Ghost Town (2008)

Bertram Pincus (Ricky Gervais), a grumpy dentist, dies for about seven minutes while having an embarrassing operation. When he comes back to life, he can see the dead. This discovery is more annoying than terrifying to Pincus, who is not what you would call a ‘people person’. The first ghost he meets is the recently deceased Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear, Little Miss Sunshine), who asks for a favour. Would it be possible for Pincus to use his ‘charm’ and dental knowledge to break up his beautiful widow’s imminent marriage to a human rights lawyer?

Ricky Gervais takes his first role as a leading man on the big screen and he takes to it as if there is no difference between Slough and Manhattan, producing a sensitive, emotional, but hilarious performance, which, for a character who is so obviously a people-hating jerk, is a major achievement. Gervais trying to make himself look attractive is always an entertaining sight and the awkward dialogue between Pincus and Gwen (Leoni) is reminiscent of those cringe-worthy moments in The Office. Look out for him in The Invention of Lying, which comes out on October 2 later this year, which Gervais writes, directs and stars in alongside Jennifer Garner.

Although Ghost Town’s director is better known for his action films, such as Jurassic Park, Spiderman, Mission Impossible and Indiana Jones 4, David Koepp’s sense of humour allows him to adapt to the comedy genre, while keeping the tongue in cheek elements present in his action films. In an interview, Koepp stated that it was a deliberate choice not to go for an ‘effects’ movie, but to make the action driven by the characters rather than by CGI. The result is that some of the effects look a little weak, but the comedy created by the relationship between the living and the dead is heightened.

The key theme of the film is letting go of people who have died. As Herlihy puts it, “The dead have a lot of unfinished business, that’s why they’re still here.” As the film progresses it becomes clear that the ‘unfinished business’ is on the side of the living rather than on the side of the dead. The living must appreciate the people around them, letting the dead go, not dwelling on the past. Because, “everybody dies”. (Some before the end of their lives.)

Ghost Town nicely blends farce and self-awareness with witty and observational humour. Although it hints at becoming sentimental and sappy, it always does so knowingly and with originality and so comes off just the right side of cheesy.

In The Loop

This British political satire made by Armando Ianucci documents political relationships between Britain and America as the politicians and PR representatives struggle to outmanoeuvre each other so that they hold the power in declaring war on a Middle Eastern country.

Although, for my taste, it suffers because of the phenomenal amount of swearing (which made me laugh, but unfortunately stopped it being quotable), In The Loop is a very funny and intuitive observation of what happens out of sight of the general public. In a time when people are suspicious about why politicians got into politics in the first place, this is a timely warning that politicians are not above the law and that it’s not simply the temporary lightweight enemy of the tabloid press but the heavy-weight influence of film that will hold politicians accountable for what they are doing.

Satire is so much fun! The one-upmanship exhibited by each of the characters – to varying degrees of success –drives the plot of the film. There is pretty much no “good guy”, as everyone shows their flaws and selfish motives.

There are two horrible Scotsmen, which, having not seen the TV series, I particularly enjoyed. One trashes a fax machine, as a visual aid. The other, Malcolm Tucker, (Peter Capaldi) is the most manipulative horrible man in the film – only interested in who he can ‘own.’ He is involved in the power play throughout and is clearly far more adept at handling the pressure than Simon Foster (Tom Hollander), who is horrible too, but somehow so pathetically manipulated from start to finish, it becomes possible to feel sorry for him.

Things come to a head in the power play in the “Meditation Room” a typically multi-faith semi-religious-feeling space where people go to plot and scheme with each other, or simply eat mints and stress out. It is here that Malcolm Tucker, for the first time in the film is undone and looks completely beaten. But in a moment of ingenious comic thinking, he turns the entire situation to his advantage (at the expense of pretty much everyone else). I love how typically British it is to have the most horrible character win!

In the final analysis, if you're not shy of a swear word or two hundred, then definitely give this film a watch.

Rain Man

When I watched Mary Poppins at Christmas, I realised that the story wasn’t about Mary Poppins or the kids, but about their father, Mr Banks. He is the only character who changes throughout the film. In the same way, it is tempting to view Rain Man as being about Raymond (Dustin Hoffman). But in the final analysis, it’s actually the younger brother, Charlie (Tom Cruise), an arrogant, money hungry, self-centred car salesman, who changes. This film is more about him than the Rain Man.

Cruise pulls it off brilliantly in my opinion. I’m not a massive fan of him, but having watched this film, I was very impressed with his ability to capture the character. Raymond is also stunningly acted by Hoffman, who I don’t think has ever played a better role - not even as Mr. Magorian in Mr. Magorian's Wonder Emporium!

