greenpolyester Reviews

The Man Without a Past (2002)

extremely unrewarding

[19 July 2004]

Well this one has me baffled. A slew of awards and nominations from film festivals all over the world. I just didn't get it. Other comments have summed up the numerous flaws. The acting was truly abysmal. Consider the scene when he walks the Salvation Army woman home for the first time. It was like watching the rehearsals of an amateur dramatic company. And the nonsense spouted by the security guard? It has occasionally interesting visuals (if only because I've never been to Finland). I'll give it this though, it's nowhere near as excruciating as 'Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself', but, like that film, it suffers from the worryingly prevalent trend in much contemporary European cinema of whimsy trying to pass itself off as 'understated significance'.

Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself (2002)

...they should have let him.

[18 December 2003]

Spoilers aplenty...

This film is set in Glasgow during some strange time period. Parts of it feel like the 1970s, yet we see a calendar for 2002 above the young girl's bed. We see doctors smoking in hospital buildings - something that has been banned since the 1980s - yet we get to see group therapy sessions reminiscent of more recent psychiatric practice. But these are small quibbles compared to the overwhelming banality of this dismal little film. What was the point of all this? The film critics of both Glasgow newspapers - The Herald (broadsheet) and The Evening Times (tabloid) - each gave this turkey a whopping 5-stars. One can only assume that they were both just grateful that some foreigners had come to their city to make a film - any film. I certainly won't be looking for their opinions on any other films if they truly believe that this was worthy of maximum points. There are so many holes in this story it's difficult to know where to start the attack. Let's begin with Wilbur. Why would any woman be interested in this self-centred waste of space? More specifically, what single-mother would even contemplate bringing such a malign influence into the life of her daughter (yeh right, my wee girl really needs a suicidal loser as a father figure). And we're meant to believe that she supplements her income with books left behind at the hospital? Please - that's as lazy and incredulous as plot devices get. This film is the worst attempt at a blend of pathos & comedy I've ever seen. One character gets diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (not too many laughs there I'm afraid). A nurse breaks the most basic rule of confidentiality during a meal at a restaurant (of course she does). Three women throw themselves at a man who has nothing, absolutely nothing, going for him (ok, that's something that does happen in real life, sadly). Please don't waste nearly two hours of your life on this dire piece of whimsy. Two hours? God it felt like three. Instead, do yourself a favour and watch Peter Mullen's 'Orphans'. The best film ever set in Glasgow and one that gets the blend of drama and comedy spot on.

Ivans xtc. (2000)

A truly memorable performance by Danny Huston

[18 February 2003]

I love this film. Danny Huston, in a remarkable performance, makes you care for a truly unloveable character. The film shows us the vile antics of those charged with maintaining the glam facade of Hollywood and the big studios. Let's have more on this theme. Some on these pages think this film smacks of jealousy; that somehow Bernard Rose is envious of the morally bankrupt lives led by the likes of Ivan. He's not (how could anyone be?). When Ivan muses on his fate and tries to find one, just one, memory that would make it all worthwhile, he comes up blank. It would appear to your average punter, who's taken in by the trappings of wealth and showbiz, that Ivan had it all. In the end, we see he has nothing. His death scene is one of the most moving ever committed to celluloid, sorry, HD-V. Consider the response of his colleagues on hearing the news of his demise. Consider the response of his former clients. Those with a knowledge of the way these agencies work will know that this film is eerily accurate. There are so many shocking, uncomfortable and perversely funny scenes in this film that you'll be thinking about it for a long time afterwards. Wow, a film about Hollywood that actually makes you think. How weird is that?

