Andrew Ferrier » film

Frost / Slumdog / Nixon

andrewferrier — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:18:41 +0000

Been to see two films in almost as few days recently. Slumdog Millionaire was entertaining; perhaps not the classic it could have been – I think it lacked a little clarity in storytelling – but still great. Frost/Nixon was more compelling, certainly for me: I was not expecting Frank Langella’s performance as Nixon to be as good as it was – in the end, it perhaps beat Anthony Hopkins’s classic performance from Nixon. Watch out for Oliver Platt’s wonderful performance-within-a-performance imitation of Nixon.

Burn After Reading

andrewferrier — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:01:51 +0000

Went to see Burn After Reading with plv last night. It’s a bit of a slow starter, but when it gets going, there are some real solid comedic moments. It’s not laugh-a-minute, and is a little disjointed, but it’s sure entertaining as the plot gets more and more mashed up, and could almost be classed as a farce if it were a little clearer. Indeed, as the CIA boss says at one point:

Report back to me when … I dunno … when it makes sense.

It’s definitely worth the price of admission, and is a Coen brothers pic I actually like (they vary a lot). Brad Pitt and George Clooney both do a good job of playing bozos (Brad’s attempt to blackmail John Malkovich is hilarious), and J.K. Simmons as the aforementioned CIA officer is also very funny.

WALL-E

andrewferrier — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:07:22 +0000

Pixar have done it again. WALL-E is their best film since Monsters Inc. The industrial cityscapes are amazing. The rendering detail is stunning. The story is robust, and the emotion deep.

The pre-film trailer for Madagascar 2 looked amateurish in comparison.

WALL-E is a wonderous film. See it.

Dog Days (Hundstage)

andrewferrier — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:48:54 +0000

Corriere della Sera said of Dog Days:

‘Those who have seen this film will never forget it, whether they loved it or hated it’

Well, I certainly didn’t like it, but I also think it is ultimately forgettable. The various stories within the film (whose only common thread is that they happen during a heatwave in Vienna) are vague, directionless, and mostly uninteresting. The characters are tedious. The hitch-hiker who seems to be suffering from some form of autism is by far the most interesting character, but even her scenes become repetitive after not too long.

Avoid unless you particularly like slow-going and very formal films.

Die Hard is a Serious Action Film

andrewferrier — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 21:57:52 +0000

If you’ve never had a chance to listen to the director’s commentary for Die Hard, I can wholeheartedly recommend getting hold of a copy – John McTiernan’s comments are fascinating, and complement the talented acting of both Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman. It rapidly becomes obvious that McTiernan takes action film very seriously, as an artistic genre – not something to turn a fast buck. This is clearly one of the reasons why Die Hard is such a polished film and is a canonical example of the action film genre.

One interesting anecdote is that in the 80s, when the film was made, cutting in the middle of a camera move was forbidden by the studios, to the point where he was almost fired from Predator for doing this. A co-operative editor was the only reason Die Hard was able to use these kind of shots in the finished film. To me, this is an interesting example of how established conventions for the ‘best’ way of doing things don’t always turn out to be the best (after all, Die Hard was a huge commercial success, and no-one now watches it and comments on the strange camera moves).