Movie review - "Thor: Love and Thunder" (2022) **

 Chris Hemsworth is animated. Natalie Portman seems bored, even dying, Russell Crowe has fun with a Greek accent. Christian Bale is professional. Matt Damon has a pointless cameo. There's lots of cameos. Tessa Thompson is wasted. I liked the Bale-daughter stuff. That was about it. Thor and Jane aren't really a great couple if they'd wanted to make it work they would've made it work.

Movie review - "Everyone Says I Love You" (1996) **1/2

 This is an end of an era film for Woody Allen in a way. The last time he really experimented with form, doing a musical. (He used to try to mix up the form every few movies - meta rom com, sci fi, Fellini-esque, pseudo documentary - but after this basically stopped taking visual risks).  It's a lively piece with some fun numbers and tunes.

It was also the first time he had some spectacularly awful casting - Julia Roberts and Woody are an utterly mismatched pair. I love Julia Roberts, her acting is lovely but she's totally not suited to being with Woody; it started a depressingly long trend where he was teamed with much younger actors and where that age difference wasn't the point of the story. The flipside of that is that this has some really nice casting - Drew Barrymore's role was something of a turning point for her, she'd normally played vixens as a grown up but the "good girl" type she plays here would be a lot more lucrative for her; Natasha Lyonne had her first lead role with this; it's early parts too for Natalie Portman, Billy Crudup and Edward Norton. Goldie Hawn plays the Mia Farrow role. Tim Roth is hilarious as an ex con.

The musical conceit has the actual actors singing - like what Peter Bogdanovich tried to do with At Long Last Love. Like that this is a shaggy dog story among the rich - Allen's feels like it should have been set in the 30s, with its (mostly) super rich protagonists living a la la lifestyle, but was set in the present in day, presumably for cost. 

It ambles along. There's some funny jokes. The last half hour is  a drag because the key subplots have resolved (Barrymore is back with Norton, Roberts has dumped Allen) and the climactic number is between Allen and Hawn (who we've hardly spent time with). It was having a good time until then.

Some scenes make me a little awkward, I admit, considering the allegations against Allen: Natalie Portman running around on the beach in a swimsuit when she was very young; super young Lyonne being sexually precocious at 17 (I think - though is she meant to be older than Drew Barrymore?) and telling her father she wants to get marriage.

Movie review - "Thor: The Dark World" (2013) **1/2

 Absolutely fine. Just a little dull. Kat Jennings pops off the screen as does Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth. Rene Russo is flat, as is the villain, Thor's friends and, most suprisingly Natalie Portman. Couldn't they make a decent love story out of this?

Loud, expensive, some decent bits.

Script review - "Jane Got a Gun" by Brian Duffield (warning: spoilers)

Tight, simple, effective. I enjoy Duffield's scripts. Lots of white space interesting characters. Reading this, I can see why people wanted to make it and it's confusing (yet also depressingly predictable) that they dicked around with it. Great twist in that the lead had kids who were stolen.

Movie review - "Annihilation" (2017) **1/2

Stylish handsome looking gals-on-a-mission sci fi film from Alex Garland which gives another choice support role to Jennifer Jason Leigh, having a bit of a career renaissance at the moment.

It's smart, but the most effective bits for me were good old fashioned scares - an attack on a hut at night being particularly effective. The acting is strong and Natalie Portman very good.

It's arty and I respect it for that but I do admit to being confused and not liking it that much.

Movie review - "Heat" (1995) ****1/2 (re-viewing)

-->

Some random thoughts from re-watching this film

1) Al Pacino's hair is really outstanding

2) I've never eaten ham as finely cut as Pacino's performance in this film. Not a criticism. It's really outstanding ham.

3) Surely one of the best endings of all time.

4) I always totally forget Natalie Portman is in this film and has quite a meaty role.

5) The Dennis Haysbert subplot is brilliant and really holds up.

6) There are few more thankless support parts than the roles of Al Pacino's support crew. Unlike Bobby de Niro's three dimensional awesome crew, the non-Al cops just spit forth exposition and ask Al questions. If they weren't cast with Village People diversity (black man, Indian, white guy with moustache) I'd have trouble telling them apart. There's some random young guy who hangs out the back who looks like he's there on work experience.

