and manages to present us with a solid dissection as to a look at a chronological lead up to the crisis, and to who is chiefly responsible.

What strikes a chord more than all of the wonderful cut and paste humour or hard cold facts is the story of how ordinary people have been affected by such events, in that Moore proves to have not just been an anchor man with an eye for a story, but a filmmaker of the people and for the people. The ultimate irony in which, is that Moore himself will profit from this film, but if we can forget this for a moment, he manages to exercise an incredible humility throughout, and tells the tale of a real human story of utter despair. This film proves as a result to be a real tear-jerker of the truest nature, in that what you are experiencing is real; Moore’s revelations and evidence will literally shock and slap you to your foundations, and in no short measure, he never takes the cheesy route or even particularly subjective eye, his film proves to be adamantly objective.

This film speaks to everyone, it couldn’t be more relevant, whether you’re Barack Obama, a banker or a dust-bin man, everyone has been and will be affected by the issues investigated in Moore’s film. The excess and mistakes of Capitalism has pushed western society to its brink, even the ‘bail-out’ is not without corruption, Moore embodies such conviction in his findings that you cannot help but be compelled and engaged with what he is saying. It is unfortunate that Moore did not have more rights to investigate, as many doors are closed to him, which does create an identity crisis for the film in parts, however there is enough meat on the bone to force you to see what people are capable of. It would be a mistake to disregard this film as depressing or sensationalist, as I do not believe it is contrived propaganda, what would be the point? There is too much humanity invested into this film for it to be irrelevant.

Capitalism: A Love Story may not change your life, but it will force to you to re-assess it, it is hilarious in parts, incredibly sad and horrible in others, but fundamentally inspiring and educational in its conviction and presentation, its bite is powerful and does leave a sour taste but the humanity and ideas of change leave hope, this should be mandatory viewing for every-one into revealing the nature of the beast and for the future of our so-called society.

[horizonblind]

The now Bafta winning and Oscar nominated independent charm that is An Education is proving to cause a international storm with critics and panels alike, however its inception breeds from unusual roots as it is directed by the virtually unknown Lone Scherfig, (a predominantly Danish filmmaker, notably involved with Red Road) an only second time written (formerly with Fever Pitch) screenplay from British treasure Nick Hornby and the first lead performance from fresh faced Carey Mulligan. Furthermore, it is adapted from an autobiographical memoir from British journalist Lynn Barber, and received only limited financial support from the likes of the U.K Film Council. However despite its hap-hazard foundations, An Education proves to be excusing the pun ‘an education’ in independent film making.

The film follows the exploits and encounters of a young British school girl named Jenny Mellor (Mulligan) as she begins that fateful transition from a young girl to a woman through the mischievous cocktail of adolescent flurries mixed with parental and deterministic rebellion. Indispensable support is provided from a broad buffet of international talent ranging from the adamant Peter Sarsgaard (previously of Jarhead, Shattered Glass and Garden State), the ever- dependable British royalty Emma Thompson, scary eyed Alfred Molina (of Spiderman 2), the beautiful Rosamund Pike (of Bond girl fame) & Olivia Williams (of The Sixth Sense) and finally staunch new-comer and one to keep an eye on Dominic Cooper (of The Escapist & The History Boys).

All together the story is compelling enough to sustain your interest and your emotional investment in the characters, particularly as a result of some uniquely brilliant acting taking full of advantage of both Hornby’s as ever witty dialogue and the vast well of pubescent & establishment talents littered throughout. The film is particularly relevant to British people at it depicts so many familiarities idiosyncratic to this little islands quirkiness and provides a social commentary that is both uplifting and revealing in its hilarious yet critical deliverance. The film is set in 1960’s Twickenham, in the quaint post-war suburban metropolis which appears to be waving the conservative flag desperate to hold on to Victorian ideals of courtship and morals. The films message is one of rejection, a rebellion to the epidemic of English reserves and backward ideals that punctuates our society or did so almost unanimously before, as Mulligan so tremendously shouts “ It’s not enough to just educate us anymore, you have to tell us why!”.

