Articles

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Column: The Word on Films | Date Published: Tuesday, 14 July 09 | Author: Mark Russell | | 2 years, 7 months ago

COMMENT HERE: comment

The new Transformers film is like a set of really shiny mag wheels: it catches your attention when moving, but once it stops you realise there’s a wanker in the driver’s seat.
Michael Bay has set his sub-woofer to bowel-shaking and parked this sequel across three disabled spots, making every attempt to grab your eye. This second instalment promises total bang for your buck as the Autobots and Decepticons do battle once again with us humans caught in the middle. Our only hope lies in the hands of Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf), who’s formative college years and blossoming relationship with ludicrously hot girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox), have been interrupted by the intergalactic demolition derby.
Any further mention of plot will only give you a false impression of narrative. After all, this is Bay we’re talking about – the directorial equivalent of the Chk Chk Boom Girl. If anything, the story inconveniences the film as a whole. It appears in the brief quiet moments, coughing and spluttering amongst the dust-cloud. It’s here that characters reel off massive chunks of expositional dialogue in order to jump to the next set piece. And this is what Revenge of the Fallen really is: a collection of loosely connected sequences. Some are funny, some are exciting; all of them must have cost the GDP of a small country to film.
Overlong and almost completely devoid of character, Transformers still manages to have its share of fun moments. Ultimately however, this cinematic machine’s pulse-raising roar comes from a dodgy exhaust, not a high performance engine.
2 stars.

	Disgrace: One thing I have learned in my years as an avid film-goer is that good storytelling doesn’t necessarily mean enjoyable viewing. Yes, some films are exceptionally well-made and entertaining to watch – but others, though they are well-written and well-executed, are more harrowing than entertaining. Disgrace is one such film. Based on the novel by J.M. Coetzee, the film tells the tale of a morally questionable professor (John Malkovich) living in South Africa; and follows his life first at the University of Cape Town and later in Eastern Cape with his daughter. Tragic events ensue, and the film focuses on both the consequences of these events and the relationships between the characters involved. While this is hardly a happy film, it is well-written and socially relevant in a few interesting ways. The atmosphere of Disgrace is exceptional – each scene is saturated in the sense of ‘being in another place’ – namely, South Africa. Many of the themes of Disgrace have multiple interpretations, and if anything, the film is certainly thought-provoking. Disgrace is good – and part of its power lies in how affecting and realistic it is. But it is also quite upsetting in parts, and for me, was far from enjoyable. I appreciated certain aspects of the film while disagreeing with others, and the storytelling overcomes the fact that none of characters are particularly likeable or relatable. Disgrace is worth seeing, but steel yourself beforehand. 3 stars.
COMMENT HERE: comment »
	Coco avant Chanel: I reckon I could watch Audrey Tatou in pretty much anything. Hell, I’d even sit through The DaVinci Code again. This is a lucky thing, because Coco avant Chanel is aimed squarely at shmucks like me. The film charts Chanel’s life as a poor abandoned child, then lounge singer, to becoming a barnacle on the underside of French high society. Throughout she demonstrates an intense wilfulness, determination and survival instinct. The initial upper class target of her wiles is Balsan (Benoit Poelvoorde), a curious character who understands Coco in ways no one else can. Though he has money, he is just as much an outsider as she amongst the upper crust; and revels in his contempt of them. The main problems of this film arise from its subject matter, and the pace at which the film-makers chose to approach it. Coco Chanel was famous mainly for her fashion and her wit, but both are only in the infancy stages at the time we’re focussing on. We get to see events and conversations that may have inspired some of her greatest quotes, but she won’t actually say them for a long time. We hear her opinions on fashion regularly, but she won’t influence others till the last five minutes of the film. The last scene is also easily the strongest. It looks superb, makes great use of the set-up character elements, and sits back to let us soak up Audrey. This was more than enough to keep me doe-eyed and watching, but in truth I’d rather just re-hire Amelie. 3 stars.
COMMENT HERE: comment »