Stay

...

Rating 2¾


Directed by Marc Forster

Written by David Benioff

Starring Ewan McGregor (Dr Sam Foster), Ryan Gosling (Henry Letham), Naomi Watts (Lila Culpepper), Elizabeth Reaser (Athena), Bob Hoskins (Dr Leon Patterson), B D Wong (Dr Ren), Kate Burton (Mrs Letham), Janeane Garofalo (Dr Beth Levy) and Michael Gaston (Sheriff Kennelly)


When his colleague Dr Beth Levy goes on sick leave Dr Sam Foster takes over the psychiatric treatment of Henry Letham, a college student. Henry tells Foster that he plans to commit suicide, even giving him a date and time, and seems to be able to foretell future events. Foster becomes increasingly obsessed by his enigmatic patient, but at the cost of cracks in his relationship with his girlfriend Lila Culpepper, who once attempted suicide herself. Then time begins to fragment as things real and things imagined start to blur.

...


Marc Forster is the German-Swiss director of ‘Monster’s Ball’ and more recently ‘Quantum of Solace’, the latest addition to the James Bond franchise. ‘Stay’, his 2005 follow-up to the multi-Academy Award-nominated ‘Finding Neverland’, received mixed and generally negative reviews. It has a 27% rotten rating at Rotten Tomatoes from 117 reviews and grossed just $8.3 million at the box office against a production budget estimated to have been as high as $50 million. Several reviewers criticised the film’s conclusion, commenting that it made everything that preceded it seem pointless. Some accused the film of being little more than a blatant rip-off of David Lynch, although he is certainly not the only obvious point of reference. Think a mixture of ‘Mulholland Drive’ and ‘Don’t Look Now’, with a sprinkling of ‘Donnie Darko’ on top, just for starters.

It is pretentious and it’s presented in a very calculated manner, which is certainly slickly done, although ultimately rather shallow. It put me in mind of several other films, without ever forging its own identity. Having said that, although the film never really built on its premise, I did quite enjoy it, if perhaps not enough to give too much thought to guessing where it was going or dwelling on it much afterwards.

In the end, the film is style over substance and it isn’t as clever as it probably would like us to think, but it obviously caught me at a moment when I was happy to go with that.

Review posted 5 December 2009


...

King Kong (Peter Jackson version)

...

Rating 3


Directed by Peter Jackson

Written by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, based on a story by Merian C Cooper and Edgar Wallace

Starring Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody Jack Black, Andy Serkis and Jamie Bell


I can quote the exact date on which I went to see Peter Jackson’s remake of ‘King Kong’ at the cinema. It was Saturday 17 December 2005. I know this because I posted a message online that same day in response to a series of negative comments made by another poster. He identified many problems with the film, but his biggest criticism was saved for the performance of Naomi Watts -- reprising the Fay Wray role as Ann Darrow.

I will return to her performance, but first I need to take a step back. Having now had the opportunity to watch the film for a second time, my opinion of it is exactly the same as when I watched it at the cinema.

The film neatly splits into three parts, the opening sequence of scenes that takes us from New York City to Skull Island; the middle section on Skull Island (apparently, to be entirely accurate, it should be called Skull Mountain) when we are introduced to Kong; and the closing scenes back in New York City. It’s a very long film and many people have commented that it is too long. I would tend to agree, but I am probably out of step about the areas that need to be trimmed of fat.

For many, the opening hour is simply too long, too slow moving, too inconsequential and too boring. They are waiting to meet Kong. They are waiting for the special effects fest to kick in. They are waiting for someone or something to kick ass. Naomi Watts and that fat guy from ‘School of Rock’ are just getting in the way. Hey, the fat guy isn’t even being funny!

I love the opening hour. The tedium starts when we are on Skull Island – and specifically because of two scenes that are sequenced back to back. The first scene has Kong fighting not one but three T-Rex in defence of Ann. It goes on for what seems like an eternity -- on and on and on and on. One T-Rex and a much quicker end to the fight would have suited me fine.

Immediately after this we get the sequence down in the ravine when various hideous gigantic creepy-crawlies attack Jack Driscoll, Carl Denham and other characters. I know the inclusion of this scene is very important from Peter Jackson’s standpoint because it effectively restores a famous scene cut from the original following a preview screening and now presumably lost. However, apart from being icky and full of nasty beasties, following on from the Kong/T-Rex fight as it does, it creates an enormously long dead spot in the film when the narrative stands still and all we really get is what seems to me to be a gigantic waste of money spent on special effects.

On the subject of special effects, a lot of research was carried out to enable the New York City skyline to be recreated exactly as it was in 1933 and this took up a large chunk of the budget for special effects work. It could be argued that relatively few viewers of the film would be aware of this or bothered by it and, therefore, it was a waste of money. A part of me was inclined to think this, but there is something special about watching the film and knowing what we are seeing is the genuine cityscape as it was more than 70 years ago, even if it is just a computer-generated illusion.

