Senna (2010)

Image from Imp Awards


Senna (2010)

In a word, wow! I haven't been caught up in a documentary in a long time, but this one had me hooked from the start.

Senna tells the story of the late Brazilian Formula 1 legend Ayrton Senna. It is composed entirely of archival footage from the late 70s through to the mid 90s sourced from TV shows, documentaries, home videos, and race footage. Eschewing a narrator, the story is conveyed by sound bites both old and new of people who were involved in the events depicted, including Senna himself. The film captures the key moments of Senna's career and presents them in dramatic fashion, starting from his early go-karting days through entry to Formula 1 and the accumulation of successes and controversy, including a bitter rivalry with Alain Prost.

While there is an element of idolising at play, it never feels fawning or overly biased. Senna was clearly a remarkably skilled driver and a charismatic individual, with some of his achievements and dramatic moments putting a lot of fiction to shame. He is the star of the film and in much of the footage he freely expresses his views and feelings. It's easy to become fully invested in his journey as events build up towards his untimely demise. And, speaking as a person who is not a fan of motor racing, the racing sequences are thrilling affairs edited to encapsulate the most exciting and interesting moments of the races and set to a lively soundtrack and excited commentators.

In short, it's a terrific film. Director Asif Kapadia's achievement in assembling all of this footage into a documentary that is thoroughly informative while being entertaining and absorbing is remarkable. As an insight into the life of a sporting legend and the sport itself during his time it is brilliant; 'Senna' deserves to be seen.

Into the Wild (2007)

(Image from IMP Awards)


Into the Wild (2007)

I expected to find 'Into the Wild' to be a good film, but I was surprised at just how good Sean Penn's latest directorial effort is. His other films that I've seen - 'The Pledge' and 'The Indian Runner' - were pretty good but just shy of being truly great. This film, however, is at another level and is absolutely terrific.

Adapted from the non-fiction book by Jon Krakauer (which I now must read!), it centres on Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch), a young man with promising career prospects who upon graduating from college decides to leave his life behind, assume the name Alexander Supertramp, and journey to Alaska to live in the wild. He gives away all of his money to charity and moves from place to place by hitchhiking or sneaking rides on trains while doing odd jobs to get by. He also befriends various interesting people along the way. The film cuts back and forth between his journey to Alaska and the story of his subsequent life in the Alaskan wilderness. The different threads are bound together and given context by the narration from his sister Carine (Jena Malone) that explains his troubled childhood. There's also the occasional scene where we witness his parents (William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden) trying to cope with his disappearance.

I was captivated by the film from the start. There isn't much meat to the story, which is surprising given its 150 minute runtime, and at its core it's simply a journey - but what a journey! There are some stunning visuals and unforgettable moments that bring McCandless' adventure to life - many scenes are devoid of dialogue and rely on visuals and sound alone, and they bring to the fore the solitude and beauty of the environments he passes through. It's also very much a character study that attempts to explain his behaviour, to allow us to understand him and his past and how it affected him and drove him to find meaning outside of society and people (though ironically his journey brought him into contact with many interesting people along the way). Despite his actions being borderline insane, the manner in which he tried to push himself to the limit somehow comes across as strangely romantic. The film is only successful in explaining McCandless upto a certain extent though; at some level there's something about his actions that really defies logic and explanation, and Penn almost seems to be mythologizing the man and his adventure. Ignoring his love of adventure, McCandless character also embodies the undercurrent of contempt towards modern society and consumerism that permeates the film as well, but fortunately this isn't too heavy handed and as a thematic element never overwhelms the film.

Emile Hirsch is simply brilliant, disappearing into the role and really becoming the character (cliched, I know, but so true here!). McCandless was intelligent and good natured, and perhaps a little quixotic and foolish as well, but always fascinating, and in many ways his audacious recklessness was inspiring. Hirsch really brings these traits to life without making the man ever seem bonkers or too detached from reality; he's relatable and sympathetic. His interactions with the supporting cast are also terrific, and while there is at times a sense of over-earnestness to them they serve to show how he affected the people he met, and how he himself grew and changed as a result of meeting them. All of the cast are terrific, but Hal Holbrook's much lauded performance as the lonely old retiree Ron Franz is worthy of the praise and accolade it has received.

On paper this film could have been repetitive and dull, but it ends up being incredibly varied and with its intercutting timelines and sense of progression it never comes close to being boring. It's a bit long but, I think, quite well paced. I found it to be exceptionally well made in every way; the performances I've already mentioned, but there's also the awesome photography and soundtrack that add so much to the mood and enhance the overall experience. Despite being overlooked during awards season, I'm fairly confident when I say that 'Into the Wild' is one of the best films of 2007.

La Môme (2007)

(Image from IMP Awards)

La Môme (2007)


This biopic of French singing icon Édith Piaf is mostly notable for one thing, and that's the performance of Marion Cotillard as the titular character. Her performance is incredible, and it rises above everything else in the film. The make up (including the old age stuff) is excellent and doesn't distract, and Cotillard simply becomes a character brought to life vividly and memorably. She portrays Poaf as a vivacious but also sometimes shy and naive woman who endured a great deal of hardship throughout her life, ultimately transforming through experience and substance abuse into a cantankerous and tired shadow of her former self. The rest of the performances are, well, peripheral at best, which actually becomes a problem because it's sometimes hard to figure out who's who. This is partly as a result of the film's strange, unnecessary structure where it jumps back and forth in time, sometimes confusingly. I suppose it tries to avoid the conventional biopic structure that feels like a 'Cliff notes' of someone's life, but the trick doesn't really work and ends up being more annoying than anything else. Maybe there's some significance to it that I missed, but I can't imagine what it could be.

The film is successful in creating atmospheric reconstructions of different eras, and the production values are pretty good. The music is, of course, terrific and a major part of the film, though it's not really to my taste. Though I will confess that the appearance of 'Non, je ne regrette rien' towards the end is affecting. There are some wonderful scenes in the film, and it is often moving even when the weight of tragic occurrences begins to make the whole thing more than a little depressing, perhaps unnecessarily so. It's the music and the magnetic personality that keep it going, however, and the end result is a very good biopic that probably would probably be just OK were it not for Cotillard's bravura performance, which alone makes the film worth recommending.

Pirates of Silicon Valley (1999)

(Image from IMDB)


Pirates of Silicon Valley (1999)

This TNT TV movie chronicles the professional (and to an extent, personal) lives of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as they make their mark on the computer industry during the 70s and 80s through their companies, Apple and Microsoft respectively. Jobs is played by Noah Wyle, and Gates by Anthony Michael Hall. Also featured prominently are Apple co founder Steve Wozniak (Joey Slotnick) and Microsoft bigwigs Paul Allen (Josh Hopkins) and Steve Ballmer (John Di Maggio). There's definitely a greater focus on Jobs and Apple; during the time periods depicted Apple was by far the more successful and influential of the two companies, beginning with their development of the Apple II that sparked a revolution in home computers and followed by the development of the Macintosh. Gates meanwhile worked on developing operating systems for other company's hardware but was constantly threatened by Apple's successes and innovations.

The film shows both men to be driven, demanding, obsessive, manipulative and generally quite brilliant. Neither of them was a true technical genius; they were tech savvy enough to see potential in the industry and had the acumen to force themselves into the picture and usurp the seemingly omnipotent big boys like IBM. Ultimately they were both revolutionary in their own way - Jobs fused technological innovations with design and pushed them through with good salesmanship while consciously eschewing the stuffy corporate culture of existing tech companies. Gates mastered the art of taking other people's ideas and software, retooling them and making them available to the masses (and ultimately locking the masses into his software) - though, only the beginning of Microsoft's era of dominance is shown here. The film is bookended by a scene that establishes Apple as an also-ran and Gates' company as the 'big brother' like behemoth that IBM was before them. Of course, since the film was made in 99 the image of Gates looming over Jobs on a big screen is today a tad innaccurate - the filmmakers could not have foreseen the rise of the iMac, the iPod, and now the iPhone and the rebirth of Apple as a company whose products are the epitome of cutting edge, functional and stylish technology.

This definitely looks like a TV movie. Ignoring its modest cinematic aspirations, it's fairly informative - it crams a lot in there, though given its modest runtime it also leaves a lot out. I think it succeeds in recreating the milieu of the 'garage based company' revolution full of nerdy tinkerers who were breaking down barriers and doing funky new things that the corporates just couldn't understand. There's a real sense of entrepreneurial spirit on display, and the technology is fairly well (and accurately) represented. The spirit of the people involved, from their geeky love of technology to their non conformist etiquette, is genuine. The personalities of Jobs and Gates is true to what is known about them.

The major problem with the film is that it often feels like a dramatized documentary instead of an actual film, only it isn't in depth enough to pass as a documentary either. It's sort of like a biopic, and the nature of a biopic is that there is no traditional narrative, with the story essentially being composed of the significant events in the subjects' lives. But here it's spread out between many people and companies, and there is no genuine depth to the 'characters', a characteristic that is required of a good biopic. The elements of the story relating to Gates and Jobs' personal lives are both insufficient and excessive at the same time. They are not enough for the two characters to be fleshed out and three dimensional, but they are also so unrelated to the rest of the film that they come across as incongruous and unnecessary. A full on in-depth dramatization of the companies' corporate histories without the tangential personal stuff would probably have been more consistent and interesting. It has to be said that the performances are quite good across the board, with Wyle and Hall doing a pretty good job of mimicking Jobs and Gates - I'd give Hall the edge though.

'Pirates of Silicon Valley' is an interesting film, and one that really brings to life a (summarized) history of the birth of the PC era from the perspectives of two of its most influential personalities. It is very informative and despite it generally being more a dramatization of key events than a conventional movie, it is still fairly entertaining. My own interest in the subject matter may bias me towards enjoying what it has to offer however; the average viewer may walk away feeling a little informed but probably won't be as enthused by what they see as I was. I would recommend it only to those with an interest in the computer industry, as its strength as a film in its own right are questionable.

Erin Brockovich (2000)

Erin Brockovich (2000)

I usually don't like Julia Roberts in anything - Pretty Woman notwithstanding - but I can safely say that she's pretty darned good in this, and dare I say it, endearing. Oscar worthy? Probably not - I think Ellen Burstyn was still robbed for her turn in Requiem for a Dream - but it is, in my humble opinion, Roberts' best performance to date.

Based on a true story, Roberts plays the eponymous Erin Brockovich, a single mother of three with a foul mouth and no qualifications struggling to find employment. She eventually lands a job as an assistant at a law firm run by a man named Ed Masry (Albert Finney). At the same time she enters into a relationship with her friendly biker neighbour George (Aaron Eckhart). Things get interesting when she begins to investigate a case involving the residents of a small town getting sick, and discovers that an energy company nearby has been polluting the local water supply. She then starts a campaign to get the company to compensate the victims, and Masry's firm initiates legal action. A David vs. Goliath story unfolds, one in which Erin has to rally the townspeople together, keep her company committed to the case, and deal with being away from her kids while an increasingly resentful George takes care of them.

This is, I suppose, feel good filmmaking at its finest - if you're in any doubt as to the outcome, you haven't watched enough movies. It's designed to be moving and inspirational as our heroine defies the odds at every turn, rises above her social status and becomes a respected figurehead for her cause. Yeah, it's fairly by the numbers and apart from Erin the rest of the characters are sketchy at best, but it works despite the prosaic writing. And I think that's partly because of the character and the lengths she goes to (how much of this is real I don't know), but mostly it's because of the way Roberts plays her as a completely irreverent and tenacious woman who simply refuses to back down. She's endearing and ultimately great in the role (Roberts should play foul mouthed more often), and so is Albert Finney; the two play off of each other perfectly. Aaron Eckhart does a fair job, but his appearances and impact on the story are fairly minimal. Also worth mentioning are the minor roles, primarily the townsfolk, that are very well cast and convincing across the board.

The film gets a little repetitive after a while and probably runs on a bit too long, but it still held my interest all the way through to its somewhat abrupt climax. The only thing that really took me out of the film were the sometimes overblown for comedic effect scenes where Erin outdoes someone or proves herself; it seemed to be trying too hard to show how awesome she was - such as in her little 'duel' with the other lawyer's assistant - which felt completely unnecessary and a little smug.

