A comedy in which three guys head out on a road trip across Europe to learn about themselves, escape their parents and – most importantly – lose their virginity. Sure, not a particularly original concept. The difference with this Belgian take is that the main characters all have varying levels of disability; Lars (Gilles de Schryver) has a tumour which is increasing paralysis in his body, Jozef (Tom Audenaert) is blind and Philip (Robrecht Vanden Thoren) is paralysed and uses a motorised wheelchair. Their journey – as with all road trip movies – is fraught with problems that they must overcome, and along the way they all grow up.
The relationships between the three and Claude (Isabelle de Hertogh), the nurse that takes them on the trip, feel real and interesting, if a little simplified in order to keep the film moving at a brisk pace. It is a quick moving and light-feeling film. The jokes aren’t laboured (it’s definitely a gentle humour and not laugh-out-loud kind of film) and the settings lovely. We get a whirlwind tour of Europe, and they manage to drink a large amount of wine on their journey, too.
The film has two main themes; acceptance and life. Our main protagonists are as judgmental of others as the world can be of them, and they must learn to overcome this. Their grasp for freedom is inspiring and something that everyone can relate to; surely we have all wanted to escape our parents and let loose?
Successfully uplifting, but also making some serious points. COME AS YOU ARE is telling us all to live our life and to live it now. A sentiment I agree with.
You never quite know what you’re going to get with a Takashi Miike film. I knew that this had elements of a musical, which put me in mind of his earlier film THE HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS (note1). Miike plays with genre conventions almost as much as with that earlier film, with some very clever animated sequences and evocative shots which seem to be inspired by the manga that FOR LOVE’S SAKE is based on (note 2).
At its core, FOR LOVE’S SAKE is the story of a good girl falling for a bad guy, who just isn’t interested. Thankfully, there is more pinned to the story than just this. Many aspects of love are brought in to play; sacrifice, desire, voyeurism, parenthood, selfishness, obsession… it’s certainly not a positive outlook for the most part, and that is refreshing. Any of us who have been through the complexities of love will relate to an aspect to each of the characters, although hopefully not to the same extent that they suffer.
As you would expect, the film has a lot of visual flair. Colour and light are used in very evocative ways; with more than a nod to music video styles (note 3). I’m not a fan of musicals, but the conventions are played with here, and the musical scenes are highlights of the film, and have the affect of making the violence seem even worse than perhaps it would – such a juxtaposition is jarring and I found it effective.
The cast are all excellent, and play against each other well. The characters aren’t really all that deep, but they are interesting and well thought-out.
Perhaps not one to be counted with Takashi Miike’s very best films, and a tad overlong, FOR LOVE’S SAKE is an entertaining and clever film, and is definitely worth watching. If you’re a fan of his other work, then I would recommend adding this to your collection without any hesitation. If you’re new to his work, then it’s certainly a good enough place to start.
EXTRAS
Include a making-of documentary, music video version and trailer
ON SALE NOW
Notes:
1) A brilliant, bonkers and highly entertaining film. I highly recommend it.
2) I’ve not read it, so would not know for certain.
3) If you like films with a strong visual flair, then this is right up your street.
Stratford-upon-Avon is currently in the grip of an Arts Festival, a celebration of theatre, music, comedy and, of course, film. The Picturehouse is getting involved in a variety of ways, but I am most excited about the three open-air screenings that we’re hosting at the Boathouse, along the river Avon (see note 1).
LIFE OF PI(May 30)
The Oscar-winning tale of a boy lost at sea on a lifeboat, with only a tiger for company. Absolutely stunning to watch, the film was a huge hit with Stratford audiences earlier this year.
YELLOW SUBMARINE(May 31)
The Beatles star in this animated adventure, in which the Fab Four take on the music hating Blue Meanies. I’ve not seen this in years, so I’m very happy indeed to get it on the big screen.
JAWS(June 01)
Spielberg at his best (see note 2), how could there not be a screening of this when water is involved?
The area will be open from about 8.30 (and there are refreshments available from The Bear pub), there will be some cover, and it’s going to be lots and lots of fun. Films will start between 9 and 9.30 depending on the light.
