150W: X2

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

X2 (Dir. Bryan Singer/2003)

The whole team are back, and the unknown history of Wolverine remains at the forefront of X2 as he seeks out his history – and who is responsible. Supported by parallel confrontations between Prof X. and an ex-student who has equally-powerful telekinetic powers, a pattern of Father and Son stories (Or Dr. Frankenstein and his monster?) are established - Wolverine and new-baddie Stryker; Bobby and his family; Magneto/Pyro and so forth. To up-the-stakes, the threat this time is a massacre of all mutants. An incredible opening, as newcomer Nightcrawler darts around The White House is terrific, but this scene is not matched during the 2hr+ running-time that follows. Storm and Cyclops returns while Jean-Grey struggles to control her power. All three fail to justify their headlining importance. It builds on the previous story admirably, but becomes tiresome as X2 indulges in too many stories (and backstories) in too little time.

Rating: 6/10

Dogville (Lars Von Trier, 2003)

"The residents of Dogville were good honest folks, and they liked their township"

Introduction

Cubism, as an art movement, can be simplified as a style that depicts an object or person through distorting perspective and space. Cubism argued that, as an artist, if you look at an object, though you might depict what is observed , why not include what is not observed,yet remains a part of the object. So, though you cannot see the opposite-perspective, there are no rules to stop you from including it anyway. This sense of transparency and an all-seeing eye is what Lars Von Trier uses to great effect in the theatrical and political Dogville.

The film is located within a single set, whereby only props and floor-markings denote where each house is located. Tom (Paul Bettany) is a philanthropist, gathering the town regularly in the hope of creating change and ensuring the development of the community. His world shifts when, late one evening, Grace (Nicole Kidman) arrives following gun-shots, promising her that the town will look after her when it is clear that Grace is being pursued by gangsters.

Profound and Political

This vague description of the narrative does not truly demonstrate the complicated politics weaved within the story as, across nine chapters (with a description of what is due to happen), this story evolves into a perverse tale of power, corruption, abuse, arrogance and control that forces you to reflect on your own attitudes towards society. Though common-place in many of Von Trier's films, the description of each chapter forces you to acknowledge the themes rather than dwell on what will happen next.

Alluded to in the chapter description, a moment of horrific abuse is further amplified as we see the attack from afar. The theartical bare-staging depicts a lack of awareness (or ignorance?) towards the attack - a topic that is clear through this type of production. Ma Ginger (Lauren Bacall) continues to sell her wares; Liz Henson (Chloë Sevigny) continues to gossip; children still play on the road. This single moment is as profound as it is upsetting.

Von Trier, throughout the film, manages to make similar observations and insights into the Western world, and particularly the US as the film clearly intends to provoke a discussion. In Dogville, he comments on the arrogance of forgiveness that, by definition, criticises Christian doctrine whereby forgiveness is at the core of the belief. He comments on genocide, the purposes of it and where it can emerge from. In an interview with The New York Times, Von Trier even explains how "the point to the film is that evil can arise anywhere, as long as the situation is right.".

A Relevant Retrospective

As part of a Lars Von Trier retrospective at the BFI, Dogville is as relevant today as it was in 2003 - indeed, maybe moreso as we now live in a world that celebrates how transparency. In education, the government will argue the changes and "improvements" on the basis that things should be more "transparent" - in the same manner as every other element of the public sector. Furthermore, the automatic response from those in power - the press over phone-hacking; politicians over expenses; banks over the recession; Starbucks and Jimmy Carr -  is a public apology for their sins. We are now in a society whereby the contradictions, deciet and dishonesty is known, and yet we continue nevertheless.

This is, ten years on, one of the most important films of the 21st Century - but be prepared to challenge yourself. Simply enough, Grace is a woman who is simply trying to do the right thing and yet she becomes a victim. As you punch in your ticket or collect your paycheck; as you work hard to live another day - think of Grace. Think of how an open-minded, generous and optimistic woman becomes twisted and destroys the world she was welcomed into.

100W: 2 Fast 2 Furious

As a writer, it is expected that you keep to a strict word-count. When you pick up a magazine, articles can be a 100-word write-up or a 1000-word analysis. Notes created for films are easily over 100 words - so this feature will focus on reviewing films in a concise 100 words. No more, no less.

2 Fast 2 Furious (Dir. John Singleton/2003)

The curious morals of The Fast and the Furious are further complicated by the shinier, brighter 2 Fast 2 Furious. Brian (Paul Walker) has run from police and is now on the streets of Miami. After a race-gone-wrong, Brian makes a deal to assist in capturing drug kingpin Verone (Cole Hauser) and chooses unlikely childhood-friend and ex-con Roman (Tyrese Gibson) to assist. The beaches, bikinis and boats give a gloss that its predecessor didn’t need, and, unlike Vin Diesel, Roman is a petty-thief and dirty-fighter – and there is no tension in their central relationship. Intense - but it lacks personality.

