Bea says: As an ex-pat Australian, I always like to see other Australians doing well, so was pleased to see that this film featured not only Guy Pearce (in scarily pantomime baddie mode as the sadistic Charlie Rakes) but was written by the one and only Nick Cave, of whose work I have long been a fan.
Cecil and I have seen a few of these dark, thinking-person's Western-style films over the years (Get Low for example), and it is a genre that I really enjoy. Of course, this is not really set in the West; the action takes place in Prohibition-era hillbilly Virginia as locals rake in the dough brewing moonshine in the hills to sell in the cities, when Rakes is sent in from Chicago to put a stop to it.
Our affections are quickly won by the moonshining Bondurant brothers, particularly man-of-few-words Forrest, and Rakes' stop at nothing tactics make him easy to dislike, with one scene so disturbing I felt physically ill. The Bondurant's operation is the last left standing when the final showdown between Rakes and the moonshiners occurs, but it is at great cost. However, the film is not altogether bleak.
Lovely, evocative music - particularly the Amish/Mennonite church hymn - and spectacular scenery are added extras to this absorbing story - but not for the faint-hearted.
****
Cecil says: As Bea says, this is not one for the squeamish. Right from the opening scene, where youngest brother Jack hasn't the heart (or balls, in his brothers' eyes) to kill a pig on their farm (but another of them does...), this is full of moments that make you wince and cringe at the atrocities committed.
We grow to like these Bondurants: Forrest who stands by his principles; Howard who rages and roars, but also gets side-tracked at key moments; and little runt Jack, who narrates through the voiceover. I guess we are supposed to relate to this guy most closely, though for Brits watching this film, he'll surely remind us of Billy Mitchell in Eastenders, trying to prove himself next to his tough, bullying brothers.
Prohibition and the gang wars were a tough old time in US history, though I can't help thinking if I'd lived through that period, I'd have been more like the other farmers in the area, keeping my head down to avoid trouble, and only getting roused into reaction when the authorities go one step too far...
Good story, well told. Nick Cave screenplay brilliant, and only a shame he didn't write more of the songs that went with the storyline.
***.5
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Hope Springs
Bea says: A friend staying for the weekend joined Cecil and me in seeing this fairly new release at our local cinema - billed as a comedy, and starring Meryl Streep, what could go wrong?
Well, nothing did go wrong, although it is worth saying that this "comedy" is really quite a bittersweet, and very character-driven, tale of the ups and downs of marriage - there were certainly times when the audience were roaring with laughter, but there were equally times when you could have heard a pin drop in the cinema, as some of the more painful moments of married life were explored.
Meryl Streep is always good, but Tommie Lee Jones was, if anything, better, with perfect timing and playing really well against Streep. I was vaguely surprised by this, so checked out Jones' career on Wikipedia, to discover that he has a Broadway background - that explains that, then.
This film is definitely worth seeing - and not just if you have had a long relationship; this is thought-provoking stuff and gives plenty to think about. Not much to critique here - well written from Vanessa Taylor, well directed and superbly acted from all three main characters - Streep, Jones and Steve Carell playing things a bit straighter as Dr Feld.
****
Cecil says: I agree with Bea, actually.
I didn't even know Steven Carell was the name of that diminutive actor who normally plays comic roles in rather second-rate movies, but he does a grand job here as the straight-faced therapist, cajoling Streep and Jones to explore what's gone wrong in their marriage and carry out various exercises aimed at getting things moving again.
I couldn't help wondering if the pin-drop silence Bea refers to in our cinema was down to the average age of the audience there that day: quite a few must have got to that 31 years' marriage stage, when things just trundle along in a rather mundane way and you can begin to question where now...
Although the couple spend most of the film way up north in Maine, Bea and I fancied we recognised the posh hotel they end up decamping to after they've had their fill of the cheap and dreary motel. Unless we're mistaken, it was the historic Griswold Inn in Essex, Connecticut. You can't be sure from the credits at the end, but we did remember that Meryl Streep's Mum lives about 5 miles away, so she must know the hotel well herself.
Funnily enough, I had to get Bea to remind me of the outcome of their relationship reviews; I had forgotten how the film ends. What lingers from this movie is a feel-good, but challenging mood.
Lovely film to see, though I wonder how I'd feel if my marriage wasn't working out too well...
***.5
Well, nothing did go wrong, although it is worth saying that this "comedy" is really quite a bittersweet, and very character-driven, tale of the ups and downs of marriage - there were certainly times when the audience were roaring with laughter, but there were equally times when you could have heard a pin drop in the cinema, as some of the more painful moments of married life were explored.