Notes:
1) There will be swans, as the sun goes down in Stratford upon Avon. It’s gonna be romantic y’all.
2) Along with Close Encounters, and maybe Jurassic Park.
OR a review of the new Star Trek film in which there are MANY SPOILERS and lots of other Star Trek thoughts…
I’m guilty. I got too excited.
You see, I have always been a ‘Trekkie’ (see note 1). I grew up watching Kirk and Spock on VHS, I remember watching, initially disliking and learning to love The Next Generation. I still hold Deep Space Nine in high regard (see note 2). When I was made cinema manager, I was very, very tempted to walk around slowly while listening to Jerry Goldsmith’s ‘The Enterprise’.
The point I’m making is that I know Star Trek. I adore Star Trek. I love it when it’s great (often), and I love it when it’s bad (Spock’s Brain, raise your hand… hehe). Over the last few weeks I have allowed my love of all things Trek to grow into a little ball of intense energy, and then last week I allowed it to escape. We had a screening of THE WRATH OF KHAN (see note 3), I got very enthusiastic with the social media posts, and I had a feature about Star Trek: Phase II published in Starburst Magazine, which I used to read about Star Trek in as a child. I even arranged for (cheap & fake) Starfleet uniforms for the staff, and made them listen to Shatner’s albums. Whew!
And then I sat down to watch this…
Let us begin, much like the film does, with the music. Michel Giacchino’s score for 2009’s STAR TREK is excellent, with enough nods to the past that it merge’s with the works of those great composers gone before, and also manages to sound fresh and exciting. There are a number of new themes thrown in this time, including some piano work, and I think it is fantastic. So, the film opens with the heroic, but slightly wistful notes of this great score before we are quickly into action. Running. Natives. Red trees. Some exciting nonsense and then… the Enterprise rising from the ocean. There is not a single moment in the remainder of the film which even approaches the greatness of this.
And then we get in to the nitty gritty. Terrorism against Starfleet by Cumberbatch’s mysterious enemy pushes the local officers into a frenzy of anger and vengeance. Kirk, being Kirk, figures out a little more than anyone else, so he and the Enterprise are sent on an assassination mission by Admiral Marcus. They must use some new, fancy and ultra secret photon torpedoes to take-out the terrorist, who just happens to be hiding on the Klingon homeworld of Kronos (see note 4).
There is some good old fashioned Star Trek moral angst, and Kirk decides to capture this terrorist instead of killing him in cold blood. Action follows. It’s exciting. I really appreciate the larger role that Uhura plays in this new film series. I think that it’s in keeping with what Gene Roddenberry would have liked.
Upon capturing him, it turns out that, much like the rumours suggested, Cumberbatch is indeed playing Khan, and he claims that he is being manipulated by Admiral Marcus, who wants to militarise Starfleet. Oh lordy. Khan. This changes the film somewhat. I really wish they hadn’t done that.
So, let’s swing around the sun and go back in time a week to the screening of WRATH OF KHAN I attended. Or maybe a few decades, to its first release. This film, you see, is iconic. Khan and his feud with Kirk is iconic. I know the film very, very well. And suddenly this new Star Trek is being directly compared to old Star Trek in my mind, and I’m sorry, but new Trek just isn’t going to win.
So, some more action happens to get our heroes onto Admiral Marcus’ big battleship (see note 5). The film then dispenses with the Admiral, and places Khan in his throne as the main villain. The brief period of ‘who can I trust’ is certainly interesting, but ultimately the answer is ‘no one’, so… back to the action. What I found myself wanting here was for Khan and Kirk to become allies, even friends. It would have been an interesting flip of the relationship coin, and a huge ‘what if’ which could change everything in future installments of Star Trek. After all, what’s the point of simply remaking the same damn thing?
What then follows is essentially a replaying of WRATH OF KHAN, but with the pieces moved around. Same dialogue. Same shots. Same everything, except much, much less emotion. In WRATH OF KHAN, the Kirk/Spock dynamic had years of building, and we had been a part of it. With INTO DARKNESS, we’re simply told that they’re friends, and it’s just not the same. It was too early to tell this tale with these actors – the bromance has yet to flourish.
I won’t lie, I did enjoy seeing the classic film mirrored, in quite a ‘geek’ way. But I also found it very distracting. What is interesting is the reaction of people who haven’t seen WRATH OF KHAN – it seems almost universally positive. Perhaps in this instance, pandering to the fans may have worked against the film?
The action scenes are all exciting, fast-paced and perfect ‘popcorn’ fun. I find that there isn’t a strong sense of location to any of it… and I also felt that any real threat or suspense had already gone by the second half of the film. You see, Khan’s blood apparently has some amazing ‘cure all’ possibilities, so we know that anyone who has to make a sacrifice will be magically brought back.
Gosh, this sounds like a very negative review. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the film. I recommend going to see it, and I will be going to see it again.
The actors are all great, with Quinto and Cumberbatch really standing out. Sulu and Chekov get some great moments. Simon Pegg is fantastic as Scotty. I feel like McCoy needs some more time on screen. I like the new take on the Klingons. They feel dangerous, unpredictable and suitably alien. The effects are great throughout, and the action is exciting. Overall a very entertaining film.
If anything, I allowed my love of Star Trek to lead me astray. When I see it again, I will endeavour to leave all of my history at the door.
Notes
1) a term I prefer over ‘Trekker’. Although frankly I don’t much care. The realm of fandom deserves a post – possibly even a book – all to itself.
2) especially Jadzia Dax. Oh lord.
3) which my girlfriend slept through.
4) or Qo’noS, if you’re that way inclined.
5) Is it just me, or does it look like it’s been made from lego pieces?
The colourful and fun-looking EPIC has three short clips available for your perusal. The film is released on May 22, and is going to be the big one for the next school holidays. Parents, you will be seeing this. Probably more than once!
With the imminent release of Star Trek Into Darkness, which has my excitement levels high enough to melt dilithium crystals, as well as the Stratford Upon Avon Picturehouse screening of Wrath of Khan just around the corner, it seemed the perfect time to revisit my old friends, the Star Trek movies, and to put them in some kind of order.
Generally it is assumed that the even numbered films are the best, but I have never held to this. Growing up with Star Trek, each film (and series, even some episodes) is particularly important to me. I’ll listen to the music from them to evoke certain moods, quote them and generally just enjoy their existence.
The most difficult one to include is JJ Abrams’ Star Trek, as it is so different from the others. I enjoyed it a great deal, certainly, but is it the Star Trek that I know and love? I really can’t decide.
Anyhow, here are my top five Star Trek films.
Wrath of Khan
An easy number one. With spectacular special effects, exciting action sequences and enough drama dripping from Shatner’s brow to dissolve lesser films. Spectacular music from James Horner (which he has never bested), grand themes and a superb performance from Montalban as the vengeance-fueled Khan set this as not only the best Star Trek film, but possibly the best science-fiction films and an excellent adventure.
Just watch it, ok?
The Undiscovered Country
The first Star Trek film I saw in the cinema! This is much darker in tone than its predecessors, and has some heavy political overtones, with the Federation and Klingons dancing around the idea of peace and friendship. Classic themes, and excellent action make it a very satisfying film. The dark, gothic score from Cliff Eidelman is also superb, and so different from any other Star Trek film. As with ‘Khan’, the space-ships feel big, they feel like battleships or submarines, and that gives the action some scale. General Chang (Christopher Plummer) is another excellent foil for Kirk, and spends much of the film quoting Shakespeare.
Plus, any film that starts with an exploding moon must be good.
First Contact
The first film with the cast of The Next Generation is also their only one in my top five! As with the previous choices, the making of this film is in the enemy – the Borg – and in making this fight the grand theme. This time there is something of Moby Dick, with Patrick Stewart on absolute top form as Picard.
Top notch effects, great action and a wonderful score from Gerry Goldsmith make this a film that anyone can enjoy – not just Star Trek fans.
The Motion Picture
I don’t expect many others would include this in their top five lists. Possibly not even in their top ten! It is slow, and ponderous and light on action. However, I like it for all of those reasons. It is a big film, with big ideas. I love the long flight around the new Enterprise, with the wonderful theme playing. I love the weirdness of V’ger as a villain. I hate the uniforms.
Star Trek (JJ Abrams)
An exciting summer blockbuster, this earns its place by managing to relaunch a film series that I love, and to bring new people in to see Star Trek. Although lighter than the previous films, some of the tone of the very first Star Trek series has been captured, and this is good. I’m still not sure I can completely come to terms with a different cast, and various other changes. I certainly am not a fan of the new Enterprise (Geeky, I know, but hey – it’s my blog, after all!).
I am excited to see where the franchise will go now.
THE LOOK OF LOVE… sexy? Sleazy? Funny? Serious? This film tries to be everything and does none of it well. Based on the life of entrepreneur Paul Raymond (Steve Coogan) a man who rose to success from humble Liverpudlian roots to become the richest man on Soho’s streets by discovering just how much sex really does sell.
Coogan is irritatingly sober and only gives hints of the quirky humor that we have come to expect from the the chameleon 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE and Alan Partridge actor. We can enjoy little bites of genius Coogan comedy but it is not enough to satisfy the appetite of a fan. His portrayal of the man who is adored by many but liked by few and who selfishly controls the lives of his friends, wives and children through neglect, sex and drugs is on the whole a convincing one, but it is not enough to bring life to the plot.
The quantity of naked flesh in this film mirrors the themes of Paul’s life itself by questioning how much is too much, and when does art become pornography? The line is blurred in both senses and the quantity with which it is delivered to the screen takes away all of the gloss, glamour and excitmente of the erotic world and leaves you bored and entirely un-sympathetic to the characters.
The supporting cast do little to carry the movie long, however there is an intriguing and surprising performance by comedian Chris Addison as one of Paul’s employes, he is natural and funny and stars effortlessly against bigger names. Imogen Poots is another name to mention, she plays Paul’s spoilt daughter, desperate for the adoration of success but with none of the physical or intellectual assets, her character is hard to like and her singing much much worse.
No amount of celebrity cameos (of which there are many) can save this film from its bargain bin destiny. Michael Winterbottom disappoints the audience by turning an otherwise interesting story into a long and anticlimactic orgy of lifeless acting and plastic boobs.
I’m So Excited is the new film from Pedro Almodovar, who most recently brought us The Skin I Live In, which was a very dark, stylish thriller. His new film is very much the opposite; awash with bright colours, latin temperaments and full of comedy, music and sex.
A plane is en-route and in the air when the pilots discover a problem which means that landing will be extremely dangerous. The crew respond in a variety of ways, mainly getting drunk, and then performing a full dance routine to the song ‘I’m So Excited’ to cheer the passengers up. They decide that the best course of action will be to give their passengers a cocktail which includes mescaline. It’s not long before various people have coupled off and become a little more amorous.
Behind the fizz, fervour and frivolity is a dark edge, though, with death also being an important presence throughout the film.
Each of the passengers has an outrageous backstory which we are given the chance to explore. The performances are appropriately dramatic, and the cast perfectly put together. Almodovar certainly has a touch for casting!
Some of the jokes are a little blunt, and there is certainly a heavy reliance on gay stereotypes – although in the almost cartoonish world of the film, this works rather well.
Short, sweet and fun. I’m So Excited is a film that will cheer you up, and add some colour to your life.
A comedy in which three guys head out on a road trip across Europe to learn about themselves, escape their parents and – most importantly – lose their virginity. Sure, not a particularly original concept. The difference with this Belgian take is that the main characters all have varying levels of disability; Lars (Gilles de Schryver) has a tumour which is increasing paralysis in his body, Jozef (Tom Audenaert) is blind and Philip (Robrecht Vanden Thoren) is paralysed and uses a motorised wheelchair. Their journey – as with all road trip movies – is fraught with problems that they must overcome, and along the way they all grow up.
The film has two main themes; acceptance and life. Our main protagonists are as judgmental of others as the world can be of them, and they must learn to overcome this. Their grasp for freedom is inspiring and something that everyone can relate to; surely we have all wanted to escape our parents and let loose?