7) The Waingro subplot is by necessity really dark and unpleasant but it still remains not-fun to watch.

8) So much stunningly good acting from everyone - I don't think Val Kilmer was ever better...

9) Al Pacino takes a hell of a risk shooting at Tom Sizemore. Usually when this happens in real life the kid ends up dead.

I've seen this film maybe ten times now. I do fast forward through some bits now. But what a masterpiece.

Movie review – “Your Highness” (2011) **

I can see why people would like this especially if they like James Franco and/or Danny McBride – a spoof of Lord of the Rings type fantasy, with plenty of quests, knights, royalty and danger. But too many of the jokes repeat – references to masturbation and swearing within period dialogue - and it runs out of ideas, downing in an orgy of special effects at the finale. Danny McBride's comedy is a one note samba - he doesn't have the warmth of a Seth Rogen - and Natalie Portman, while pretty, isn't a natural comic - and it's distractingly obvious that she's using a body double.

Movie review – “No Strings” (2010) **1/2

Is Natalie Portman a movie star? Pretty? Absolutely. A good actor? Yes. Likeable? Definitely. But can she carry a not-much part on the basis of her personality – like a say, Sandra Bullock or Julia Roberts? Well, she’s not quite there but she does well enough and teams amiably with Ashton Kutcher, who feels more at home (playing a role not unfamiliar to him - to wit, a dopey, big-hearted dufus). Ivan Reitman’s direction is erratic – sometimes the piece struggles, especially with the handling of the supporting characters (why is that blonde doctor [Cary Elwes] even in the film? Or the black guy who runs the coffee shop?). 

 

But then sometimes it all kicks in and really works – Los Angeles actually looks pretty, I really liked the use of Temper Trap at the end, the leads seem to like each other, there are some terrific support performances (Lake Bell especially - a totally recognisable TV type, hilarious -; also Kevin Kline and the blonde friend of Portman). Amiable, romantic fun.

Movie review – “Thor” (2011) ***

It seems to have been ages since Ken Branagh was associated with a big Hollywood movie but his childhood enthusiasm for the comic book apparently helped get him the gig on this noisy, expensive action tale. And he does a pretty good job, too – taking it seriously but not pompously, the story runs along, the acting is fine. Only one scene - with Natalie Portman and her gang looking for Thor in the hospital - with the camera swooping around, did things jar. 

 

Chris Hemsworth impresses as Thor - an easy role to mock, but he plays it to the manor born, has obviously spent a lot of time in the gym, and is very believable. Anthony Hopkins could play his part in his sleep, Stellan Skarsgaard and especially Rene Russo are under-used, Portman is pretty is a not much role - but more crucially her romance with Hemsworth is dangerously undercooked. It needed two more scenes, romantic scenes to establish they had a real connection, so the bit at the end had more emotional pull. (Actually come to think of it the roles of his friends are under-used too.)

 

The effects and design are good, especially the stuff that takes place on Asgard is great. Fish out of water comedy is surprisingly not really dealt with. Kat Dennings impresses as Portman's wise-cracking younger friend, a role normally given to actors less good looking, older and/or black. Idris Elba has great authority as the gatekeeper (good on them for trying to racially mix things up in Asgard). No classic of the genre, but not a disaster and an enjoyable theme park ride.

Movie review – “Black Swan” (2010) ****1/2

Excellent horror film/psycho thriller, reminiscent of those Jimmy Sangster-written films of the 60s, and works of Roman Polanski. Natalie Portman deserves every award she gets for her impressive work here as the ballerina who goes bonkers (NB are there any films out there about well-adjusted ballerinas?); there’s wonderful support by Barbara Hershey (crazy stage mother), Vincent Cassel (sexually harassing director), Winona Ryder (don’t buy her as a ballerina but we don’t see her dance and she does great crazy) and Mila Kunis (the best-adjusted of the lot). I felt it slumped around the middle; I couldn’t quite put my finger on why, maybe it was the fact Portman was so passive most of the time, just deteriorating and going mad, it dragged a bit. But once her descent gets going it’s tremendously gripping; I was on the edge of my seat a lot of the time. Extremely well directed, powerful atmosphere, very hot lesbian love scene.

