Showing posts with label Marc Forster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marc Forster. Show all posts

Monday, 10 September 2018

Christopher Robin
Dir: Marc Forster
2018
****
I’ve always liked Pooh, the originals and the Disney cartoons. However, 2017’s Goodbye Christopher Robin directed by Simon Curtis told the truth behind the beloved story and it turned out there was a fair bit of unhappiness surrounding the little boy and his bear. It was a beautiful film but it left me wondering whether it was always a good thing to know everything about something you adore. I think in this case it is good to know the truth but it is also important to keep the magic alive, so while Marc Forster’s Christopher Robin is nothing like the real man, the film should be seen as a continuation of A.A. Milne’s magic stories that, for better or for worse, are now bigger than the author and his son. Robin in real life had nothing to do with the stories in his adult life and didn’t receive royalties but as is the case with the originals and indeed this film, the character is a fictional one merely based on him. I’m trying to justify the fictional element of a factual story but I can’t really, all I can say is I personally don’t have a problem with it and from what I’ve read about Robin, he probably wouldn’t either. That said, I (and probably he if he were still alive) have a problem with Disney in general. They have the money to buy pieces of classic literature, re-write then and stamp their name on them and I really hate it. Hard-core fans of A.A. Milne’s books and stories have long hated Disney’s cartoons but I grew up on the older ones and can’t help but look back on them with warmth and fondness. All I know is that I love Milne’s imagination and use of language and I love Pooh. I approached Foster’s 2018 film with caution but of course I loved it. The film doesn’t shy away from its heavy use of emotional manipulation but in all fairness, it never really wanders far from Milne’s original ideas. I cried like a big fat baby but to be fair I had a few beers before as I couldn’t bare the thought of going in completely sober and thus unarmed. Pooh and the gang looked brilliant as crudely made old toys, they looked real and moved exactly how you’d expect them to. The voice choices were also perfect, with Jim Cummings reprising his role as Pooh and Tigger, Peter Capaldi as Rabit and Toby Jones as a suitable Owl, but I think Nick Mohammed as Piglet and Brad Garrett as Eeyore were the most inspired choices of all. I’m still unsure whether I liked Ewan McGregor’s portrayal of Christopher Robin but I did see his love for Pooh in his eyes which was the most important element of his character. The first half of the film was perfect, the toys and animals were still going about their business all these years later but they never stopped thinking about their friend Christopher Robin. When Pooh finds himself alone one day he decides to go through Christopher Robin’s little door and he finds himself in the middle of London. He finds Christopher Robin quite by chance but not at a good time in his life. Work commitments is pulling Robin further away from his wife and daughter and he has a short time to make some difficult professional decisions. Pooh suddenly appearing doesn’t really help. The initial meeting of the pair is exactly what you’d expect from a Disney movie – awkward, haphazard and devoid of affection. Robin obviously softens and even goes back with Pooh to the Hundred Acre Wood to see his old friends. This is where the magic happens. It is around twenty minutes of unbridled joy and tenderness. The classic shot of Robin and Pooh sat on their log, arm in arm, looking out across the wood is about as good as it gets. Like I said, I cried like a big fat baby. However, when the story goes back to reality it leaves the magic behind. I did love the scenes with Pooh and animals around London, especially as I pass each location on a daily basis and now being able to say ‘Pooh sat in that phone box’ each time I pass it is an absolute joy but the story went down a tired old road. The whole story revolves around the fact that Christopher Robin’s company (a luggage manufacturer) has hit hard times and his pompous boss – the son of the owner – is happier to sack half his staff rather than come up with new ideas. It is up to Robin to find a way of saving his colleague's jobs while at the same time spend time with his family who seem to resent him working. In a frustrating but old-as-the-hills storyline, the father of the house is mistreated by his company while treated as uncaring villain by his loved ones. I’m pretty sure the family wouldn’t be able to keep their beloved Sussex cottage if he did loose his job, a job that also feeds them and keeps them clothed. The film is set around the late 40s/early 50s, so having a good job such as his is lucky in itself. To be emotionally shunned because people have to work was old fifty years ago and even though the film is set a long time ago, it is released in 2018 when most adults have to work tirelessly just to get by and that is both father and mother. That said, I’m friends with loads of people with kids, the idea that fathers never play with their kids is absurd and again, is as-old-as-the-hills. Wake up Disney, it is 2018, update your tired, stupid and slightly insulting ideals. Only Disney is still peddling the whole ‘Daddy needs to save the company’ story too, because company is everything, for goodness sake. It is a huge smudge on an otherwise joyous film. There is a wonderful scene that includes Matt Berry as a policeman, Simon Farnaby as a taxi driver and Mackenzie Crook as a newspaper seller, the three men all convincing themselves that they haven’t just witnessed a talking bear. What a fantastic trio, together in a huge Hollywood film no less. There are many wonderful scenes within the film and I did really enjoy it. A different story would have been great but I still love pretty much everything about it.

