After the first Inbetweeners movie making a stack of money, a sequel has to made, this time with a bigger budget and set abroad. Yet another young person’s right of passage is explored, in the last film it was the lads holiday, in this film it is the gap year in which they travel Australia.
Will and Simon are both at Uni. Will has not made any friends and Simon is having a hard time with his girlfriend who has become very obsessive and possessive to the point where he wants to break up with her. When Neil meets up with Will and Simon, they learn that Jay has embarked on a gap year trip to Australia. Jay of course is still a compulsive liar and has exaggerated his experience there. He tells them he is a resident DJ and owner of a major club in Sydney, lives in a mansion and sleeps with many women. When the boys get to Australia, they quickly learn this is far from the truth. Jay is hiding the fact he wants to get back with his girlfriend who works far in the outback somewhere. Will bumps into a childhood friend Katie, who is of course, attractive and vibrant and becomes the object of Will’s affections. Learning that Katie is going to Byron Bay, Will convinces the rest of the gang to go with him. During their experience, you get what you more or less expect. There are sight gags that involve penis’s or poo, casual sexism, the accidental killing of a dolphin and cringe-worthy acoustic guitar performance from Will to impress his ‘hippy’ friend. Sometimes the jokes are funny, but sometimes it goes a penis too far or is ill thought out opting for tactless vulgarity instead of wit. I think where the film does well is it’s depiction of posh travellers on a gap year who think they are spiritually enlightened hippy’s which is embodied in Katie’s character. This stereotype is also more embodied in Ben, who is a dreadlocked posh boy and Will’s rival for Katie’s affections. He likes to out-do other people’s traveller stories by recounting something comparatively more intrepid to the point where it is not true and tries to humiliate or patronise Will at every opportunity. When Will realises that Katie and Ben are not his type of people, his articulate derision of the pretentious and the pseudo spiritual makes you want to cheer as I found it rings true, being as I travelled Australia myself. It was nice to recognise the Byron Bay location where they filmed, which was a hostel called ‘The Arts Factory Lodge’, where I stayed during my time in Byron Bay. There are other scenes that were surprisingly well done, like when the four boys drive in the middle of the outback in search of Jays ex-girlfriend then run out of petrol and become stranded without any water or food. The scene where they accept their fate and all hold hands is surprisingly touching.
The film had the same problems as the last film. I feel it works better as a TV series where there seems to be a rhythm with the jokes. Here, they have to have bigger ideas and with a bigger budget. This takes the authenticity out of what is a simple TV premise and makes it into something it is not. The jokes are more crass and after a while, it starts to become more tiresome. Also, the last two minutes of the film, they squeezed in an entire Asia trip which explored all the lazy and obvious stereotypes you can think of. How many films have made that stale Thailand and lady boys association.
The writers don’t seem to know how to write decent female characters. Every female in the film fits the mould of a negative male fantasy where they are psychotic, pretentious or generally annoying. At the end, it seems like another one will be made. I hope this does not happen as the boys are not at an in between age anymore and I think they have milked this franchise as far as it will go.
After making ‘Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind’, a film that had heart, creativity, was emotionally engaging as well as occasionally funny, Michel Gondry has been getting steadily worse over the years. ‘The Green Hornet’ was further proof in my opinion that Gondry is a one film wonder and is better suited to music videos. I would like to think this film would prove me wrong, but it didn’t. It just irritated me with it’s quirky and overly random ideas and a playfully twee tone which I have grown to hate.
Romain Duris stars as the wealthy bachelor Colin who lives in a converted train where pretty much anything turns into an animation. He has a live in lawyer who is also a chef named Nicolas (Omar Sy). He also has a friend named Chick (Gad Elmaleh) who has an unhealthy obsession with an existential philosopher Jean Sol Partre (obviously a play on the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre). In his house, he has a door bell that comes to life when someone rings and it crawls around the room until someone steps on it. Also, people’s legs go all noodley when they dance, Colin’s shoes run away from him, there is a piano that makes cocktails and many more. There is not a single scene that goes by without multiple visual quirks or whacky, random events which just happen for no reason. It is as if Gondry made an endless list of any daft idea he can think of and decided to cram every single one of them into this film to annoy his audience into boredom. It is very tiresome after the first 20 minutes, and most of them are not funny. Why some members of the audience were laughing at every little thing that happens really escapes me. All these ideas did not add much to the characters or the story which for me starved the film of any emotion when Colin meets Chloe (Audrey Tautau), falls in love and then goes on a date in what looks like a space ship attached to a crane. I found all the falling in love parts just mainly annoying and airy fairy. Too much twee makes John want to smash the screen into silence, just like Colin wants to smash a radio into silence when he hears a cheesy power ballad.