Movie review – “The Darjeeling Limited” (2007) ***

“Irritating yet moving” would be the best way to sum up my feelings towards this Wes Anderson opus. It’s the sort of movie that if you get into you’ll love – I couldn’t quite into it but appreciated the quality of the actors and they different take it had on things. Even Americans in indie-ish films still come across as boorish wankers when overseas. The acting is good across the block - Natalie Portman takes her kit off; such is the lure of indie cred.

Movie review – “Heat” (1995) ****1/2

Ranks with Last of the Mohicians as Michael Mann’s masterpiece (to date), a powerful tale of the pursuit of Robert de Niro by Al Pacino. Like Point Break or Bad Boys II (or Hot Fuzz) there is a tang of homoeroticism about it – will Al and Bobby fall in love with each other so much that they can no longer do their jobs? It’s stunningly directed and extremely well acted, with some knock out action sequences (the opening robbery, the street shoot out, the final death) and an awesome movie score (this was Moby’s first really wide exposure to the punters).

In the DVD commentary Michael Mann describes de Niro’s character as a sociopath; I’d disagree – for all Mann’s research on the criminal world de Niro is very human and likeable: it’s not his fault the robbery goes wrong, he’s clearly superior to crooks like Waingro and Van Zandt, we never see him do anything really bad like the Tom Sizemore character does, he’s loyal to his friends and loves his partner, he’s very smart (only an overpowering desire for revenge stops him from getting away).

I also like how for the first half the film Mann keeps having to find cool things for Pacino to do until he can actually start kicking arse: root his hot (younger wife), bamboozle a witness, click his fingers and look cool. I originally preferred de Niro’s performance to Pacino’s because it was more contained, but now I’m used to Pacino’s and quite enjoy it. Magnificent final moments.

Movie review – “Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith” (2005) ***1/2

I would classify this as the third best in the six movies, better than Jedi because of its powerful finale when the sh_t goes down: Anakin goes evil and kills Samuel L Jackson then all the young Jedi (but stop saying “younglings”), the Jedi are wiped out, democracy ends, Obi Wan has to kill (or nearly kill) his apprentice. It is great stuff, even if Hayden Christensen’s acting remains crappy, Natalie Portman is rendered a wimpering cipher (watch the thing that covers her up when she gives birth – there are no vaginas in space). Ian McDairmind is very good, Christopher Lee probably should have been killed off in the previous film and the gimmick of Yoda fighting is a bit tired second time round.

Movie review - "Closer" (2005) ***

Patrick Marber's play obviously would have worked wonderfully on stage, because it retains a fair bit of power on screen. Mike Nichols is traditionally one of the most respectful adapters of plays to the screen, and this does work on a level. Where is falls down, I think, lies in two things: (a) the intimacy that works well on stage, with the people actually there, doesn't impact as well on screen, which depends more on visuals and story (b) the casting - Clive Owen is brilliant and blows everyone away, Jude Law tries hard and gives a fine performance but it would have been better had someone been cast who was brilliant - ditto Ports and Julia Roberts, and the film really struggles having not one but two Americans who just happen to be in the story.

Movie review - "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" (1998) ***

Watching the film several years after its debut was an interesting experience: it holds up OK, but is still irritating. There are positives: Liam Neeson and Ewen McGregor add some class as jedis, Darth Maul is a top notch villain and their fight at the end a worthy addition to the films (in previous jedis the fighters had always been mismatched - here its three at the top of their game), its kind of clever how the future Emperor lures everyone into his trap, Natalie Portman is beautiful, it moves fast and there is plenty of action and explosions, the final ceremony is rousing, John Williams' score in good shape.

OK, now for the negatives - you know the film isn't going to be strong when the heroes disappear into the "ventilator shaft" within the first few minutes, Jar Jar Binks is irritating, Natalie Portman gives a poor performance, the much-vaunted CGI special effects look at times like simple animation (models at least have "weight"), it's lazy how they try to incorporate R2D2 and C3PO into the story (a little kid in the middle of nowhere needs to build a protocol droid), its irritating how the Force is "in the blood, and very dodgy how the kid gets involved in the battle at the end just like in a video game.

The whole film feels as if Lucas was wrestling between his genuine filmmaking gifts and his desire to make a much cash as possible by shoving in "audience pleasing" elements (characters from the earlier films who don't automatically belong here, video game friendly action sequences).