I saw these two the other night in Katoomba, and I can’t imagine two more disparate movies. It was definitely an interesting experience, switching my brain from popcorn flick to semi-indie arty mindbender …. Here’s my thoughts…..
(P.S. I know these movies actually came out a month ago, but we live a very sheltered life up here in the Blue Mountains…. actually, I’ve just been lazy and haven’t bothered getting off my butt to go down to Penrith to catch-up….)
I AM LEGEND
SYNOPSIS:
Years after a plague kills most of humanity and transforms the rest into monsters, Dr Robert Neville, the sole survivor in New York City, struggles valiantly to find a cure.
DIRECTION:
Directed by Francis Lawrence. He’s a capable director, and his work in realising the look of post-biological virus Manhattan is amazing. His previous film Constantine was very similar - workmanlike, solid, but far from brilliant. He plays it very safe with lighting, and the his weakness for leaning on CG scares is a drawback.
SCREENPLAY:
Written by Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman, based on a novel by Richard Matheson. It’s a solid script, though it loses a lot of the subtext of the source material. I wondered how they would work in the true meaning of the title ‘I Am Legend’, and the answer is - they didn’t even try!
Working within the context of a single character narrative is pretty difficult, and I do admire the way they made the environment almost a character, and their use of Dr Neville’s dog as his last connection to humanity.
ACTING:
Will Smith, for all his detractors, is always engaging and always in the moment. I can’t think of a single Will Smith film since ID4 that has felt like he is just doing it to put a second wing on the mansion (except maybe ‘I, Robot’). Here he has to carry almost the entire film, and he does capably.
PRODUCTION: The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie was serviceable but uninspired. I would have loved to have seen how someone like Matthew Libatique (Requiem For A Dream) would shoot this film. The score, by the reliable James Newton Howard, did not draw attention to itself in a good way. The production design was very realistic and created a very believable world for the character of Dr Neville to inhabit.
THE GOOD: Will Smith (as mentioned). I keep expecting him to disappoint me, but he is consistently good.
The realism of a battered and broken New York.
The use of Bob Marley on the score and the semi-clever way they linked that to the film’s message. I just really dig when a character in a film plays music for a specific reason.
THE BAD: The CG. Seriously, someone has to make it mandatory for members of the Directors Guild of America to not use CG just for the sake of speeding up the length of the shoot. The creature CG here was in moments good, but in other moments appalling. And it only takes just one dodgy shot to pull you out of the film. I won’t say it was Mummy-bad, but it was close. I knew from the first dodgy car chase scene in the opening that I was in for a CG-groaner.
The little kid, Ethan. Um, did he serve any purpose whatsoever, except maybe to put a kid in jeopardy at the climax?? I’m surprised they spent money on a real kid when they could’ve used a mannequin.
The ‘zombie-dogs’ sequence and how it ended. Seriously, the writers are going to put the protagonist in that situation and then just jump straight back to his apartment building. Talk about losing tension.
THE UGLY: That final voice-over behind the closing moments. Yecccch. What a lame attempt to try and justify the title.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS: Loved the clever nods to taking advantage of being the last human in a city, like putting the real Van Gogh’s in your living room. Also really dug the atmospheric terror of the first encounter in the film with the Hive. Then they had to blow it all to hell with the clunky CG.
Which reminds me, after the film I overheard two guys in their late 40s talking about the film in the toilets. They were reminiscing about The Omega Man (an earlier adaptation of the source) and wondered why every action film nowadays has to make the villains superhuman to the point of ridiculousness. I’ve gotta agree with them. A nemesis who is not necessarily omnipotent but has a viciousness of mind is much scarier than CG monkeymen climbing the side of a building.
The problem with the success of films like 28 Days Later is they inspire the imitators to simply copy. What the imitators don’t appreciate is that what was a fresh and original take on the genre (almost robotic, rage infected supermonsters) is now common place. They need to do more than throw pixels at us to scare us.
VERDICT: 6.5 out of 10.
TRAILER:
I’M NOT THERE
SYNOPSIS:
Ruminations on the life of Bob Dylan, where six characters embody a different aspect of the musician’s life and work.
DIRECTION:
Directed by Todd Haynes (Safe, Velvet Goldmine), from a screenplay he co-wrote. Very experimental, challenging storytelling, but that very fact makes it unforgettable and strangely more compelling. His deft juggling of tone and look is something a lot of directors can aspire to. Whilst not flawless, it’s admirable for the scope of it’s aim. You can see Hayne’s aspiring to be very Godard-ian, but there’s a lot worse things to try for. Every frame is infused with the Dylan mythology.
SCREENPLAY:
Written by Todd Haynes and Oren Moverman. Todd Haynes put it best when he described the film as “evasive and wry and enigmatic, and continually frustrating efforts to make ordinary sense of it — much like the man himself.”By taking fragments of Dylan’s life and personifying them as six different characters, the film forces you to construct a jigsaw puzzle in your head - of who the movie is saying Dylan is, balanced with the reality of Dylan. I am by no means a Dylan acolyte, but a rudimentary knowledge of his place in music history was a real benefit. If you don’t know much about Dylan, I’d suggest a quick read of his wikipedia page before seeing the movie; it will definitely increase your enjoyment.
In a clever stroke the name ‘Bob Dylan’ is never mentioned in the film; each of the characters have their own fictional name. How they fit with the reality of Bob Dylan is at the very heart of the film; who you are as a performer is rarely who you really are, yet every human being confounded by this is just as complex and multi-faceted.
ACTING:
Perfect casting in almost every role. Each of these actors bring their own flavour to the Dylan persona; from Heath Ledger’s bravado and insouciance, to Richard Gere’s weary stalwartness, to the Cate Blanchett’s amazing inhabitance of the 60’s Dylan; exhausted yet unrepentant, mischievous yet somehow broken and hurt.
Ben Whishaw is an up-and-comer to watch, strangely mesmerising despite doing nothing but a monologue based on a famous Dylan interview. Only Christian Bale is disappointing in his lack of screen time.
PRODUCTION: Beautiful cinematography by Edward Lachman (The Virgin Suicides). The various stocks and styles perfectly complement the different shades of Dylan’s life. The editing by Jay Rabinowitz is also of note for it’s inspired handling of such a complex intersection of plot lines.
THE GOOD: Almost every single cast member is spot-on.
The dialogue, which is obviously affected and stage-y, but is no less witty or intriguing for that fact.
It’s a very wryly funny film, an odd quality for an American filmmaker. The humour is never forced or broad, but sneaks up on you.
The music, as expected, is golden.
THE BAD: The first 10 minutes. Almost Luhrmann-esque in their ADD-affected lurching from scene to scene, character to character. Once you get past the challenge of identifying each character and facet of Dylan, you are into the good stuff.
THE UGLY: Pretty much nothing.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS: It’s a fantastic reinvention of the biopic, and perfect for the source material. I would love to find Dylan’s thoughts on the film (couldn’t find anything online).
If you don’t know Dylan, the film is like a good taste test. It reflects all the great stuff about his music; the impenetrability of (some of) his lyrics, the ease with which he plays music, his refusal to be labelled or have a genre imposed on him.
If you wouldn’t normally like Dylan’s music, I imagine the film would be about as enjoyable as a prostate exam. So take that as a warning.
It’s worthwhile viewing for Cate’s performance alone - I haven’t seen all her competitors, but after seeing this she seems a lock for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar.
VERDICT: 8 out of 10.
TRAILER:
