jeremyemmet
Joined Dec 2004
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews11
jeremyemmet's rating
There's a tricky decision the you have to make when you choose to do a film examining the controversial elements of an industry.
You have to choose whether to fix the film in a place and time, and discuss real historical events, or to allow the film to examine broader topics through fictional constructs, thus freeing the movie to be timeless.
Both choices can be fraught with peril, and Sally Potter braves those waters with Rage, choosing to create a fictional context for examining the class disparity, sweatshops, and unrealistic beauty standards that are at the heart of most of the Fashion Industry's major controversies.
Potter uses a bare-bones film technique, fixing a camera at a green screen, and shooting a series of documentary-style still-camera interviews with actors playing fashion industry archetypes.
There is a fundamental premise, and a story arc complete with acceptably dramatic events of a shocking nature, but these are neither compelling, nor believable in any context. The story here is secondary, and is a means to an end.
This film is, essentially, an acting exercise. It is an opportunity for Sally Potter and her actors to explore a character's arc in the broader context of a (largely silly and contrived) fashion industry disaster.
The film never answers any of the poignant questions it asks, and it never really allows any one character to follow a satisfying arc (with the possible exception of Jude Law's character, the high point).
For the most part, theatre and film geeks will enjoy the effort, if not the execution, but mainstream film-goers will be bored to tears inside of five minutes.
You have to choose whether to fix the film in a place and time, and discuss real historical events, or to allow the film to examine broader topics through fictional constructs, thus freeing the movie to be timeless.
Both choices can be fraught with peril, and Sally Potter braves those waters with Rage, choosing to create a fictional context for examining the class disparity, sweatshops, and unrealistic beauty standards that are at the heart of most of the Fashion Industry's major controversies.
Potter uses a bare-bones film technique, fixing a camera at a green screen, and shooting a series of documentary-style still-camera interviews with actors playing fashion industry archetypes.
There is a fundamental premise, and a story arc complete with acceptably dramatic events of a shocking nature, but these are neither compelling, nor believable in any context. The story here is secondary, and is a means to an end.
This film is, essentially, an acting exercise. It is an opportunity for Sally Potter and her actors to explore a character's arc in the broader context of a (largely silly and contrived) fashion industry disaster.
The film never answers any of the poignant questions it asks, and it never really allows any one character to follow a satisfying arc (with the possible exception of Jude Law's character, the high point).
For the most part, theatre and film geeks will enjoy the effort, if not the execution, but mainstream film-goers will be bored to tears inside of five minutes.
The IT Crowd is an absurdist satire of office dramas, featuring those most indispensable of nerds, tech support geeks.
The first thing I noticed watching this series was director Ben Fuller's patience. He has a willingness to let a joke build that evades most television directors. Some jokes are set up in the opening scene and wait until the final segment for the payoff.
The show is further bolstered by great chemistry and timing between stars Richard Ayoade, Christopher Morris, Chris O'Dowd, and Katherine Parkinson. Each actor emits a brave willingness to take their characters to extremes for a laugh.
It's all helped a great deal, of course, if you have a vague notion computer technology and its various sub-cultures, but for the most part, the audience is along for clever dialogue-related humour, not in-jokes.
The first thing I noticed watching this series was director Ben Fuller's patience. He has a willingness to let a joke build that evades most television directors. Some jokes are set up in the opening scene and wait until the final segment for the payoff.
The show is further bolstered by great chemistry and timing between stars Richard Ayoade, Christopher Morris, Chris O'Dowd, and Katherine Parkinson. Each actor emits a brave willingness to take their characters to extremes for a laugh.
It's all helped a great deal, of course, if you have a vague notion computer technology and its various sub-cultures, but for the most part, the audience is along for clever dialogue-related humour, not in-jokes.
I didn't realize this was a Terry Gilliam movie until the closing credits. I simultaneously reacted with shock, and slapped my for-head with an, "Of course!" The sense of wonder and imagination ever-present in Gilliam's fantasy films is completely absent here, but his characteristic style is all over the movie. Gilliam departs slightly from his staunch reliance on practical effects, and the film is weaker for it. A few instances of painfully obvious CGI pull the viewer out of the "reality" of the forest, and his traditional puppetry/cinematography techniques simply work much better. There is a very glib, almost disaffected feel to this movie. This ultimately works in its favour, since if it had taken itself too seriously it would have been impossible to swallow. The actors take to this style well, but are often working with weak, one-dimensional characterizations. Jonathon Price virtually reprises his role from The Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen, only with too much Napolean added (Napolean is not actually rendered in the film, the character is a French General). Peter Stormare does an excellent job of playing what is unfortunately a character of little value, a bizarre mix of cowardly thug and authoritarian hero. There is nearly universal praise for Heath Ledger regarding his performance, and I am no different. Jake Grimm is easily the most likable and best-written character. I also expected that Ledger had been typecast, and would appear is the stalwart fantasy hero yet again. I was delightfully surprised to see an entirely new side to his talents. Gilliam has made a film that is probably good for his career. As a big-budget summer adventure movie, this is above-average and watchable. As a Terry Gilliam fantasy, it is a disappointment.