Unfortunately though despite an Education’s firm grasp of a mature Adrian Mole, once the message of what it means to be young in our society is pronounced, the film becomes quite deflated in providing an exciting narrative for the expedition of its ideologies. It appears some quite big issues are dealt with all too quickly and as result the film lacks the infrastructure that I am sure a novel could deliver. The love story between Mulligan and Sarsgaard plays well in its first chapters, but becomes quite alien towards its inevitable climax. Furthermore the audience is left with some unexplained questions and the film reaches a point of quite flaccid entanglements in a limbo between its message, its characters and its story.

However, if you are looking for a solid antidote to the usual American travesty of the Rom-com, and would like to enter a world of not so straight forward issues that young people are forced to deal with, whether it be your first love, your place in society, your future etc, then An Education delivers as a charming and sometimes uneasy observation into the intricate nature of young life.

[horizonblind]

Solomon Kane from the outset provides us with hope that perhaps this could be the unsung independent hero movie of this year, verging a fusion of what seems like a mix of V for Vendetta with Lord of the Rings, but disappointingly unlike 2009’s brutal The Watchmen (a masterful example of comic adaptation), Michael J. Bassett’s proposed epic falls quite flat on the comic store bargain bin floor. The protagonist Kane comes from Robert E. Howard’s pulp-era comics The Weird Tales which later produced the likes of the infamous Conan the Barbarian. This adaptation however is ill-fated in that obviously some terrible decisions were made and are embarrassingly evident upon the screen, especially in the climax of the film as opposed to the ever so promising and exhilarating opening.

Solomon Kane is played by the increasingly brilliant James Purefoy of HBO’s Rome fame in which he dominated both the screen and the series with his performance as Mark Antony. Kane represents Purefoy’s first leading performance post- Rome, to a role that seems it was meant to be. Despite some severe problematic filmmaking, script-writing and acting throughout, the central performance delivered from Purefoy is mesmerizing and proves to be this features one major saving grace. The story couldn’t be simpler, Kane an ex-mercenary is on the path of redemption after too much blood-shed and the devils promise to capture his soul, but due to some unforeseen events he is forced to doing what he does best- chopping people’s heads off. If this adaptation and the casting of Purefoy were given to more capable hands such as Antoine Fuqua, Ridley Scott or Zack Snyder then perhaps this would have been a true masterpiece. However, this finished product only scraps as a bearable outing for hard-core comic book fans and teenagers looking blood and guts without any psychological or allegorical infrastructures.

Michael J. Bassett had barely proven himself with 2002’s Deathwatch, and he is still to illustrate with a finished product his ability as a notable filmmaker. The real tragedy here is that there are moments of absolute genius, the opening sequence plunges the audience into a breath-taking first person view of an Elizabethan naval siege of a Spanish city. Instantly we are presented with a rich palette of savage colours reminiscent of Philip James de Loutherbourg’s Defeat of the Spanish Armada (painted in 1796), similar to the effects of The Hurt Locker we are forced into the searing heat of the conflict, and this is then fused with an audacious mix of sorcery of the Tolkien kind, which never seems cheesy or unnecessary, if anything it relights that childhood infatuation with magic and the dark forces similar to 1988’s Willow.

The plight of the tortured soul on the path to enlightenment and salvation is communicated very convincingly with Purefoy’s performance as is also the pockets of extreme medieval violence, when Purefoy becomes the Samurai of Somerset. The relationship of swordplay and sorcery are welcome in any medium, and there are some really impressive examples evident in the cinematography and production of this film. However this is dramatically over-shadowed by a terrible and predictable script, a embarrassing use of windows C.G.I and some despicable casting in The Office’s Mackenzie Crook as a deranged priest & Lock Stock’s Jason Flemyng as the evil sorcerer which is somewhat counter-balanced by some prudent casting with the ever- dependable Max Von Sydow & Pete Postlehwaite as Solomon’s Father and Friend respectively.