Overall, a very good film and worth seeing. Not exceptional in any way, but it avoids feeling bland and generic despite its subject matter (see: A Civil Action) and is consistently entertaining. Roberts' detractors like me will probably be surprised to find her delivering a winning performance. I'd rate 'Erin Brockovich' up there with director Steven Sodebergh's other mainstream films like the Ocean's series; they're not brilliant, but they're well made and engaging.

Jarhead (2005)

Jarhead (2005)

Sam Mendes' follow up to American Beauty and Road to Perdition is a war movie focusing on a bunch of marines during the first Gulf War. It's structured somewhat like Full Metal Jacket, starting off with boot camp before shifting to the 'action' in the Middle East. And I put action in quotes because, for the most part, the film is about soldiers waiting around to see some real combat! All of their training goes to waste as they sit around running drills, going on patrol, and preparing indefinitely while missing out on the killing that they're all clamouring for. All the waiting eventually begins to take its toll on their mental well being.

The film doesn't really go out of its way to be anti war per se, but the absurdity of the situation and a few choice lines and scenes make its stance on the subject quite clear. It's a well crafted (as are all of Mendes' films) and darkly humourous film, and features a fine performance from Jake Gyllenhaal (though I still find it hard to like the guy in anything), but like Road to Perdition it didn't connect with me as much as I had expected. It's good, and worth seeing, but don't expect it to blow you away.

Capote (2005)

Capote (2005)

Less than a week ago I mentioned how traditional 'epic' biopics are less interesting to me than ones that focus on certain key events in a person's life. And now, along comes Capote, a biographical film that covers the period in writer Truman Capote's life when he wrote his magnum opus, the non-fiction novel In Cold Blood. While the film tells a conventional narrative it is very character driven and focuses mostly on the man within the context of the events that occur.

Capote takes place across several years, from 1959 through to the mid 60s. It begins with a girl finding a family (the Clutters) murdered in their farmhouse in a small town in Kansas. It then cuts to New York and the high society world of Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman), whom we see regaling his audience with his witty conversational skills and clearly loving the attention. Later, Capote reads a brief article in the paper about the killing of the Clutter family, and he immediately decides he wants to do an article about it. He heads off to Kansas with his friend Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), and they begin investigating the murder, going from house to house and coming across a bit like Mulder and Scully. Capote isn't interested in who committed the crime, rather he's interested in the impact the killings have had on the town. He manages to befriend the detective in charge of the case, Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper), and plies him for information. Two men are arrested for the crime, and Capote becomes fascinated by one of them - Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.), a man of surprising intelligence and artistic talent.

The rest of the film follows Capote's obsession with his work, which he decides to turn into a full blown novel. He has little doubt that it will be a masterpiece, a new type of novel that he bills the 'nonfiction novel'. In order to write it, he needs to get the inside story from Smith regarding his life and the murders. He does this by arranging for lawyers to continuously appeal the men's guilty verdict so that he can arrange for meetings with Smith in prison. Capote ingratiates himself with Smith, but soon develops a genuine affection for him and sees Smith as a spiritual sibling of sorts because of similarities in their childhood. Despite this, he still manipulates and lies to Smith to get what he needs for the book, and is ultimately faced with a dilemma - if Smith and his accomplice are not executed for their crimes, his book won't have the ending it needs.

Capote is a fascinating film, enough to make me eager to read 'In Cold Blood', as a matter of fact. There's a nice balance between story and character development, with the latter incorporated into the former in such a way that the characters become familiar without any major digressions. The focus is of course on Capote, who is arrogant and ambitious; this coupled with the fact that he's openly gay, of small stature, and effeminate makes for interesting interactions with the people he comes across. His relationship with Harper Lee is a major aspect of the film, and the two have that air of familiarity and comfort about them that you see in close friends. The first half of the film establishes who Capote is; once he meets Smith, the film delves deeper into his character and his past, as his artistic ambition wrestles for dominance with his newfound friendship. This conflict is the major focus of the film, as Capote exploits Smith, but not without compunction. The script also dwells on Smith and humanizes him, which makes Capote's choices more difficult and his eventual actions more despicable.