Chasing Amy (1997)

So much dialogue, so little to say

[27 January 2003]

Ben Affleck, as ever, stamps his dynamic screen presence onto each and every scene he's in. He makes this film his own. He IS Holden. You can't imagine anyone else ever even daring to think about taking on this role. Well, actually, you can. In fact, you can think of hundreds of actors who could have done a better job than Benny Boy. Here he sleep-walks through a progression of snappily-scripted set pieces that scream 'MESSAGE' at you. Mr. Smith is trying to tell you something here. Think of any one of a thousand scenes in Spike Lee's back catalogue - you know the bits I'm talking about - the ones where Spike has two characters discuss the big 'issues' of the film and they do so with all the subtlety of a flying sledgehammer. And if anyone is well suited to deliver Smith's platitudes, it's Mr. Affleck. The machine- gun delivery of the dialogue (no Pinteresque pauses in this film) grates very quickly. Every character has their lengthy retorts immediately to hand every time, and they deliver them with the velocity of a Brazilian football commentator on amphetamines. Yet despite this pacy dialogue, the film drags. The sermons between Ben and the 'is she-isn't she' lesbian soon grow very tedious and we know where all this is going. Holden's 'solution' at the end of the film is as believable as the 'Best Original Screenplay' Oscar that Affleck and Damon received for 'Good Will Hunting' (I'm still in shock. I thought the Oscars had lost their capacity to amuse, depress or even interest me years ago - I was wrong). If you are in any way in touch with your sexuality; if you have experienced even the most fleeting relationship with another human being, you will surely be bemused by the comments some people have posted here stating that this film 'moved them'. It moved me too: to weep that I had sat through such trite pap.

St. Elmo's Fire (1985)

This was never a good film

[27 January 2003]

Recently, some people, usually in their late 20s and early 30s, have taken to re-watching this film and claim that they do so 'ironically'. Where is the irony here? Thankfully, most of the third-rate cast never went on to wider exposure. Unfortunately, Demi's career wasn't nipped in the bud after her atrocious portrayal of a self-absorbed harpie. When you think about it, she didn't actually need to do any acting for this role, and even then she stinks. The rest of the cast traipse through scene after interminable scene and you honestly don't care for any of them. If this film serves as a testament to anything, it's how truly awful the 1980s were. Anyone spotted an 80s revival in any other art-form? Nope, and for good reason. Dross like this, and The Breakfast Club and Pretty in Pink shouldn't induce a warm-glow in anyone reminiscing about their youth. They should send a shiver down your spine at how ghastly people were in the 1980s and at how many ghastly people there were. Then you should experience a feeling of relief and gratitude that they don't make them like this anymore. These 80s youth films could have killed the genre outright but, remarkably, there are some real gems out there which cover contemporary American youth in a humorous, intelligent and cutting way. Check out 'Election' and 'Rushmore'. You'll still be glad you viewed and enjoyed them 20 years from now. Unlike admitting to liking St. Elmo's Fire, which should induce the same feelings of shame and guilt as being caught by your mom with a porn mag in one hand and yourself in the other. This was never a good film.

Donnie Darko (2001)

You will be disappointed, I promise you.

[3 January 2003]

A friend, whose judgement I normally value, recommended this to me as a 'must see'. Set in 1988, Donnie Darko is the tale of a troubled American High School Student (yes, yet another one). After 40 minutes of this I was still waiting to be grabbed like my friend was. And here's the rub - you won't be grabbed, believe me. The true test for any piece of fiction is that you care about the characters, or, at the very least, care enough to find out what happens to them. Be honest folks, did you really care about what Donnie's problem was? Of course not. He was a bland, unsympathetic cipher. A lot has been said of the performance by the lead, but I've seen Keanu Reeves turn in more heartfelt and engaging performances. The writer/director has obviously stuck by his 'Youth Films 101' coursebook to a T. There is one excrucitating tacked-on scene where Donnie and his mates discuss the deeper significance of 'The Smurfs'. The director clearly liked Tarantino's deconstruction of 'Like A Virgin' in Reservoir Dogs and has attempted a weak copy himself. NO ONE ever had that conversation (and certainly not teenagers in 1988) and to pretend otherwise is just smug revisionism. There is another scene where, to the strains of 'Head Over Heels' by Tears For Fears, the world goes into slow motion. The viewer expects something to happen. Like the rest of the film, nothing does. Drew Barymore and Patrick Swayze play minor parts. Why? Who knows: they certainly brought nothing special to the table. Set in 1988, the 'special' effects mimic the era also. Strange, translucent 'watery' worms emerge from people (think 'The Abyss'). And what does it all mean? Should you last till the end, you will be very, very disappointed. Chronicle of a death foretold - how original. Don't believe what the 'respected' critics have said about Donnie Darko. It says nothing new and does so in an unoriginal manner.