Be Kind, Rewind (2008)

If you didn't know already, Be Kind, Rewind, written and directed by Michel Gondry, centres around the mishaps of Mos Def and Jack Black, left alone in a video store by a foolishly trustworthy Danny Glover. Black's character Jerry isn't allowed in the store at first - and it's perfectly understandable - but inevitably he finds his way in and not only acts like a complete penis, but somehow manages to erase all videotapes in the store with the newly acquired magnetic field adorning his gelatinous body. Cue instant hilarity as deadlines and lawsuits loom ominously over a fun-filled journey through handheld movie-making. Rush Hour 2 never looked so good.

I've come to the conclusion that Michel Gondry desparately needs a good writer, maybe Charlie Kaufman to collabarate with again, to produce something of the same quality as Eternal Sunshine, and not something so generic as Be Kind, Rewind. It's not a wreck of a film by any means, only it just doesn't quite manage to achieve the charm it strives for; it aims high for a warm-hearted, wacky comedy feel, but it could leave you feeling tepid by the time it's all over. And why? Because you can't believe in it.

Capra wouldn't go this far. Firstly, Be Kind, Rewind features a video rental store existing the 21st century. Secondly, as you may have gathered from the trailers, the store becomes highly profitable when the "amateur" movies hit the market. If you'll pardon the inneundo, consider the believability of this for a moment, then believe me when I say that it gets much more far-fetched, to the point where you're sitting dumbfounded at the movie's climax, telling yourself that a situation like this could never happen.

Does the absurdity of the plot hurt Be Kind, Rewind in any way? In a movie like Transformers for instance, you'd be expected to leave your brain at the door for what is essentially a tale far removed from the real world. Be Kind, Rewind on the other hand, does appear to string you along in our sense of reality, whilst stretching the limits of belief at the same time, but if you really want to enjoy it, my best advice is to "suspend your belief." Oho, that old saying.

Most will agree that seeing the two main protagonists (Jack Black and Mos Def) reshoot all our favourite films is the best part of Be Kind, Rewind. Driving Miss Daisy, 2001: A Space Odyssey, King Kong...they're all recreated in hilarious fashion using the bare minimum in sets and costumes. There's one particular tracking shot that moves through each film set - almost like a theme park ride - that captures the action of each remake as it unfolds and enlightens us as to how fun the whole amateur filmmaking process can be with a sprinkle of imagination. Indeed, you begin to sense Gondry's influence within the fantastical creativity of these sequences.

The hindrance of these segments, as fun as they are, is that you can keep waiting for the next one, until you realise that they're exactly what you came for, not so much the narrative that revolves around them. The filmmaking process overshadows the film itself; in fact, the entire film, especially towards its end, becomes almost as haphazard and all over the place as Jack Black's video remakes. There were at least 7 instances where I just couldn't believe a certain character would do or say something so utterly stupid in their situation.

Jack Black once again plays himself, shouting and flailing his arms everywhere, and in this one role he actually seems to be bordering on mental retardation. I've never been huge fan of Black, but his insane ramblings quite fit the style of Be Kind, Rewind, so much that I couldn't work out whether he was irritating, or simply entertaining me. Further consideration leads me to believe that he was the perfect fit for something so bizarre as this, in that he can come off increasingly irksome, though in reality, Be Kind, Rewind just wouldn't work without him.

I wouldn't give this one a high recommendation, nor would I dissuade you from seeing it. Though if you're after a bit of harmless fun, Be Kind, Rewind isn't much of a wrong step. You may be inspired if you're a budding filmmaker, though be warned, you won't garner that kind of reception for your YouTube videos.

**1/2

Vantage Point (2008)

I can predict that for every 5 reviews of Vantage Point, 4 of them will mention Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, the tale of a violent confrontation as told through various, differing perspectives. The acting in Rashomon was so convincing, each perspective so passionately conveyed that the ambiguity of it all left you unsure which story to believe. Vantage Point, directed by Pete Travis, follows a set of individuals living (or dying) through an attempted Presidential assassination. The news crew, the camera-wielding tourist, the bodyguard...they all get their say. Every time the action begins to build to break-neck speed, the clock rewinds and we're once again observing the next witness become a wailing puppy at the sight of bullets and explosions.

The situation unfolds through many eyes, only none of the viewpoints even border on manipulation of the day's events. Involvement, intrigue? No thanks. The sheer fact that you have to see things as they were about 6 times in a row (not 8 viewpoints, as the poster misleads), is exasperating. The gunshot, the explosion, the crowd noises. Over and over. In fact, I may just watch it again to keep a tally for how many times the crowd erupts into applause.