Later in the film, it does take a progressively darker tone as Chloe accidently inhales a water lily which starts to grow in her lung. When things go all sad and Colin has to work extremely random jobs to fund Chloe’s recovery, I did not feel much in the way of emotion, I just felt mainly annoyance that these daft ideas were still happening in rapid fire pace. When the film ends, I just felt exhausted. That was enough quirkiness for me for one day (Although because of my occupation, I had to sit through this 3 times). Also I was surprised by the downer ending. As the relationship gets more difficult between Colin and Chloe as well as everyone else in the film, the hues become gradually more pallid until the final scenes where they are black and white. Some of the scenes looked very good and colourful, but for me, more suited to a music video.
I feel the film was trying to say something more deeper and meaningful. Was it some kind of dream like allegorical tale of life. It may be vague, but it was all I can come up with as I was so distracted by all the stupid stuff. Sure a lot of hard work has gone into making all the animation and effects happen on screen, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it! It does not give me great pleasure to say that this is in my opinion yet another mis-step from Gondry. I don’t think he will make another great film on par with Eternal Sunshine. I’m sure he will still attract a devoted legion of fans who are into the quirky and the twee, but I shall not make much of an effort in future.
Recently, I have become a fan of both Tahar Rahim and Lea Seydoux purely because of their powerhouse performances in previous films. Despite the strength of expected top notch performances by the leads and their fizzing on-screen chemistry, it somehow didn’t do enough to sustain my interest.
Main character Gary (Tahar Rahim) Gets himself a job at a nuclear plant as a decontamination sub-contractor. His job is of constant risk as he works around radiation. During his time working at the plant, he starts a passionate affair with his bosses wife Karole. There are many analogies present in this movie, mainly the feeling of love is comparative to the feeling of what is referred to as ‘the dose’ of radiation when overexposed to it. The element of risk is analogised by both the daily potential danger of working around radiation and the illicit affair with Karole. Karole cannot take this type of risk after a while and chooses to stay with her fiancé as a means of security. The love scenes were well done and in no way excessive. All scenes take place in an idyllic countryside setting away from the poisonous, polluting air of the power plant, however the sound and the sight of the plant are always present as a reminder of the dangerous situation they are both in
I think the problem with the film for me was more tonal than anything. It felt rather dull and monotone throughout. I don’t think I found the symbolism that interesting and I don’t think I found Gary very interesting either. Once it got to the end of the film I thought it is a film I will forget about in the near future.
This title reminds me of another recent film where the tile comprises a characters first name, which is ‘Mud’. Joe may have similar character attributes like a dark past and a will to change his life, but Joe is more unhinged. This may be because of the fact he is played by Nicolas Cage, an actor with a notoriety for on-screen freak outs which have mostly become comical to many. Here, he does give a more restrained performance and it is nice to see him play a good role effectively after many recent poor choices to pay the bills.
David Gordon Green I feel has taken a step up here from last years overly subdued film ‘Prince Avalanche’. I see this as his return to form. One of the strongest aspect of this films is the performances, not only by Nicolas Cage, but by Tye Sheridan also. He plays Gary, a 15 year old kid from an impoverished family. His Dad Wade is very desperate, cruel, sadistic and a drunk. He beats up Gary any chance he gets and tries anything he can to get money, including taking it from Gary who has worked hard for it. Gary gets a job working for Joe. Joe runs an illegal operation poisoning trees as the law states that you cannot cut down trees that are alive. There is a lot of symbolic possibility in this particular occupation. My interpretation is this represents people, especially the characters in this setting who have nothing to look forward but a slow, steady decline because of a hostile and harsh society. Also, this town is full of desperate, uneducated people who need to do any kind of work. It is a very bleak state of affairs, but this film is not afraid to show it. Gary proves he is hard working and trustworthy towards Joe, however, Wade is making the situation more difficult as Joe knows he is an abusive drunk. Joe has spent some time in jail and wants to live a peaceful life so at first chooses not to get involved.