To summarize, Kane will feed those of you are crave visceral plague infused blood-shed (there is one scene where Kane must use an axe again and again to fully severe a man’s head) and for those of you who relish the mystical and fairytale darkness of the middle ages, but beware that although you will be entertained, you can’t help but come away feeling that you could have done a better job yourself.

[horizonblind]

Mel Gibson’s welcome return to acting has manifested in 2010’s Edge of Darkness, a film adaptation of the successful 1985 six part BBC television series of the same name. Both versions have been directed and produced by Martin Campbell & Michael Wearing respectively. Campbell especially has demonstrated a rich history in dramatic action film making with his Bond heritage (Director of Golden Eye & Casino Royale) which he utilizes to his full advantage with this fresh endeavor. The cast is meticulously chosen with Gibson taking the lead role of Thomas Craven, a Boston homicide detective who bears witness to his only daughter’s mysterious murder. Our very own Ray Winstone appears as a government operative responsible for cleaning up the mess, and last but not least the principal antagonist comes in the form of X-Men: Wolverine’s Danny Huston as the C.E.O of North Moor, a government defense contract agency which Gibson uncovers bears more than its fair share of responsibility.

The original series had the fortunate pleasure of music being provided by the genius that is Eric Clapton, and in addition played upon and drew from environmentalist James Lovelock’s ‘Gaia hypothesis’ which postulates that the Earth is a single oscillating organism. This American studio adaption has left behind such idiosyncrasies in search of political thrills and invokes copious parallels with Kevin MacDonald’s State of Play (also adapted from a previous BBC series). However, this offering does hold water in that Gibson has joined the directorial wilderness for the past eight years, proving like Clint Eastwood to be one of the most vital contemporary directors in Hollywood with the likes of the hugely controversial but integrally inspiring The Passion of the Christ & Apocalypto. But Gibson’s return comes in a tour de force stipulating connotations of his previous performances in Payback and Ransom. He has always been more than solid and innovative lead man in pretty much any film that comes his way, and as a result this story has a heart and if you climb through the layers of ‘American Bull****’ you will find an enjoyable ride worth taking.

Campbell’s direction is sharp and will keep you on the edge of your seat, especially in some scenes where he excavates that perfect equilibrium between a long meditated scene into sudden chaotic madness when you least expect it. The film also attempts to remain realistic with Gibson after having a fist fight with a potential suspect has to take a time out to get his breath back and sweat all over the gaff. The film is littered with moments like this, proving that perhaps Gibson had influence in the creative decisions, as he comes away from this as triumphant and rightly so. There are however, great problems in this fast paced and expensive way of film-making in that it’s like an excited American kid trying to tell you everything in a couple seconds without slowing down, too much information is presented to the audience for them to digest and we are then expected to know every angle of what is yet to unfold.

Furthermore, there lies a great twist towards the end, which was a special delight as sometimes you do not come to expect such a luxury in this modern market of Hollywood predictable dominance. Ray Winstone especially delivers a perfect counter balance to Gibson’s man on a rampage character, in that their encounters provide some much needed humour into the script. The political ramifications of this film appear to be a contemporary comment on the state of American domestic and international defense relations, and the usual stab at government corruption and scandals. This plays well as it offers an interesting insight into the entanglements of a proposed ‘Big Brother’ state. However, the main drive of this film is in its tag-line when Gibson’s fellow policeman says to him ‘You should keep safe, these men are armed and dangerous” in which Gibson replies “What do you think I am?”.

Edge of Darkness will more than infuse those of you out there who were waiting for another all action Gibson revenge romper stomper, but I fear it does not offer the same meditative and metaphysical complexities of its predecessor, however it is a savage political thriller which like Ronseal it does what it says on the tin, thrills are omnipresent from three minutes in as Gibson takes no hostages in his mighty return.