Rain Man is a touching view of brotherhood based on a true story and Cruise’s change of heart is summed up with the line towards the end, “It’s not about the money any more. It’s just...why didn’t anyone tell me I had a brother? Because it would have been nice to know him.” Placed alongside the themes of brotherhood in The Straight Story, I’ve been moved to consider how much of a gift brothers are. Thinking from the point of view of a writer, Rain Man was great for exploring the power of family ties and for showing how change in characters is a great catalyst for a good story.

The Negotiator

Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey deliver exceptional performances in a superb thriller. Danny Roman (Jackson), a top negotiator, has been framed for embezzling funds from the Chicago Police Department. He does the only natural thing in the situation and takes hostages to try to clear his name. I watched this film on the recommendation of friends as a ‘classic’ and it did not disappoint.

Despite a slightly predictable and mainly unbelievable plot, which I was happy to let go on account of the first scene, The Negotiator’s main attributes are the strengths of repartee between the characters (again at times unbelievable) and the acting of the two stars. I am a big fan of Kevin Spacey, who has the ability to change a character’s strength in a second into weakness and then revert to holding the initial power. Samuel L. is on top angry story-telling form, from first to last. The film is funny where it intends to be and keeps you hooked and interested right to the end.

One of my favourite scenes is when Spacey hangs the phone up on Samuel L.. If you haven't seen the film, this comes just after Samuel L. has shot at a police officer. It’s a fantastic way to shift the balance of power between the two and opens up the chance to talk properly, rather than Samuel L. getting to do all the talking. It’s classic Spacey, turning in a second from mild-mannered peacekeeper to the one who holds all the aces. The surprise and the humour add to the quality of the scene.

Perhaps the weakest part of the film is the power-hungry, disorganised and generally unintelligent police unit that are supposed to provide tension, but fail to do so in a credible way. As an audience member, you are left thinking how woefully stubborn the police are to see that they might be wrong.

Watching this after watching “The Straight Story” was the kind of change you would go through if you were sitting on a park bench watching the world go by when suddenly the ground opens up and you find yourself plummeting towards the earth’s core at light speed – except with less threat to your life. The change of pace did a couple of things for me. Firstly, it made me appreciate Lynch’s film a little more for the depth of character that he was able to develop and therefore my emotional involvement in the film. Secondly, it accelerated and added tension to all the action in The Negotiator making it feel like a relatively short film, even though it was over two hours long. This simply underlined to me that it’s great to watch a mix of films!

So how would I sum up The Negotiator? Overall, a gripping well-written watch with, as I said before, top class acting Samuel L. and Spacey.

The Straight Story

When you watch a film by David Lynch and you’re told it’s really good and what you see is a deliberately slow film, you feel like you are uncultured if you don’t like it. Normally, watching an old man on a lawn-mower wouldn’t be my idea of an evening’s entertainment. But it is this that Lynch decides to spend his film following.

The plot is as simple as Alvin Straight deciding to go and see his estranged brother who lives in the next state after he has a stroke. The problem: he can’t see well enough to drive, he has bad hips and emphysema and won’t accept medical help. Cue a beaten up lawn mower with a max speed about 10 miles an hour (when going down hill).

There is a nice scene where Straight heads off for the first time on his lawn mower and trailer, it almost seems easy, but then a lorry overtakes him and his hat blows off. Straight struggles to get to his feet to retrieve his hat and at that point comes the realisation, “this isn’t going to be easy at all.”

Themes of family and old age appear throughout the film. The people Straight meets along the way gradually become people who are more alike to him, in age and experience. He advises the first few young people he meets and as the film progresses, in one of the most heart-wrenching scenes, he confesses to a man his age his worst war crime.

Family is seen positively throughout the film, with Straight desperately trying to make amends with his younger brother. The final climactic scene where the brothers are reunited is as brilliantly understated as the whole film. As an audience, we are left with no knowledge of what the feud was – because in a sense it doesn’t matter. One look at the lawn mower shows Alvin’s brother the lengths that he has gone to in order to see him.

It is interesting that being understated and slow seems to enhance the film in contrast to the usual ways films are done. Being given space to think about the film as the film is progressing makes lines like “it’s amazing what you can see when you just sit” far more pertinent. All in all a very good film, if you don’t mind working your concentration span.

Monsters Vs. Aliens

I went to see Monsters versus Aliens with my family. Now the excuse is out of the way, I can get on with my thoughts on it!