As the film goes on, a connection is formed between Gary and Joe. They start to hang out more and Joe becomes a role model, albeit not entirely a good role model, but a step up from Wade all the same. Of course, the more Joe Connects with Gary, the more Joe’s life starts to spiral out of control as the violent past starts to surface. This works it’s way to violent confrontations in the end and the symbolism of a new start for Gary when he gets a job planting trees.
Like any other meditative David Gordon Green film, the cinematography is beautiful. Nature is usually a huge presence in most of his films and here he portrays it in all it’s darkness and light, not only through the poisoning and planting of trees, but through the dogs and how they are used as a deterrent to intruders and a companion to the lonely characters of this film. It presents the themes of cruelty, masculinity, extreme desperate measures to temporarily escape poverty, or in a brutal scene involving Wade and a homeless drunk, just simply wanting a drink. The characters Joe and Gary have a lot of depth and are very convincing together on screen. There are a few scenes when they are drunk together which is a point when it moves into comedy. Nicolas Cage turns on his comical acting without over doing it and has some moments of vintage Cage freak outs, but again with some restraint. One of the only flaws was the character Willie-Russell (Ronnie Gene Blevins) who is the town’s bully and coward. His character is a little cliché and he plays up to that typical bad guy like he does in his other films. That said, this is without a doubt David Gordon Green’s best film since his days of making films like ‘George Washington’ and ‘All the Real Girls’.
The lengthy title did get me excited for a second. What I did get was a sub standard ‘Forrest Gump’ featuring a very old man in Sweden. It does draw a few similarities from Forrest Gump – Firstly, it uses the same don’t-think-too-much kind of simplistic approach adopted by Tom Hanks’ character in the form of ‘Life is like a box of chocolates’, but in this film, it is re-worded as ‘Things just are!’. When central character Allan Karlsson climbs out of the window of his old folks home and simply just walks away, it starts a random adventure involving a suitcase full of money he stole from a biker gang. Allan meets a bunch of oddball characters who help him evade the potentially violent biker gang while he recounts his colourful past which includes lots of an unhealthy obsession with dynamite, unwittingly being involved with Stalin’s death and the creation of the atomic bomb. Again, another similarity to Forrest Gump as it is about a character who by sheer chance manages to become an integral part of major historical events.
The results of these involvements and the general tone is mildly amusing at best and trying to be original and imaginative, but instead succeeding in being an arduous final third of the film. Allan’s character just wonders around, oblivious to the world around him and manages to have a very colourful and interesting life. At least Forrest Gump provided some joy, laughs and some sadness. 100 year old man… provided none of those!
Lambert Wilson and Fabrice Luchini star as Gauthier and Serge respectively in this French comedy drama about two egocentric, narcissistic actors who have the chance to put their past grievances aside. Gauthier is the more successful actor as he is in a central role in a popular TV series, whereas Serge has quit acting and has decided to live as a hermit on an island. Gauthier turns up to his home and offers him a part in the play Le Misanthrope. Serge agrees to practice reading the part for a week and give an answer after the week is over. During the course of the week, they bicker about which parts they want to play, how the words should be said and they compete over the local feisty but attractive Italian woman Francesca (Maya Sansa).
During the course of the movie, it becomes increasingly apparent that Serge is playing Gauthier for a fool and wants to try and exact some kind of revenge on him by subtly denting his ego. Could Serge be the misanthrope like Moliere’s play? It seems that he does read the part very well and he always wants to play that particular part.
The two central performances are very good as it is a film about acting. They are very complex and masculine characters who play well together. The film has a few light comic touches as well as the melodramatic element. The problem with it is it’s not entirely memorable. It seems like a bit of light entertainment to pass the time, and once it is over, the film will be eventually forgotten. It still managed to surpass the low expectations I had when entering the cinema at least.