American Pie: The Wedding (Jesse Dylan, 2003)

"It's time for me to boom-boom with the bridesmaids, Finch-f***er. 'Cause I'm gonna hang out with my wang out, and rock out with my cock out"

Introduction

I think the American Pie folks missed a trick here. I know that I watched the first film when I was in my latter years of school at the age of 15/16. Then American Pie 2 came about when I was about to leave for University in 2001 and then, mid-Uni, American Pie: The Wedding came about. I wasn't going to weddings and I couldn't relate. They had to strike when the iron was hot - and the drop from $145m to $104m between American Pie 2 and American Pie: The Wedding proves that the franchise was showing a little bit of strain... but what about an American Pie 3? as the guys graduate? We skipped a huge chunk of time and the entire film changed dynamics. No Heather, Vicky, Jessica or Nadia. No Sherman and crucially, No Oz.

Does Jim even like Stifler?

Without Oz, Stifler seems to have very little connection to the guys. In American Pie, Oz and Stifler were friends via the La Crosse sport they played together and, in American Pie 2, he was just squeezed in as the guys needed a fifth person to fund the 'summer they'll never forget' - but it worked because Oz and Stifler generally stuck together and you could see they were close friends at University. But Oz isn't in American Pie: The Wedding. Stifler, it turns out, is a bus driver and crashes their engagement party, inviting himself. Furthermore, it turns out he is a skilled dancer. However uneven this aspect is, Stifler seems to adapt. Initially, he is absolutely crazy. His attitude is rude and confrontational - ruining the cake, making fart-sounds, fu*k-this, fu*k-that and constantly laughing with a hysterical edge. He really seems unhinged... until Cadence (January Jones Pre-Mad Men) arrives and Stifler changes to become Finch-like (as Finch becomes the Finchmeister). This obscure narrative is so successful as we are back again in American Pie guy-chasing-girl zone.

An Apology?

I even feel that they are almost apologetic to the gay-community. American Pie 2 presented a porn-version of lesbianism which though catering to the teenage-boy audience, it also presents a stereotype sex-obsessed women who are only too keen to strip-off in front of the guys. Not to mention how, it turns out, the girls are not even gay and therefore fall for the irresistable Stifler by the end montage. American Pie: The Wedding presents us with a loveable gay character in 'Bear' (Eric Allan Kramer) and uses the gay-community to mock Stifler's macho-pride - his hyper-masculinity and homophobia is an image and, in this environment unlike the high-school and Uni-campus, he is out of his depth. But this is flipped again as Stifler has a feminine-edge in his dancing - winning over 'Bear' and, neccessarily, the dress-maker Lesley. When Stifler is laughed at, I find the scene fascinating - as if suddenly Stifler himself may have realised how isolated his outlook is. Especially when you consider how, in American Pie, as Oz is singing and dancing post-La Crosse match, Stifler's comment is: "my god, you're gay". Who was to know that Stifler was a skilled dancer even then?

The Conclusion?

It is a shame to think that, if The Hangover was released before this film, the filmmakers could've learned a few tricks, but I think that they had a limited time to capitalise on brand of American Pie. Eugene Levy remains the stand-out feature and his scenes with Jim and Michelle can make you feel a little weepy - if only everyone had the bond like Jim and his Dad. Kev and Stifler's Mom are merely standing in the background and the jokes remains consistent to the previous films - the pie incident that turned into the glued-VHS incident ... consequently turned into a short pubic-hair incident. The Stifler-joke inevitably led from sperm to urine to, inevitably, shit. He's eaten and drank it all. I can see why it had to stop then - but the films were consistent. All three films made over $100m, Rotten Tomoates rates the films with 59%, 52% and 55% respectively. To think the Saw franchise managed to run 7 films before stopping, there is a slight shame in the lack of American Pie 4: The Baby or American Pie 5: The Family. They had good characters but maybe Finch marrying someone other than Stifler's Mom would simply not work. Though there was one direction they could've gone ... at the end of the gay-nightclub sequence, 'Bear' makes an introduction to Kev ... could Kev be gay? I think, for the same reason Chris Penn's 'Stiflers Dad' role was cut out of American Pie 2, the real drama couldn't be tackled in depth. Therein lies the difficulty in making another film ...

Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines (Jonathan Mostow, 2003)

"The future has not been written. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. I wish I could believe that. My name is John Connor, they tried to murder me before I was born, when I was 13 they tried again. Machines from the future."

Introduction

It ain't that bad. Its no where near as bad as everyone said. Don't get me wrong, its no Jim Cameron movie, but it sure as hell isn't GI Joe: The Rise of the Cobra. Again, in my attempt to blitz the Terminator franchise and understand what its all about I ploughed into the post T2 sequels. The films everyone says are awful. I remember the release thinking "Wow, Clare Danes does star in the big films still". Prior to this, everyone was pleased to have the duo of films that preceded - but, in the year of the trilogies (American Pie 3, Matrix Revolutions, LOTR:The Return of the King...), it seemed the perfect time to release the third Terminator movie. Why not hire the director of U-571...