One last mention of the special effects: when I was watching the film at the cinema I noticed that although the effects were mostly stunning, a few were inexplicably cheap and shoddy looking. The same thing happened when I watched the DVD. I thought this rather odd.

So, what about the performances? The film is brilliantly cast. I am not entirely convinced about the performance of Andy Serkis as the ship’s cook (he is also, of course, Kong), which is another piece of over-the-top pantomime acting similar to his turn in ‘Deathwatch’, but presumably this is what was asked of him. Concentrating on the three lead actors, I cannot think of anyone more suited to the roles than Naomi Watts, Jack Black (as Carl Denham) and Adrien Brody (as Jack Driscoll).

I’ll concentrate on Naomi Watts because… well, she’s Naomi Watts.

Is there a better actor working in Hollywood right now? She also has whatever it is that constitutes “screen charisma”. I cannot think of a film I have seen in which she gives a bad performance. In fact, I cannot think of a single performance that has not been just right for the role she is playing.

In ‘King Kong’ she gets exactly the right mix of homage to the era and to Fay Wray coupled with a performance that works now. It isn’t a parody of 1930’s film acting. It isn’t a “modern” performance that looks out of place in the setting. It works on both levels. This is surely not just an accident or a piece of luck. She’s a film actor of exceptional ability.

In the end, the most important thing to consider is Kong. Does he survive this new remake? The answer is yes. It’s a big yes. Kong dominates the film in the way he should. It is to Peter Jackson’s credit that he doesn’t screw up the big finale on top of the Empire State Building. The original film is too iconic to sensibly try to compare this new remake to it, but when all is said and done, Kong remains King.

Although it has been bizarrely claimed by some that the film “bombed” at the box office, it actually grossed nearly $550 million. This is probably less than the studio hoped for, but it is still a huge amount of money. The film also received generally very good reviews – an 84% fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes.



...

The Ring

...

Rating 3¾


Directed by Gore Verbinski

Written by Ehren Kruger, based on 'Ringu' written by Hiroshi Takahashi, based on the book by Koji Suzuki

Starring Naomi Watts, Brian Cox, Jane Alexander, Rachael Bella and Amber Tamblyn


J-Horror films, although I’ve always associated them with the influence of the famous Val Lewton RKO films of the 1940s and things like ‘The Spiral Staircase’, are a continuation of Japanese ghost stories and Yūrei, ghosts or spirits that have not gained entry into the afterlife. In particular, the films deal with Onryō, ghosts that are able to return to the physical world to seek vengeance. The physical appearance of Onryō, ghostly white make-up and long unkempt black hair, was established during the Edo period, between 1603 and 1868.

‘The Ring’, in keeping with all other American remakes of “overseas” films, has come in for some criticism, the assumption apparently being that American filmmakers are incapable of making films of the same artistic quality as European and, in the case of the recent glut of J-Horror films, Japanese and South Korean film-makers. However, this one faired much better than most. 166 reviews collected at Rotten Tomatoes result in a 71% fresh rating. The original Japanese film gets a 100% rating from 16 reviews. However, it is worth noting that the Japanese sequel, ‘Ringu 2’, ends up with an inexplicable 0% rating from 15 reviews.

‘The Ring’ achieved a worldwide box office gross of $249 million against a production budget a little under $50 million. It was this success that led to ‘The Grudge’ and the success of that film that opened the door to ‘Dark Water’ and ‘Pulse’.

The film uses a trick borrowed from ‘Scream’ (one that ‘Urban Legend’ also used) and opens with a lengthy sequence involving a peripheral character who will meet a grizzly end and not be seen again. In this case, it’s Amber Tamblyn, in a nicely judged scene with Rachael Bella that almost pays homage to slasher films and gives the false impression that what is about to follow is a teen horror movie.

Probably the most celebrated scene in the film takes place on the ferry during the rain storm when a horse goes mad, breaks out of its horsebox, chases Rachel, the main character, played by Naomi Watts, and leaps over the bow of the boat, plunging to its death into the stormy sea below.

The film’s greatest asset, the superb visual use of the landscapes to one side, is Naomi Watts, who is an actor of exceptional talent. Her very pale and expressive features are perfect for her role here. She also starred in the 2005 sequel, which was directed by Hideo Nakata, the Japanese director of ‘Ringu 2’ and ‘Honogurai Mizu No Soko Kara’, the original version of ‘Dark Water’. I seem to be one of the few people to actually like the sequel.

‘The Ring’ was directed by Gore Verbinski, who subsequently went on to direct the three parts of the hugely successful ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ trilogy.



...