2 posts tagged “films”
As you may know Idiocracy is a film by Mike Judge that caused a bit of controversy last year. 20th Century Fox decided to bury the film which wasn't too surprising given the subject matter (or a few other things which we'll come to later). I'm not going to get into that debate simply because I don't care - if Rupert Murdoch wants to waste his money on films he doesn't want people to see then that stops him spending it on something really bad, like giving Bill O'Reilly a pay rise or something.
(By the way, I don't do spoilers in any film reviews so it's safe to read on. Honest)
So what's it all about? Well, the army decides to try "human hibernation", which is a kind of cryogenic suspension, on the most average soldier they have. He has an average heart rate, average cholesterol and average intelligence. They also decide to try it on a woman who happens to be a prostitute. The experiment was only meant to be for a year but due to a tragic turn of events they remain suspended for 500 years, and this is where the movie really begins.
Instead of mankind becoming smarter and more sophisticated, it has become uniformly stupid. They talk like morons, product placement is everywhere and the world seems to be run in a similar manner to the WWF. It is in this environment that the average soldier finds himself the smartest man on earth. No, really.
If that doesn't sound like a pretty compelling idea for a film then I don't know what does.
Prepare to be a little bit disappointed. The first ten to fifteen minutes are absolutely hilarious but once the film takes us to the future it never really hits the same heights again. The hit-and-miss jokes are quite far apart and often the film had me drumming my fingers waiting for something to happen. Since the film is only eighty minutes long, this is a bad sign. It also doesn't help that if you've ever seen Futurama you'll be constantly reminded of a superior product.
Oh, and another thing: Luke Wilson should never be given a leading roll. Not that he's a terrible actor, but you know, if you can't get Owen Wilson then don't get a Wilson. Unless it's Jackie Wilson. Or Woodrow Wilson. Or Wilson Phillips.
But these are not the biggest problems with Idiocracy. This movie is like the last minute of Planet of the Apes dragged out over eighty minutes. Once the point is made that we've destroyed the world there's not really anywhere left to go - and that point is made very early on indeed.
Anyway, Idiocracy is occasionally funny, occasionally thought provoking but it is also a bit of a mess.
This review does not contain spoilers.
Channel Four used to show Ireland's The Late Late Show in England. It was compulsory viewing for the kids of Irish parents because Gay Byrne was (and still is) something of a legend amongst the Irish. Gay Byrne may sound like a form of venereal disease shared amongst the lovers of musical theatre but he was in fact a legendary TV host and interviewer with the demeanour of a nosy old spinster. In his own way he was actually pretty cool.
It was on his show that Pierce Brosnan told us the news: he wasn't going to be the next Bond. This was truly shocking, particularly for a young Irish Bond fan like myself. It was 1986 and with no small amount of bitterness Brosnan explained that the makers of Remington Steele had decided to keep him on for the remainder of his contract. His annoyance was understandable. Firstly the guy was clearly born to play Bond and secondly, whoever won the roll in his absence could, like Roger Moore, keep going for over 12 years!
As it happens, he'd needn't have worried: Timothy Dalton got the part. Dalton never truly inhabited the roll and always seemed like a poor cover version. I felt that every time his Bond killed someone, instead of delivering a wry smile and a quip he should have delivered a condolence card and an apology.
When Pierce did finally arrive I think it was worth it. Goldeneye was certainly the best Bond movie since Octopussy which had been twelve years earlier. During Brosnan's tenure there were some great highs and a few lows and often it seemed that the man himself was getting frustrated with the quality of the films. I'd say that Brosnan was a great all-round Bond who often didn't get the scripts he deserved.
Once it was announced that Brosnan wasn't coming back I felt a bit sorry for the chap. When it was announced that they were going for a younger, more physical Bond I raised an eyebrow, much in the style of Roger Moore. When they announced the casting of Daniel Craig it all became clear and my eyebrow resumed it's normal position.
Firstly Craig is a damn good actor, so there were no worries there. In a departure for Bond they had cast someone who looked like they'd seen some action, been in a few fights and didn't mind getting his hands dirty. On the other hand he could also pull off the ex-public school boy persona.
Of course there were a number of naysayers out there, many of them in the press. They seemed to expect another Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore and, when he didn't meet those expectations, they found a vein of humour (actor who plays tough guy is really a bit of a wimp!) and totally drained it.
So, does Casino Royale deliver?
Yes it does, and then some. Firstly I should be clear that this is very recognizably a Bond film but thankfully a few things have changed:
- One thing that plagued the Brosnan years was the constant references to sexism. M seemed to call him a misogynist dinosaur every five minutes and he'd constantly meet women who were his equal. Why the script writers couldn't just accept that Bond's a bit of a bastard and stop wringing their hands over it I don't know. Oh, it now seems they have. Yay!
- Gadgets. In the past Q would give Bond a bunch of gadgets that fitted a very specific purpose and they'd just happen to be very useful later on. Clearly Q had Jane Seymour and her tarot cards locked in his basement. In this movie Bond hardly even uses his gun, never mind gadgets, and often seems happier just jabbing people in the eyes with his fingers. Which brings us to...
- Violence. It's more violent in the sense that when people get killed it's much more brutal and drawn out. No more post massacre quips. Clearly it's a matter of opinion but I do think that the casual dispatching of characters numbs us to it's impact - in this film there are clearly consequences.
- It's a spy movie! Yep, it's not just good guys and bad guys anymore but double-crosses and double-agents and the plot seems a bit more satisfying than the Bond we're used to.
- Bond makes some mistakes. He's always been a smug bastard, but now, he has a little less reason to be.
Any downsides? Well there are a couple of scenes that are too long, the poker scenes unavoidably come with a commentary from a character that screams clunky exposition, and the theme song kinda sucks.
These are minor quibbles. Once you see the opening chase sequence and hear David Arnolds old-school score you will know that Bond is back where he belongs - at the top.