James Cameron hinted at a possible script for T3 many times in the ninties before he left Linda Hamilton for Titanic, but the studios were never going to say no to this franchise. The door was wide open. Interesting details from wikipedia:

The studios had long wanted to make a sequel to the Terminator films. However, they were unsure whether Arnold Schwarzenegger would appear in it. Schwarzenegger initially refused to star in Terminator 3 because Cameron, who created the character and helmed the first two films, would not be directing the third installment. Schwarzenegger tried to persuade Cameron to produce the third film. Cameron declined, however, as he felt that he had already finished telling the story upon the conclusion of T2. But feeling that the Terminator character was as much Schwarzenegger's as it was his own, he advised Schwarzenegger to just do the third film and ask for "nothing less than $30 million." 

So, with 20% of the profits ging directly to Arnie - alongside a little over $29m - the stage was set.

Off the Radar

So many good aspects to this film - it truly is a shame it didn't fall completely into place. The late-teenager John Connor (Nick Stahl) has been 'off the radar' since T2. He has virtually deleted his existence from all the records that tracked him. It is fate that brings him back to Katherine Brewster (Clare Danes). Brewster and Connor, the night before the whole T2 situation, got it on in at some mutual friends party - but, obviously, John Connor was never to be seen again after that whole debaucle. This 'character' development goes hand in hand with a clear, conscious connection to the previous installments. In the same as the previous installments Arnie arrives with the fire-in-the-background silhouette and the vast majority of the film is still set within an LA urban setting or a dusty Nevada desert.

In The Beginning ...

I heard recently about how Ridley Scotts up and coming prequel to the Alien films will 'explain' where the Alien comes from. I additionally heard an opinion whereby the Alien franchise does not need a history lesson. The fear of the alien is in the lack of knowledge behind the creature. In the same discussion, the same could be said about the terminator - but alas, clearly this was directly what was wanted in this film. I feel that this is a double-sided sword - on the one hand we have a great starting point of research: how did the terminator develop? who was responsible for the machine itself? In The Terminator no explanation was given - the terminator was to kill Sarah Connor and she had to kill the terminator to survive. And she does. Terminator 2:Judgement Day expands on the universe - Sarah Connor needs to stop the accelerated-development of the artificial-intelligence to stop the nuclear war which will break out in 1997. This is averted. Terminator 3:Rise of the Machines reveals that the development of A.I. continues and that Judgment Day has not been averted. But, instead of a small case of 'kill one guy and everyone is knocked out' scenario, John Connor has to face SkyNet himself to stop the nuclear attack... despite the terminators initial objective only to protect John and Kate from the fall out. Obviously, by going into SkyNet and seeing their machines we also witness the birth of the machines ... the first terminators. A nice touch I felt.

A New Woman

In skin-tight leather we see the new terminator - with weaponary that fires out of her hand and she can control machines. This whole 'step-up' from the Robert-Patrick-terminator of T2 is clear and, in another homage to T2 we see an update truck chase and attack on John Connor as the terminator protects him. Its bigger and brasher but I think the huge scale of this seems a little too much - as if the budget simply went a little too far. But it is in the final act where it all falls apart...

Arnie Goes Bad

Everyone remembers The Terminator and, to some small extent, we want to see the terminator in destroy mode - rather than protect-mode. I think this finale is a cheap attempt at making this possible as he glitches and switches between kill/protect John Connor - to the point that we see multiple helicopter explosions. Wholly unneccessary. One helicopter crashing down as a smaller, leaner helicopter additionally crashes down into the previous helicopter - and we have a terminator-on-terminator fight. As Kate and John run away.

I don't think the film is perfect - but we have to accept the plus points. Nick Stahl held his own as Connor, the look of the film and some sequences have great parrallels to the previous films and it sits well in the canon that is the Terminator Franchise. But its got little depth - maybe 'accept your fate'? Because thats what happens - everything seems a little pointless by the final reel. Judgement Day comes and goes - and this ultimately negates T2 too ... lets hope Terminator Salvation resolves some of these problems. Will the next John Connor please stand up...

Elephant (Gus Van Sant, 2003)

"Get the fuck out and don't come back! Some heavy shit's going down!"

Introduction

So, I briefly mentioned this on the podcast when I had just seen Four Lions. While this is not the same as Four Lions, Elephant is similar in its controversy: humanizing people who are seen by many as inhuman. Even merely animals. While Four Lions focuses on four/five would-be terrorists plotting to bomb London, Elephant focuses on the Columbine School Massacre. Not only did this film come to my mind due to the similarities between the two, the main reason was the choice of Elephant being the 'best film of the decade' by Matty 'Ballgame' Robinson on the Filmspotting podcast. Whislt Sam and Adam chose There will be Blood and Mulholland Drive - this film seemed to come way out of left field. So, we come to my film-dilemma - how can I call myself a film fan if a presenter on a hugely-successful podcast names a film as best-of-the-decade - and yet I haven't seen it! Thats madness. So, to my favourite store Fopp I went and, parting with merely £5, I purchased Elephant...