blog.sparetomato.com

Last night I gave one of my most disappointing movies a second chance.

The League of Gentlemen was one of my favourite TV series, and its dark humour still makes me laugh. The problem with the TV series was the risk that it would become a parody of itself, with catchphrases and recurring characters who essentially had a limited lifespan.

Many of the characters were one-joke characters, similar to those in shows such as The Fast Show. The difference being that in The Fast Show, the  intention was to produce one-joke, instantly quotable characters, placing them in different situations, delivering a few humorous lines before wrapping up with their punchline catchphrases. In 30 second to 2 minute sketches, this is easy to do, but when you have created a whole world (well, village) that these characters live in and interact in, the characters become harder to write for, and less believable as a result.

The first two series of The League of Gentlemen centred around the characters of Tubbs and Edward, the Local Shopkeepers, their plans to disrupt the building of a new road that would bring strangers to their village, and their attempts to find a mate for their son, David (ironically the developer who was building the road from the first series). By the end of the second series, the characters of Tubbs and Edward had got a little worn, and were killed off. The writers took a bold decision here, as they could have easily took the easy route for a few more series with their ‘Local Shop, for Local People’. For the third series, they tried a new approach with a single story that was told from different angles, introducing new characters while reducing of some of the older characters. Series 3 wasn’t as well received as previous series, but it was obvious that the writers wanted to take a step away from their creations.

The announcement of a League of Gentlemen movie genuinely excited me, but could you turn a half-hour show into a full length movie?

When I saw the movie for the first time, I thought it was terrible. The characters escape from the fictional world of Royston Vasey and enter our world in a ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit’ way, the humour coming from the fact that these cartoonish characters were interacting with normal people.

The low budget was particularly evident, and the diversion into a story-within-a-story-within-a-story seemed nonsensical, and not relevant to the plot at the time.

I suppose my initial reaction was also coloured by the fact  that two of the main characters were two of my least favourite – Herr Lipp and Geoff Tipps.

Lipp I’ve always found too creepy and his innuendos the least funny. Geoff just rude and not very funny (which I suppose is the point of his character.) However, on second viewing, these were possibly the best selection of characters to use for the movie.

The opening sequence where Tubbs, Edward and Papa Lazarou confront writer Jeremy Dyson (the unseen gentleman, and again, played by someone else) sums up the fact that most of the characters are too bizarre to exist in the ‘real’ world. While the murderous butcher Briss is possibly the most extreme character of the bunch, he is also the most intelligent and perfect as a leader.

Lipp is a one-joke character, and actually has quite a good story arc in the movie, where he comes to realise that he is a one-dimensional character, and craves to be seen as more than a stereotype. His final rant filled with his trademark innuendos is not meant to be humourous, and draws another parallel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, he is almost like Jessica Rabbit – “I’m not bad, I’m just drawn that way…”

The premise that the actors are fed up with playing the characters they have played for the last 10 years and want to go on to other things, is believable – As parodied in the excellent episode of Father Ted ‘The Mainland’, Richard Wilson (a respected Shakespearean actor) is constantly being taunted by Ted saying his catchphrase from ‘One foot in the Grave’: ‘I Don’t believe it!’. The League of Gentlemen are actors and want to be remembered more than ‘Are you Local?’ or ‘Okey-cokey-pig-in-a-pokey! Good Morning Jobseekers!’.

The League of Gentlemen’s Apocalypse is a tribute to those characters – a fond farewell.

Since this film, the actors have all gone on to do other projects, from Dr. Who to Lassie.

The final twist in the film that it is all in the mind of Jeremy, the one who is not prepared to let go of Royston Vasey is particularly poignant, as well as being amusing in that his original plan for everyone to have tails. The idea that the writers have not all perished leaves the village of Royston Vasey alive as long as the writers stay alive, and we have the possibility to return there one day.

Yet another film franchise is being unneccissarily resurrected. Die Hard 4 will follow in the footsteps of Terminator 3, Rocky 6 (Rocky Balboa), Rambo 4 and the rumoured Mad Max 4 in providing one last Hurrah for the washed-up stars.