[horizonblind]

Juno & Thank you For Smoking extraordinaire Jason Reitman has created with his most recent offering Up in the Air, a marketable philosophical critique of modern consumerism which is both studiously funny and virtuously attentive throughout. Already in receipt of and nominated for a multitude of accolades and awards, Up in the Air has proved paradoxically and simultaneously to be both a cult and critical box office smash hit, breeding buzz and momentum from the offset, George Clooney’s predominant deliverance has once again managed to solidify his position as not just Hollywood royalty but the indie man’s champion. Over the past few years Clooney has made a conscious creative effort to stay on top of his game, even if that means rejecting big time contracts in favour of a great scripts like Good Night, and Good Luck, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Michael Clayton & Syriana, however he has successfully balanced such work with a sustained body of box office artifacts with the Oceans Trilogy and the occasional Rom-com for good measure. Furthermore, such cinematic equilibrium has constituted an event to look out for when Clooney is flying high and especially when he is allowed the creative freedoms to flourish.

In addition to George, support is offered with the dangerously sexy Vera Farmiga as Alex Goran, (Clooney’s troublesome love interest) and newcomer Anna Kendrick as Natalie Keener (Clooney’s nemesis but ultimately priceless companion). Both women offer substantial on screen presence and surpass the urge to just perpetuate the plot; they prove to be the antithesis and antidote to Clooney’s clean cut social secularism and sleek business doctrine. This is though, both Clooney’s and Reitman’s film, as the latter not only directs but produces and co-wrote as an adaptation from Walter Kim’s 2001 novel of the same name. The direction appears so effortlessly sharp in its cut and paste technique, never quite allowing you a chance to get bored, as it propels from one airport to another drama, the film is shot and edited to ensure invest-ability of both characters and ideologies. Ideology being the key word as behind the dramedy surface lays an underpinning of post-modern nihilistic existentialism (if that isn’t a mouth-full enough).

The film follows Clooney as Ryan Bingham, a ‘career-transition counselor’ essentially a down-sizer, the man who is contracted to fire you, which isn’t such a smooth calling in light of the global recession, which this film very delicately plays upon. Apparently the production was under-way and then altered for accountability of contemporary events, in that Reitman ensured to show the plight of real people and the effects of epidemic unemployment and fiscal catastrophe. This is of course a particularly sensitive subject as millions of people world-wide are losing their jobs for no other reason than there isn’t a job to do anymore. Clooney’s Bingham has perfected the art of firing in offering his victims an epitaph of textbook bull-**** with lines like “Anybody who ever built an empire or changed the world sat where you are today”. Bingham appears to have no conscience of the effects of his work as he revels in the airport lobby lucrative isolation of constant domestic travels. Unlike most people’s life goals of say marriage and kids, Bingham craves the Holy Grail that is the 10 millionth flyers- miles executive membership card. Reminiscent of Martin Amis 1986 novel Money, Reitman’s film celebrates the relics of consumerism as a substitute for emotional attachment as is so perfectly demonstrated in Bingham’s free-lance motivational speaker job where he proclaims “How much does your life weigh?”

Up in the Air is literally up in the air out there in the stratosphere of a transitional life of balancing work with play and family. Bingham is forced back to the ground with a reminder that he isn’t alone in the cold and calculated world of business when his remaining family offer him a wake-up call. The philosophical idioms of the script, play exceedingly well with the charms and allure of a George Clooney, which allows a platform for both punctuating comedy and dramatic realism, however for all the accomplishments of this film, it fails to properly tackle some of the issues it raises such as the suicide of some of the people on the receiving end of Bingham’s rhetorical rigour and a true examination of the ramifications of corporate down-sizing and increasing impoverishment, as such films like Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story tackles. But however, this is a dramedy not a documentary, and so it is a playful as well as serious critique on western gift shop philosophy, the importance of human relations and the effects of business as usual.

If you’re after intelligent comedy balanced with effective drama as a side order to a main serving of a metaphysical post-modern critique of the contemporary western condition then Up in the Air is just right for you, it can be enjoyed as just a stand-out performance from Clooney, a quirky and inventive comedy about the subtleties of human relationships or perhaps as something more lofty which might require to pause for moment and ponder the above.