The film is fantastic as a character piece, but it is a bit slow paced, and despite not being overly long becomes a bit repetitive. There are several scenes with Capote and Lee questioning townspeople, several scenes with Capote at social gatherings, and many with him speaking with Perry Smith. While these scenes do build on and develop the character and narrative, they are... well, repetitive. There's not much interesting visually, though the bleak photography and barren landscapes figure prominently and effectively establish a quite dour atmosphere (appropriate, given the subject matter).

The most talked about aspect of this film is Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance as Capote, and justifiably so. Capote is what the film is about, and Hoffman manages to overcome the inherently 'showy' nature of the role - the conspicuous demeanour and distinctive voice - and make the character complex and compelling. Despite being an arrogant ass and a bit of a bastard, it's hard not to empathize with Capote in the end, and that's largely thanks to Hoffman's brilliant performance. Clifton Collins Jr. also does an excellent job making Smith sympathetic and even likable while still seeming dangerous and capable of bloody violence. Catherine Keener, who only features prominently in the first half of the film, is great as the self-assured and dignified Harper Lee. The interactions between these three actors are terrific and add considerably to the film, which is a huge plus given that said interactions comprise a significant portion of the running time. Chris Cooper also makes a solid appearance, as does Bruce Greenwood as Capote's lover (though it's never made explicit).

In conclusion, Capote's a very good film that features excellent performances and an engaging storyline, but which suffers from being a bit slow paced and which could maybe do with a bit more humour (what little there is, is quite funny). As a result it's probably not the most re-watchable film, but it's well worth watching at least once, and is quite memorable - it definitely stuck in my mind.

Malcolm X (1992)

Malcolm X (1992)

I've never been big on 'biopics'; I find them interesting, but there's something about the formula of depicting a summarized life story that fails to engage me. I personally prefer biographical stories that focus on a few key events and aren't epic in terms of encompassing all major aspects of a person's life. But hey, that's just me. The Aviator and Ray are two recent examples of biopics that I'm not enthusiastic about despite the fact that they are both good films (actually, The Aviator is pretty terrific). Often regarded as Spike Lee's best film, Malcolm X is yet another excellent biopic that I enjoyed but can't really claim to be a fan of.

Malcolm X tells the story of black nationalist leader Malcolm X (Denzel Washington). Born Malcolm Little, the film divides the story of Malcolm X's life into three distinct segments. The first is during his youth as a burglar and drug dealer. The second is during a stint in prison, where he discovers Islam and becomes a devoted member of the Black Muslim organization the Nation of Islam. The third and longest segment deals with his life after prison, where he becomes a very public figure and the most prominent spokesman for the Nation of Islam. Each segment covers key events and people during those years in Malcolm's life.

Malcolm X is an excellent film in every respect. It's informative and draws you into the life of a fascinating individual. It's certainly brought the man to my attention - prior to watching this, my knowledge on him was sketchy at best. Now... well, it's much less sketchy; I'll be sure to remedy my lack of knowledge even further in the near future. The film is more than just a summary of Malcolm X's life, it's also a detailed study of the man - we can see how and why he changes and ends up doing what he does.

The film doesn't feel sketchy, mostly because most sequences are fleshed out quite well. This does lead to a lengthy 3.5 hour running time, but it doesn't feel overlong (lengthy running times are fairly normal for biopics, but 3.5 is longer than average). It certainly isn't lacking in depth; my outline of the film barely scratches the surface, as there's a lot that is depicted within those main three acts that defy easy summarizing. I don't think there's anything significant from Malcolm X's life that isn't at least touched upon. Lee's film is immersive and informative, and while it is certainly serious it also manages to be quite colourful, entertaining and funny. It's very atmospheric and evocative of its time and place, from the costumes and sets to the music.

The best aspect of the film in my mind is, without question, Denzel Washington. He's always good in pretty much everything, but I'd say that this is the best performance of his that I've seen, and looking over his filmography I can't imagine any other role in which he could possibly be better. As Malcolm X, he's just incredibly charismatic and full of conviction. The rest of the cast is excellent as well, particularly Angela Bassett, Delroy Lindo, and Spike Lee.

So, in short, it's an excellent film and well worth watching. It may not have changed my feelings towards biopics, and I wouldn't call myself a fan, but I can't deny that it was one of the most enjoyable biopics that I've seen.