It's clear as day that this is to Rashomon what Disturbia was to Rear Window; a film that tries to capitalise on a once enticing premise, but fails to grasp what made that premise so effective in the first place. The constant back-and-forth, yet entirely pedestrian pace of Vantage Point shows a lack of commitment to build suspense, a unnecessary exercise in trying to turn a generic action plot into a compelling mystery. The characters are cardboard cut-outs, and certain plot elements are dropped into earlier perspectives for the purpose of being used later, yet at the time they feel totally forced and out of the blue, as if the film is shouting at you to take note.

It's shame that such a great cast is wasted, but they try their best with the material nonetheless. William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver and especially Dennis Quaid all cope reasonably well. My biggest concern is for poor Forrest Whitaker, who is reduced to this only a year after winning the Best Actor Oscar for his performance as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland. He probably does get the best vantage point segment in the entire movie, but even then his presence is just underwhelming; when you spot him towards the end of the film you can only wonder "what is he still doing here?"

With the focus of Vantage Point purely on, well, the vantage points themselves, it's amusing to know that the best part of the entire thing (and that's a stretch), is the last 20 minutes, in which the film pussies out by ditching its initial premise and settling for a straight narrative in which a dizzying car chase ensues. It's almost exciting, albeit cheesy, though I suspect by this point most will have lost patience entirely. The intention of Vantage Point was presumably to keep you on the edge of your seat. I slumped.

Oh, and there's a plot twist which I guessed in the opening minutes of the film. It's so bleedin' obvious.

*

Cloverfield (2008)

I've been spending most of my time catching up on the cream of the crop of 2007 movies, so as to be more informed in compiling my Top 10, 20, 30 or whatever list. In doing so I've spent money in the cinema watching Oscar-worthy rollovers from last year, and avoiding many of the January/February 2008 releases. Even so, nothing during this period has particularly caught my eye, and those that I have checked out have been wheeled out by the hype machine right onto my proverbial dinner plate.

I had to see Cloverfield. Its viral marketing campaign wasn't quite on the same level of fanboy-droolfest as The Dark Knight, but it did have plenty of intrigue. Who wasn't the least bit curious at the sight of a headless Statue of Liberty? Who didn't want a sneak peak at the sight of the under wraps 'monster'? You must give credit to the makers of Cloverfield for keeping a crucial plot element, in the identity of the central destructive force, relatively secret in our age of movie trailers that increasingly fall prey to giving their best plot moments away during their brief 3 minute duration.

The movie is shot in handheld, with a shaky-cam that's intense and to a greater extent, completely nauseating. Myself, I don't even suffer from travel sickness and I had to look away briefly many times. It's almost as if someone dangled a camera on a shoelace and brought it onto the Pepsi Max. 9/11 was captured on home video by a great deal of people and I can understand the sense of dread that can be achieved through this method as opposed to heavily edited, manipulated news footage, but it really became too much for me. However, not everyone would have the same experience as me so I can certainly not count this as a flaw. It's far from a flaw; it becomes the movie's main strength and lifts it above other examples of the genre. In a way, it is almost like a ride simulator at a theme park: it draws you in, and it doesn't let you leave for 80 minutes. Those 80 minutes are gonna hurt, because they seem like forever, and unfortunately it begins to render the experience tiresome once you accept that you've seen enough wanton annihilation for one day.

The story itself is a mixed bag. We have the same 2-dimensional characters you come to expect from these disaster movies, complete with an broad, initial ambition (head to Japan), quickly transformed into a do or die goal (save the sexy girlfriend). Yes, these are the same sexy youths you're so familiar with from many of the other various Hollywood horror/slasher flicks you've been subjected to at your best friend's nth birthday sleepover. However, the way Cloverfield is filmed doesn't beg us to care about their ordeal, but instead to observe it. We follow them in a voyeuristic fashion, weaving in and out of the carnage that erupts left, right and centre. It's good to feel detached from such unlikeable characters; it's even better to see them attacked by giant parasites.

That's the thrill and the flaw that becomes inherent within Cloverfield. Its sole purpose is to follow these chosen individuals through their ordeal, yet it begs the question as to why the cameraman would choose to film them, over the much more valuable option of shooting footage of the monster? For me, it is simply a small annoyance, but it doesn't detract from the sole aim of the film: to entertain. It achieves this, loud and proud, at least for a while.

Like a theme park ride, it comes and goes ferociously, a thrill that you patiently wait for through first reveal of teaser posters, up until the very last moment in which the handheld hits the ground and shuts itself off. What happens next? After having seen the film, I began to contemplate its lasting impact and I concluded that it was no better, or worse, than other disaster epics of the last few years. Yes, it took an original approach, but it was essentially the same old dog with new tricks, and for that I deemed it ultimately forgettable. I may have had some fairly positive things to say about Cloverfield in the last few paragraphs, but ask me again in a few months, and I doubt I'll have anything to comment on at all, other than its superficiality. It's all harmless fun, and recommended, but despite what many may say, it won't forever stand out in your memory.

**