I had a conversation a few weeks ago with two friends who were complaining of the trend, in reviews, to describe everything as either superlatively good or stupendously bad, when the reality is that the vast majority of things are merely OK. True. On the other hand, about two thirds of the way through any given OK movie - especially if it is a very long OK movie - you do start losing the will to live, which does tend to propel one's verdict of OK into speedy depths of stupendously bad. Accordingly, David Fincher, director of The Curious Incident of Brad Pitt In The Nighttime, chooses precisely two thirds into the movie to supply us with the most stunningly beautiful shot of Brad Pitt aboard a sailing ship that you can possibly imagine. I'm not sure if it was worth the £10 admission ticket, but at least it stopped me from sharpening popcorn and trying to sever a vein with it.The Curious Case of Benjamin Bunny is about a man (Brad Pitt) who is born old and spends the rest of his life getting younger. At around the age of ten (or 70, body-wise) he falls in love with Cate Blanchett, who is living her life in the conventional direction. There. You now can fill in every possible blank in your own head, because this is a film with absolutely no surprises in it whatsoever. No surprises, no characterisation, not a huge amount of wit, a lot less plot than you might expect, in fact nothing particularly memorable, or even all that curious, except maybe the chap who gets struck by lightning seven times, seven times equalling seven laughs, which you will be needing.
To appease my pro-mediocrity friends, though, I must say that it looks ravishing. The sets are magnificent, and the make-up / CGI aging / rejuvenating of the leads is jaw-dropping (the "20-something" Cate Blanchett had me almost leaping from my seat yelling 'I'll have what she's having' even if 'what she's having' turns out to be someone following me around photoshopping my face 24 hours a day). Also, there are entertaining interludes to pass the time. For example, I liked the bit with Tilda Swinton in it (or SWINTON, as she must now forever be called), even though she is basically irrelevant to the story and could easily have been cut. Plus it's quite fun watching Brad Pitt get progressively hotter until he suddenly turns into an acne-ridden teenager played by someone who is no way going to grow up as hot as Brad Pitt, and then a baby, who might, if he is lucky, but who is that lucky? Brad Pitt, that's who.
There's not much else to say. Basically this film contains enough enjoyment to keep you awake long enough to eye up Brad Pitt in his younger years, but if you fancy Cate Blanchett you may well find yourself drifting off to napland around the time they start giving her wrinkles.
As an aside, I think I am getting too old and cranky to go to the cinema any more. Quite aside from the ludicrous price of the tickets and the refreshments (£2.50 for a bottle of water?!), I was so infuriated with the constant talking from all the people around me that I had to shush the auditorium twice. And I am not the shushing type. Plus the person next to me's phone rang just as Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett were finally about to have sex. Here's a question for the floor: have movie manners got worse in recentish years, or have I just got grumpier?
Posts
5 comments:
I have no desire to see this flick (the appeal of Brad Pitt alludes me -- yeah, he'd be crushed if he knew...), but I really enjoyed this review.
Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton in the same movie? I can never tell them apart. (John Finnemore seems to have established this week's theme.)
Are people ruder in movies than they used to be? Yep. They think they're at home watching TV. I actually had some misguided individual trying to strike up a conversation with me during The Shipping News. And isn't it odd how offended people are when you ask them (no matter how politely) not to chat throughout the film?
Persephone you have nailed it - I have NEVER really got BP, even in Thelma and Louise. And I'm convinced his best role was as the stoner friend in True Romance.
Correction: he was GREAT in Fight Club. But then I love Fight Club. And Ed Norton was WAAAY hotter.
Cinemas are more ill-behaved. Gigs are too. Basically people no longer know how to be behave outside their own homes or with other people generally. Not JUST young people either; it's a general malaise.
I am officially GRUMPY...
It's not you getting grumpy. I used to be a film reviewer, which meant going to preview screenings in small Soho basements with enormous, plush chairs, pre-film booze and nibbles and, crucially, an auditorium of fellow critics who were silent as the grave. Even during the most dreadful film. I can't now go to normal cinemas except during really quiet times (example: at 12.10 today I will be watching Frost / Nixon) cos I got so spoiled by the perfection of previews.
*sigh*
oh bravo you for daring to shush the audience... I have tutted in the past but always wondered whether a blade is going to get pulled on me in my local vue.
I don't think it's just that you've got grumpier, I think that 'manners' (which I think is what it boils down to) have got worse. It also doesn't help that the food they sell in cinemas is loud and rustley, almost without exception, and that there is nothing to stop or regulate the entrance of latecomers. People come in when the film's been running for 15 mins or more. What's THAT all about?
On the subject of award-season nominated movies, the only ones I have seen so far are Frost/Nixon and Slumdog Millionaire.
I was invited to a special screening of the former which had the unintentional effect of raising my expectations but am pleased to say they weren't disappointed; it was gripping. It knew what it wanted to do and did it very well. Only possible downsides were 1) it made me wish I'd seen it on stage which in turn made me wonder whether it was particularly necessary to see it on the big screen and 2) I wish I hadn't seen 'Michael Sheen as Tony Blair' twice in recent history because however good he is, this coloured my view of his Frost here.
Slumdog Millionaire has been marketed (unavoidably so in London in any case) as 'the feelgood movie of the decade'. I truly cannot imagine the thought-process behind this decision or relate to the worldview of the person or people who would regard it as such. I thought it was a rather dark and depressing movie and I don't really understand the hope or optimism which some people seem to have felt when they'd finished watching it. In the interests of balance I should say that it is spectacularly shot with some wonderful scenes and I quite like the central conceit, oddly. But then there are so many holes in the story and in the telling of it that, 'fairytale' or no, I just couldn't get on with it.
I am currently taking your advice re Revolutionary Road and reading before seeing.
Pedro
I saw the film last night and it is indeed curious that it has garnered 13 Oscar nominations. Your public service review was masterful and I read it before I went to the cinema, so cannot claim that I wasn't warned.
Without wishing to give away too much of the plot, there is one scene near the end which I am sure was intended to have the entire audience reaching for their Kleenex, but to which the only truly honest response came from the man behind me - he guffawed.
The only effect it had on ME was that I had to restrain myself from singing out loud "Ninety years without slumbering, tick, tock, tick, tock...", because it would undoubtedly have caused much shushing and tutting.
Post a Comment