The Queen (2006)

The Queen (2006)

The Queen has sort of sprung up as an awards contender this year, and more than a few commentators have expressed surprise. I'm not a commentator, but I'll add my surprise to the list - I'm surprised people are surprised, because it's actually very good and because films that aren't as good have been award contenders in the past. It isn't a particularly brilliant film, but it's quite unique and revolves around some very strong performances, with Helen Mirren in particular being exceptional (she's definitely deserving of the accolades).

The Queen is, as the title suggests, about the Queen. To be more specific, it's a biographical look at a particularly difficult week for Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) - the week following the death of Princess Diana. The film begins with the victory of Tony Blair's (Michael Sheen) Labour party in the 1997 general elections. It depicts the first official meeting between the new Prime Minister and the Queen, which immediately highlights the tension that exists between the relatively young Blair who promises change and modernization, and the distinctly 'old fashioned' monarch.

Months later, Princess Diana is killed in a car crash. Blair and his team are quick to gauge public sentiment and respond quickly and appropriately to the incident by making a formal statement. The Royal Family, who are on holiday in Scotland, treat the matter as a private affair and refuse to react publicly (the bad blood between the Royal Family and the Princess is also alluded to). As the public react to the incident with an unprecedented display of grief, Blair's popularity goes through the roof because of his display of sympathy and compassion. As the week progresses and the (public) funeral proceedings draw near, the monarchy is slowly vilified for their failure to react. It becomes Blair's responsibility to convince the Queen, who holds steadfastly to her belief that the matter is being overblown, that it is in the best interest of the Royal Family to respond.

The film essentially revolves around two characters, Tony Blair and the Queen, but it is the Queen (and by extension the monarchy) that is at the heart of the story. Blair represents a counterpoint to the monarchy (the new vs. the old) and acts as a stimulus for the Queen, constantly making her aware of how the situation is spiralling out of control. The primary story thread is about the Queen's gradual realization and acceptance of the fact that the world around her has changed, and that the monarchy has become completely out of touch with the rest of the nation. The grieving on display is incomprehensible for someone who grew up during the War and who was brought up to be stoic in the face of adversity. She is forced to deal with the conflicting internal pressure from her family and the external pressure from Blair and the public.

'The Queen' is a dialogue heavy drama that revolves around performances. It primarily features 'stagey' indoor scenes and archival footage, with a few outdoor sequences. Visually it's quite uninteresting, save for the production and design that emphasizes the differences between Blair's modern, down to earth world and the quaint and archaic world of the Royals. Director Stephen Frears doesn't really bring much to the table that isn't script or performance based. Speaking of which, the script, regardless of how accurate it is (let's face it, most of it has to be made up), does a fine job of representing the different viewpoints and characters, and is laced with a healthy does of humour throughout. In many ways, the tone of the film veers towards the comical - the behaviour of both Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) and Prince Philip (James Cromwell) seem true but are nonetheless hilarious, and the rigidly formal interactions between the Queen and the hapless Blair are almost laugh out loud funny despite not being overtly comical. Perhaps the quaintness of it all is just inherently funny in this day and age, but there's no doubt that the filmmakers pushed it into comedy territory.

Helen Mirren is fantastic as the titular Queen. Her portrayal is full of subtlety - there are no big emotional scenes. She's full of 'stiff upper lip' stoicism but also lets through enough emotion to let the audience know what's going through her mind, whether it's anger and frustration, grief, or a sense of isolation and loss. All this while being quite accurate (at least to my untrained eye) to the mannerisms of the real Queen. Michael Sheen is also excellent as Tony Blair, and captures the quirks of the UK Prime Minister quite well despite being a tad too wimpy in some of the early scenes. James Cromwell, Helen McCrory (as Cherie Blair), Alex Jennings and Sylvia Syms (as the Queen Mother) all turn in very strong (and often very funny) supporting performances.

Overall I'd say The Queen is a very good film that deals with fairly unique subject matter - or rather, it deals with subject matter (Royalty) in a unique contemporary setting. While the film is memorable and full of excellent performances and writing, it still lacks that certain 'something' that can make a small scale drama like this seem like a grand achievement. Worth a watch, but not really a must see.