[horizonblind]

Invictus bears its name from a William Ernest Henley poem, which Nelson Mandela (the former President of South Africa and humanitarian inspiration), reflected upon every day of his 27 years of incarceration on Robben Island, furthermore it draws it subject matter from John Carlin’s seminal book Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Changed a Nation. The spaghetti man himself, Mr. Clint Eastwood is behind the camera, showing the world once again that he is more than capable. Eastwood’s directorial fruits appear to have first flourished with 2003’s Mystic River and followed suit with the likes of Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima, Changeling & Gran Torino. This film however, is set at the time of the 1995 Rugby World Cup in South Africa, at the very inception of Mandela’s historical presidency, following his release from imprisonment and the end of apartheid. Eastwood’s creative trajectory is proving to be as unpredictable as ever, in that despite his rich iconic past, he has re-invented himself again and again with films that challenge various taboos and issues in the expedition of compelling film-making. Invictus is no exception.

‘Madiba’ is played by the perfectly casted Morgan Freeman, which although a predictable move, Freeman never fails in both his conviction and deliverance. Freeman not only looks like Mandela but as a method actor communicates all the mannerisms that we have come to love about the man himself. The only depletion being that his accent tends to stray from Nelson to ‘Shawshank’ Freeman, but however such imperfections help to ultimately compliment rather than denunciate this Oscar worthy performance. Tremendous support comes in the unexpected form of Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar, Captain of the South African Springboks national rugby union, unexpected in that Damon provides a performance that is completely unfamiliar to his usual ‘Bourne’ identity, and as such provides another insight into what we first saw with Good Will Hunting and more recently in The Informant. The two share an onscreen presence and relationship that provides further gravity to an already integral piece of work.

Cinema has not reflected upon the monumental story of Nelson Mandela too often, the reasons for this are unclear, however there has been Billie Augusts’ Goodbye Bafana and a notable TV execution called Mandela and De Klerk with Sidney Poitier portraying the great man. Eastwood’s film is the first of its kind, with Hollywood tackling the troublesome issues of South Africa’s recent history. Mandela himself has seen and congratulated Eastwood for this adaption as it manages to convey the significance of the political and social climate dictating the consensus at such a vital time in one man’s life and career, the film manages to convey a strong sense of urgency in the fundamental issues over-shadowing the presidency at this time and the opposition Mandela faced in his support for the Springboks (since it was the purest representation of apartheid).

Freeman’s Mandela declares in a pivotal scene in a meeting with Damon’s Pienaar, the two men at the fountainhead of such troubles, that Henley’s Invictus taught him to “stand when all he wanted to do was lie down”. Eastwood balances the personal struggles and challenges of Mandela’s newly democratically elected government with the responsibilities and ramifications of a rugby tournament as though the two were the same, and in doing so, demonstrates the significant time of fragility that Mandela’s nation was facing in light of past events and a look to a completely uncertain future. Invictus has been labeled as a rugby film, and although rugby itself does take up quite a large portion of screen time, it is the metaphorical nature and temperate of its institution and legacy in relation to the affirmation of a new nation in which the story lies, the struggles of one nation and what two leaders face in order to step forward from the troubles of the past and this is so delicately and astonishingly conveyed that it can be seen in every throw and kick of the breath-taking adrenaline- invoking climax of one rugby match where the fate of the nation rests upon the outcome.

However, such investment in just one of many factors is not fully historically faithful, but none the less shines a refreshing light into an issue that would perhaps be easily forgotten. In addition one cannot help but feel that Mandela is easy pickings for the Oscar season as its weakness is sensationalist humanitarian plights, however Mandela and apartheid is by no means an easy task to tackle and Eastwood as does such with a respect and contemplation that is deserving of any accolade.

If you’re a rugby nut then there is plenty in this for the sport spectator, but this film should not be stereotyped by the means as to which is conveys its message, it is a strong and intelligent reflection on what history has taught us and the troubles humans have brought upon themselves. For anyone who is void of apathy should seek Invictus for vital viewing in understanding what troubles the world has faced and still faces today.


For further reviews go to: http://recenseouk.blogspot.com/ or http://www.filmindustrynetwork.biz/c...movie-reviews/