In fairness, Willis’ more recent work has been pretty good: Sin City, The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable… but do we really need another installment of John McClane having a bad day?

Also, with the exception of Mel Gibson (who I don’t suspect we’ll see doing Mad Max 4 for a few years yet…) has anyone noticed that these are the same people who promoted the struggling Planet Hollywood brand?

I saw the new Pixar film ‘Cars’ last night, and despite the general panning it has received from the critics, I thought it was superb.

With Pixar you really do set your sights high. The original Toy Story broke new ground in animation and set the bar for others to jump. The second Toy Story proved the exception to the rule that a sequel can never live up to the original. Again, the standard of animation was improved upon to the point where they were ready to animate people in ‘The Incredibles’. With Cars, the character models are less animated, they are after all, cars. However, they do not have any less of a personality.

Some critics have complained that the audience is never engaged enough to care about the plight of the characters (In short, hot-shot race car gets stranded in hick town and can’t escape) however, I’d disagree. While the central character arc is fairly predictable Pixar fare: The hot-shot comes to realise that there is more to life than racing, and eventually grows to love the town he is ‘trapped’ in and the residents. There are several other narratives running through the film, with themes such as how the town of Radiator Springs, once a thriving community, falls into a ghost town as a new Bypass is built.

Character-wise, again, it is what we’ve come to expect: The young, good looking hot shot, the love interest who seems out of place in the small town, the crochety old man with a hidden past, the goofy sidekick, the hippy VW camper, the militaristic jeep…

But it is because we are in familiar territory that makes the film so enjoyable. There are no big twists in the plot, but as this isn’t “The Usual Suspects”, does it really matter? It is a fun film, with a simple story and amusing characters that provides genuine escapism for a couple of hours. But I defy anyone not to be even slightly moved when the historical montage of Radiator Springs is shown.

The jokes do not come as thick and fast as in say, Toy Story or Monsters Inc. but again, there are some for the adults and some for the children. (Although from the giggles in our screening, I imagine more children understood the joke about the ‘Piston Cup’ than the BBFC would have liked.

Pixar, being Pixar bring a huge amount of detail that brings the town of Radiator Springs to life. From the ‘Diner’ Petrol station that looks like an engine block to the shapes in the rocks that look like cars, to the reference to Cadillac Ranch, where a group of rocks in the background look like the tail fins of the Cadillacs in the famous art piece.

Again, as we have come to expect from Pixar, the animation is stunning. The cars may not be as agile as The Incredibles, but what they lack in flexibility, they make up for in detail. Apparently a single frame of Cars took 17 hours to render. If there was any one thing to encourage me to make the switch to HD-TV and the next generation of DVD, it would be to see the detail in Cars.

More than any other Pixar film though, the music really takes centre stage. From the opening rocky Sheryl Crow track (which wouldn’t look out of place on a ZZ Top album) to the Rock & Roll playing in the 1950’s style Radiator Springs, to the uptempo version of ‘Route 66′, this is a driving soundtrack. I had to purchase the album (something I rarely do for soundtrack albums) and although I was driving through the town, closing my eyes at a red traffic light, I could easily have been cruising through the American midwest.

Finally, it wouldn’t be a pixar film without a smattering of ’star’ voices. Owen Wilson is perfectly cast as the young, cocky Lightning McQueen. Paul Newman was good as the grouchy Doc Hudson, but Michael Keaton was unrecognisable and unmemorable as bad guy Chick. Long-Time Pixar voice artist John Ratzenberger again makes an appearance, a joke that is played on during the closing credits.

Racing legends also make cameo appearances, including Michael Schumacher, Mario Andretti and Richard Petty.

Overall, a good night at the cinema, much more fulfilling than the disappointing Pirates of the Carribean 2.

Dear Mr. Stallone,

It was with great dismay that I read in this article that you are indeed planning to make a sixth installment in the Rocky saga.

As a lifelong fan of the series, I implore you to reconsider.