Monsters versus Aliens is about being inclusive with those who are different from you (ie. Monsters) in standing up against those who are different from you (ie. aliens). I enjoyed the 3D effects and the characters, particularly Bob, who is some sort of indestructible blue blob made from a genetically modified tomato. The best bit about Bob was how funny my step-brother thought he was. (Although he’s thirteen, so it’s not cute any more.)

A couple of disappointments. Firstly, the villain was the biggest pansy ever! Having successfully cloned an entire army of himself, he was then shown to be stupid and weak in large quantities. Although some of the scenes with him were funny and had great effects, others looked a little rushed. I felt throughout the film like there were two groups of people making the film. The good scenes did not quite manage to make up for the bad ones.

Once

Two musicians, an Irish folk singer and a Czech pianist, bond over a hoover, which sees the beginning of a quirky, adorable relationship. The two then set about recording an album over the weekend before going their separate ways. Beautiful melodies and a great cast make this film a great choice for a quiet Saturday evening.

This is a very well-made and compelling film. From the opening scene, where the busking protagonist gets his money stolen by a drug addict, the film is a classy and realistic view of love, life and Ireland. I think this is the first UK film I have seen with European immigrants in and it is also one of the only films to have the two protagonists not getting together in the end. On top of this, it has the added delight that you only realise when the credits begin – the main characters have no names, but are simply referred to as “guy” and “girl.”

What I love most about Once is the way it runs alongside the conventions of musicals and of romantic comedies, using these conventions to create tension and highlighting the realities of limitations caused by past relationships, which are often overlooked in your average Rom Com. I love how expectations are left unsatisfied and that is where the power of the film lies.

It’s hard to pick a favourite song, but I think the song that sums the film up most is the opening song, which begins as a - dare I say - bland, folk song, with some dodgy lyrics, before bursting into an electrifying, haunting, passionate chorus. In the same way, it is easy to lose the film’s thread in the first twenty minutes, because of the long shots it uses and the relatively slow plot build up, but suddenly it kicks in with the song, “Falling slowly” and after that, it doesn’t look back.

It may be worth concluding by saying that the sense of humour in Once is excellent and so subtly blended in that it is easy not to realise how often you have laughed out loud.

Mad March Hair

Chocolat

This alluring and sensuous film is based in a town in the South of France which is very set in its ways. Two red-hooded figures arrive at the start of the “Holy Lent and Fast” and cause a stir. Literally, stirring stuff! One of the best scenes in the film shows a vat of melted chocolate being stirred with a mix of colours that makes me hungry even to think about.

Well acted, beautifully shot and very thoughtfully written, this film deserves the acclaim it received. From the opening scene where a grey and dismal and almost fairy tale town is teased by the sly north wind, we are lured into a story built around stories. The villain is likeably comic, pitiable in his devotion to tradition and inability to admit the inconsistency within the town that they are not truly devoted to the traditions they hold, they merely follow them in fear of upsetting others.

As well made as the film is and enticing as all that chocolate is, sweet, creamy, delicious, wonderful chocolate, I feel the film allures the spectator in a not so helpful way. The message of the film seems to be, firstly, chocolate and by connection pleasure, is what life is about – to deny yourself it is self-limiting and hypocritical, comical and pointless. Secondly, the last line of the film, “The North wind still spoke of battles to be fought by someone else another time”, presents a picture of apathy towards making a stand for what is right in favour of an easy life of pleasure which seems in contradiction to the rest of the film. That, for me is not so much a major point as the one-sided view of the church that is portrayed in the film.

Naturally, the colours associated with the church are black, dull brown and grey, whereas Vianne, the heroine of the film, with her radical ideas is colourful and attractive. Naturally, the church is seen as a place where everyone fearfully tries to look good and only Vianne can see the need of the person who does not fit in. Naturally, the church can not change people, but chocolate can. In the final scene – a pagan festival that the whole town can join in, the Comte de Reynaud is wearing a white suit. The grey town of the opening sequence is transformed to sunny terracotta. Happy ending. The crazy polarisation of these two positions is nothing short of humanist propaganda, which is fortunately hilarious, entertaining and to the cynical observer, transparently one-sided. My concern is however, that, once again, the church is ridiculed and no one notices.

Rightly, the message that we should look out for people’s real needs and hurts and not try to present the veneer of respectability to cover our own, but, wrongly, Joanne Harris asserts that it is the divinity of Christ, or at least, the misplaced view of his divinity, that has caused the townsfolk to be so uptight.