Saturday, 24 October 2015

Quantum of Solace
Dir: Marc Forster
2008
**
Quantum of Solace, the twenty-sixth Bond film of the series, is the first direct sequel of the franchise, as the story follows on from 2006's Casino Royale. The title of the film also comes from one of the short stories collected in Ian Flemming's For Your Eyes Only, although quite typically with Bond films, it has absolutely nothing in common to its plot. Casino Royale rebooted the franchise quite successfully and Quantum of Solace builds on the new direction it set quite well, or at least it does on paper. The overall idea and story of the film is fantastic, it's back to classic Bond territory, full of espionage, suspense and intelligent thinking. It harnesses the idea that this is a new Bond, the beginning of his career, a Bond who had nothing to do with the cold-war. It should have been like the original Sean Connery Bonds but with a shot of adrenaline in the arm, but it isn't. Due to the writers guild of America strike, Daniel Craig and Marc Foster wrote a lot of the script themselves and it really shows. It's hard to say who wrote what but it is safe to say that none of it gels particularly well, with much of the story being quite hard to follow. This isn't helped by the punchy editing that often makes it feel like a perfume advert. The idea behind Gemma Arterton's Agent Strawberry Fields being killed off by drowning in a vat of oil is a very clever nod to Goldfinger's Jill Masterson (played by Shirley Eaton) being killed by being covered in Gold. Oil is the new Gold. This builds Bond's new world rather well, and his quest for vengeance over the murder of his lover from the previous film builds his persona brilliantly. Ian Flemming wrote that "If you don't have a quantum of solace in your relationship than the relationship is over". Bond's loss is shaping him into the character of Flemming's books, an edgier and more believable Bond. At least, this was the aim. I liked the 'Mad Max' style ultimatum the villain was given at the end but very little else. Overall the film is confusing and rather dull, the exciting scenes aren't particularly exciting, it's just that little too violent and it has little of the charm the character is known for. The cast is strong but no one delivers an outstanding performance, Judi Dench is given a particularly rotten script to deliver and in the end I ended up craving all the silliness, humour and nonsense that often ruined the previous incarnations. It feels like that what we all thought we wanted wasn't really what we wanted at all.

Friday, 6 February 2015



Machine Gun Preacher
Dir: Marc Forster
2011
***
Marc Forster is a good director, all of his films have a certain flair about them but unfortunately, and he has little to do with this, most of them I find poorly written. Machine Gun Preacher has bucked that trend somewhat though in my opinion, as the true story of Sam Childers is fascinating stuff. There is no doubt that Sam Childers is having a positive effect in Sudan, he's saved countless lives when others have stood by or simply forgotten them. I'm an atheist so can't say much about his work preaching, seems anyone can just open a Church and say what they like but I can't really knock the guy after all the good work he's done. However, his methods are worrying. The whole story felt justified until right at the end when the real Childers (played rather well by Gerard Butler in the film) asks the audience whether it matters HOW he gets the job done, just as long as it get done. I found it to be a pretty eerie moment, as the film makes him out to be a caring guy trying to better himself, not a gun crazy wannabe solder of fortune. Had we been fooled right until the end credits? Hard to say. Was it Marc Forster's intention to leave the film with an unexpected jolt of uncertainty? I'm afraid it left me a little empty and unsure whether his work is good in the long run but it is what it is and credit to Forster for keeping it balanced and keeping it honest.

Tuesday, 9 September 2014

Stay
Dir: Marc Forster
2005
***
Marc Foster's Stay suggests that Life is an illusion and you can pretty much get away with anything. Anything learnt here is serendipitous in my opinion but many would say that that is the art of physiotherapy, read between the lines my friends but for all the puzzling 'what the hell is going on' moments, there are plenty of pretty cinematography, good acting and interesting twists and turns. It also feels like Marc Forster's love letter to 50's noir thrillers, albeit an updated version but still lots of lovely green tint. I'm somewhere between liking it and thinking it was a load of old baloney but it looks so good.

Friday, 21 March 2014

World War Z
Dir: Marc Forster
2013
****
I got the book and I even got it signed by the author Max Brooks. Mr Brooks is a great guy, I resisted the urge to ask for stories about his parents and stuck to talking about Zombies. He knows his stuff! His book The Zombie Survival Guide is proof. So here comes my confession; I watched the film without reading the book. I have broken my own rule and I am disgusted with myself. To be honest, when talking to Mr Brooks about the film he admitted that he had not watched the film yet and had little to no input in its production which makes me wonder whether they are alike at all. I'll have to read the book *slaps self in face*. Anyway, I like the film very much. It's a reinvention of the genre, that is, a reinvention of the Zombie itself. The characteristics are the same but the method in which they are portrayed has been deconstructed. All cliches are gone and anything vaguely similar is handled differently. George A. Romero's Zombie films are all about symbolism, each episode centering on one of mankind's biggest questions. World War Z centers more on the idea of bacteria, the spread of disease, the idea of working together, unity in the face of adversity, war, etc. I'm not saying George A. Romero's films aren't intelligent but World War Z is more about intelligent design rather than philosophic symbolism. The idea of the Zombies being full of rage and running rather than walking is nothing new but the idea of them working as a unit kind of is. I immediately thought of them as worker ants which I can't say I've ever seen them as before. An intelligent Block-buster, now that is a nice change!