From a story arc point of view, a sixth installment makes no sense. Rocky rose from nothing to the top, lost it all, regained it again, lost his mentor, his former enemy turned ally and eventually loses all his fortunes and discovers that it is all for nothing if not the love of his family.

If the rumours of the storyline are to be believed, he will come out of retirement to try and earn money.

If he is that desperate for money, then perhaps he should consider embarking on the book and celebrity circuit (however, after-dinner speeches may not be his forte) As the legendary Mohammad Ali has shown, there is a lot of money to be made in TV appearences and book signing sessions. I’m sure his autobiography would become a best seller, although perhaps a ghost-writer should be used. However, I understand that “Rocky VI – The Book Store Tour” would not make a particularly thrilling film.

There is also the realism factor. Granted the Rocky movies have not always been the most realistic, but I have always seen Rocky as being more or less the same age as you. If the production scedule is correct, you (and Rocky) will turn 60 during the film. From a quick search on the Internet, I’ve found that the oldest profesisonal boxer to win the world title was George Foreman at 46 years old. In Rocky V, Rocky would probably be about that age, being as he had a teenage son. Of course, makeup can make a man younger, and there is no suggestion of how much time has passed between Rocky V and VI, but from a realism stance, Rocky would be too old.

In Rocky V, it is revealed that Rocky has suffered severe brain damage, and that another fight could kill him. Adrienne would never support Rocky getting back in the ring, and in his son, he has too much to live for – why would he get back in the ring? The character of Adrienne grows in strength through the films, to the point where she even stands up to Rocky and tells him that he can’t win against Ivan Drago. She is certainally strong enough to divorce Rocky.

Rocky is an “All-American Hero”, a cultural icon. His inspirational story, as I have already alluded to, highlights that with the love of his family, he doesn’t need anything else. However, should he come out of retirement again, with the probability of his marriage breaking up, he would become a washed-up has been. He was strong enough in Rocky V to walk away, and that, in the words of the Elton John song in the end titles is “The Measure of a Man”.

So again, I implore you to look at what you are doing, and look at the parallels that your life has with Rocky, and be the bigger man and walk away.

Yours faithfully,

sparetomato.com

I’ve never rated Russel Crowe. I thought Gladiator was over the top, and that put me off him. However, when visiting an art exhibition of a friend’s work inspired by terrorism, I was struck by a quotation that was on one of the pieces of work:

“Man is capable of as much atrocity as he has imagination”

I asked where the quote had come from, and I was told it was from “A Beautiful Mind”, and was recommended to watch it.

The film is not what I expected. Even after reading the back of the DVD case, and reading the WikiPedia entry for John Forbes Nash, of which this film is a biopic, I still was not prepared for the film.

I knew the film was about schizophrenia, and about Nash’s decline and subsequent recovery to win the Nobel prize, but it is the way director Ron Howard tells his journey that makes the film, and deservedly wins his Oscar for best director.

Wheras most films with a twist in them save the big twist for the end, this one reveals the twist in the middle, and does it in such a dramatic and powerful way that it leaves the audience as confused as Nash possibly was. It is easy to patronise people in films, particularly those with disabilities or illnesses, but Howard manages to draw the audience in to Nash’s plight, as opposed to siding with the other characters in the film that think Nash is mad. You don’t see Nash shouting at people who aren’t there, but you experience his delusions with him, and the way the twist is revealed, the audience, like Nash wonder what is real and what is imagined.

As I said at the start of my review, I’ve never liked Russel Crowe, his reputation somewhat preceeds him. However, in this he portrays a man struggling with his illness incredibly well. You are drawn into his suffering, and he is able to show behind the eyes lies a very intelligent person. While Crowe may look more like a quarterback than a mathematician (particularly in Nash’s early life), he injects a subtlety into the performance that makes it seem as if he is almost underplaying the role. Unlike the machismo of Gladiator, Crowe does not stand out from the crowd, and you actually see the character rather than Russel Crowe.

This has heightened my interest in seeing Crowe’s newest biopic, Cinderella Man, but I think it will be hard to top this.

Now, all I have to do is to stop thinking of Richie Cunningham whenever I see a Ron Howard movie.