Coal

Dirty Sleven Smoking in Russia, or possibly China

Apr 19, 14:13 Review

It may seem counterintuitive, but now that my schoolwork is basically completed I may not be posting as regularly as before. You see, until now I’ve been tied to my laptop for approximately 12 hours daily, and blogging was a helpful, low-energy diversion. Now I have no reason to be on the internet in the first place. Still, we’ll see where the summer season takes us. This may prove to be my only relief from the mind-numbing monotone of manual labour.

Speaking of which, it’s a little premature, but I can hardly contain my excitement at the mere prospect of working overseas. I applied for my first English teaching positions a few days ago – in Russia and China. Either location, provided the terms of employment are decent, would be fantastic.

Now for my reviews.

Dirty Pretty Things (imdb): Despite the title, and a number of early scenes designed to frighten off the faint of heart, this is by no standard a pornographic movie. It is the touching story of two immigrants (one illegal, one on probation) trying to make it in London, without losing their dignity in the process. They are caught between the fear of strict laws that demand exportation should they try to live ordinary lives, and a criminal underbelly that seeks to exploit them in every way imaginable. In a slightly comical turn, they make it out alive, but not unscathed. I’ll recommend it with a warning: be patient, it’s slow, but it’s worthwhile.

7.5/10

Lucky Number Sleven (imdb). I liked it for all the reasons Roger Ebert didn’t. Don’t read his review if you haven’t seen the movie yet – also, don’t watch the previews on TV. They are clumsy, uninteresting, and give away too much. Anyway, here’s Ebert:

When a movie makes it clear that its characters are going through a charade for the amusement of the director (and when the characters themselves make it clear they all but know they are actors in a movie), I get restless: They’re having such a good time with each other, why do they need me?

And here’s me: No doubt the characters are going through a charade, no doubt the plot runs circles around viewer, no doubt this movie is self-aware, and hints at all of this. But why shouldn’t it? The movie is unusually honest about its deception, and lighthearted about the con (both internal and external), which means it’s a riot to watch if only the viewer can get over his conceit that he is somehow needed to solve the mystery. Sit back Ebert, relax – they don’t need you. Luckily, however, they’ve opened up the story and let you in, and all you have to do is get over the detective complex and enjoy it.

My one complaint about this movie is the walk-through at the end. I felt more could have been left open. But it was an obvious throw-back to Hitchcock’s fading lead-the-audience-on-then-show-them-how-you-did-it way of doing movies (with healthy doses of James Bond and internal references to all of this), so I’m willing to chalk this up to a personal caveat and let it slide. Mike, for instance, was very glad for the run-through at the end.

My final take? Minor flaws did little to damage the overall experience. The biggest mistake was releasing an absolutely terrible trailer that endangers some of the effects of watching the movie unprepared. Something more along the lines of the old Conspiracy Theory trailers would have been much better.

For the first half, I was was prepared to give it 9.5/10, but in the end I had to drop it down to

9/10

Thank you for Smoking (imdb):

“You know the guy who can pick up any girl? I’m him on crack.”—Nick Naylor

Sleven was clever because it was self-aware; its director was a genius. Smoking is clever because, well, it just is, meaning its writer was a genius. Once again, ignore the TV teasers, which don’t do it half the justice it deserves. A movie whose protagonist is an unapologetic tobacco lobbyist can be one of two things: (1) retarded, or (2) unbelievably clever. This one definately falls into the latter category.

It tried a little too hard to be heart-warming at points, but even these points were wrapped in its twisted (but sincere) humour. Amusingly enough, in a movie all about smoking, not a single cigarette is lit. Apart from its success as an intelligent, amusing comedy, this movie has additional merit for its reflections, both explicit and implicit, on art of spin and its place in media, public life, and everyday conversation.

If you’re tired of comedy based on sexual puns and booger jokes, this one’s for you. It’s hard to rate because it’s original and doesn’t fall within normal categories. Therefore I give it three ratings:

Structural Stuff (plot, filming technique, character development etc.): 8/10 – it’s not distracting, it doesn’t make the film great, it’s all perfectly satisfactory.

Spin Factor (dialogue, treatment of subject matter, writing, delivery): 10/10.

Final Rating: 9/10. It really doesn’t deserve a 10/10, but when it’s all over, I really want to give it one. We’ll settle for 9.