The young father, Pere Henri gives this address:

I don't want to talk about His [Jesus'] divinity. I'd rather talk about His humanity. I mean, you know, how He lived His life here on earth. His kindness, His tolerance...Listen, here's what I think. I think we can't go 'round measuring our goodness by what we don't do, what we deny ourselves, what we resist, and who we exclude. I think we've got to measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create, and who we include.

The message of tolerance is here admirable, because it stands against self-righteousness. True enough Jesus himself was criticised by the Reynaud’s of his day for being the chocolate of life to people who, in their eyes were immoral social down-and-outs. But the idea that God, or Jesus’ divinity is distant and his humanity is near us is a horribly skewed thing to say. Listen, here's what I think...I think to say the divinity of Christ causes intolerance is to completely misunderstand the awe that in Jesus, God Himself was stepping into his own world and becoming nothing, dying in love the worst of deaths to include people in his family. It is Jesus’ divinity that makes his inclusion of traitors, drunkards and frauds among his closest friends all the more astonishing.

However, all this aside, I have grown in my appreciation of the film and I loved the subtlety of the dialogue, if not the characterisation. And I must say, I particularly love the climactic scene where the Comte de Reynaud finally cracks and destroys the entire shop window display of Vianne’s shop, which looks like it was a lot of fun to make.

And all of that without mentioning Jonny Depp, who, when combined with chocolate must make this film into a most tasty delicacy for any woman.

Seven Pounds

Will Smith is Ben Thomas the IRS agent with the power to dramatically alter the lives of seven people. Thomas whose intentions are not made clear until as late as possible in the film behaves in an unpredictable and secretive way throughout the film. As it seems to be frowned upon to reveal the "twist" of the film, I won't do that. But, then there is not much framework to build a review on.

I think there is an unwitting pun in Will Smith's ability to alter the lives of seven people "dramatically," because from start to finish, the film is set to look like a thriller, unnecessarily. I feel that without the elaborate way the story is told, there is enough emotional strength in the idea to keep the film going. I also feel that the trailers gave me an expectation that there would be seven stories tied together, but in the end it was one story with seven elements to it, the biggest being the final revelation.

The film explores a karma-based worldview and the idea of meriting good and having to make up for evil. Firstly, the guilt and remorse which drives Smith's character and his desire to make amends for his past. Secondly, Smith weighs up whether someone is good enough before he does his act of kindness to them. Do people have to deserve kindness? Smith seems to make an exception when it comes to giving his heart to a woman.

Overall, I was not very satisfied with this film and thought it overly tense to the detriment of the real emotional struggle which could be explored. Although I generally like the style of telling a story in a different order, I think this film, (like Slumdog Millionaire) did not benefit from the way it was advertised.

Plot Spoiler Warning:

It's extreme organ doning basically, isn't it?

Dead Poets' Society

Robin Williams stars in one of his best roles as he guides a group of teenage public school students towards exploring issues of free-thinking against a rigorous and constrictively traditional school system. Williams plays the poet and teacher, John Keating, whose ideas revolutionise the way the young boys think about school, about girls and about life.

The boys in Keating’s English class sneak out at night to entertain themselves with a secret poetry society in full boyish rebellion. This very emotive and powerful film follows the journey of one boy in particular, Neil Perry and his relationship with his demanding, military minded, but well-meaning father. As Perry begins to find a passion in acting, one of which his father heavily disapproves, the tension in their relationship drives him to suicide.

As well as showcasing some excellent poetry (a lost art), the film raises questions about the value of tradition, how open-minded teenagers should be allowed to be, and parental tension, which are penetrating and relevant twenty years on from the production of this film. At some points, a viewer sides with Keating in his enjoyable breaking of the endless meter of living up to parental expectations. At others, however, when Keating’s attempts to broaden their horizons leads them to reckless behaviour, questions are raised about how to balance teaching open-mindedness without restricting and repressing the boys, yet helping them to see the consequences of their actions.

A memorable scene shows the English class in a beautiful courtyard and three of them are asked to walk around. They eventually end up marching in exact step with one another, the whole class clapping along. The film at this point raises the question, why do we take our cue from everyone else? Why not forge our own path?

Yet, the individualistic message of Keating’s questions, leads to insensitivity towards the traditions of the school and, although the teachers are shown up as enjoying the authority a little too much and being disconnected with the boys they are teaching, the real question we are left with, as Neil Perry is found shot in his father’s study, how can we balance these two worldviews? Can we please everyone? Should we do what feels good? How do we live in a system we disagree with?

As a final comment, I think we are ‘supposed’ to side with Keating and his anti-authoritarian free-thinking. But the film does very well not to suppose that too strongly.