Meryl Streep is always good, but Tommie Lee Jones was, if anything, better, with perfect timing and playing really well against Streep. I was vaguely surprised by this, so checked out Jones' career on Wikipedia, to discover that he has a Broadway background - that explains that, then.
This film is definitely worth seeing - and not just if you have had a long relationship; this is thought-provoking stuff and gives plenty to think about. Not much to critique here - well written from Vanessa Taylor, well directed and superbly acted from all three main characters - Streep, Jones and Steve Carell playing things a bit straighter as Dr Feld.
****
Cecil says: I agree with Bea, actually.
I didn't even know Steven Carell was the name of that diminutive actor who normally plays comic roles in rather second-rate movies, but he does a grand job here as the straight-faced therapist, cajoling Streep and Jones to explore what's gone wrong in their marriage and carry out various exercises aimed at getting things moving again.
I couldn't help wondering if the pin-drop silence Bea refers to in our cinema was down to the average age of the audience there that day: quite a few must have got to that 31 years' marriage stage, when things just trundle along in a rather mundane way and you can begin to question where now...
Although the couple spend most of the film way up north in Maine, Bea and I fancied we recognised the posh hotel they end up decamping to after they've had their fill of the cheap and dreary motel. Unless we're mistaken, it was the historic Griswold Inn in Essex, Connecticut. You can't be sure from the credits at the end, but we did remember that Meryl Streep's Mum lives about 5 miles away, so she must know the hotel well herself.
Funnily enough, I had to get Bea to remind me of the outcome of their relationship reviews; I had forgotten how the film ends. What lingers from this movie is a feel-good, but challenging mood.
Lovely film to see, though I wonder how I'd feel if my marriage wasn't working out too well...
***.5
Sunday, 9 September 2012
Anna Karenina
Cecil says: Some of the billboards for this film refer to it as 'Joe Wright's Anna Karenina'. Hmmm, that sounded a note of warning in my mind. And once the film began, I just thought: What the...
What's with all the West End choreography? For goodness sake.
It's funny, though, isn't it? When we went to see Brief Encounter on the West End stage, and they combined film clips from the movie with the stage performance, it really worked.
But the ridiculous synchronised office staff, and frozen fixed dancers, who begin moving at a signal from somewhere off-stage. And the constant views of the stage ropes and stage floor.
What WAS he trying to do? A Brechtian distancing of the audience from the action on the screen? Maybe it was to distract away from the less-than-convincing acting on the stage...
Honestly, for one the best, most passionate pieces of literature ever, this was contrived nonsense.
Where it stuck to 'normal' cinematic bits, I got engaged with it. It's hard to ruin totally such a fantastic plot and such amazing characters. But Joe Wright did his best to (and it surely wasn't Tom Stoppard's screenplay?).
I didn't really care about any of the characters; I didn't feel much empathy for any of it.
Oh dear, the whole charade made me want to read the book again just to take away the image of Keira Knightley as Anna...
**.5
Bea says: I have been waiting for the right moment in my life to read this classic work of literature. After seeing this, I think that time might be now. I wonder if I had read it, this would have been an easier film to watch - but according to Cecil it made no difference at all.
In some ways I didn't mind the whole theatrical premise - it was very opulent and beautiful to look at certainly. But it was - distracting. And it did make me not enter the characters and their situation quite in the way I might have if it had been more conventionally told. But maybe that was also the somewhat wooden acting of Keira Knightley, who has her place but it is not really this. I just don't think she acts well enough - my emotions weren't really hooked at all as Anna moves further and further down the path of self-destruction, and I didn't care enough about her. I wasn't too sure about Matthew MacFadyen either - both he and Knightley seemed to have been told to ham up their Britishness, which was frankly odd in Imperial Russia.
I did enjoy some of the subplots and the actors involved in those - particularly Domhnall Gleeson as Levin, who we have just recently seen in Shadow Dancer, and perhaps I am being too fanciful but there were some references to Dr Zhivago too, or was it just Imperial Russia, steam trains and steppes?
Nice to look at, but if you want to really get caught up in the story, you might be better off buying the book.
**.5
What's with all the West End choreography? For goodness sake.
It's funny, though, isn't it? When we went to see Brief Encounter on the West End stage, and they combined film clips from the movie with the stage performance, it really worked.
But the ridiculous synchronised office staff, and frozen fixed dancers, who begin moving at a signal from somewhere off-stage. And the constant views of the stage ropes and stage floor.
What WAS he trying to do? A Brechtian distancing of the audience from the action on the screen? Maybe it was to distract away from the less-than-convincing acting on the stage...
Honestly, for one the best, most passionate pieces of literature ever, this was contrived nonsense.
Where it stuck to 'normal' cinematic bits, I got engaged with it. It's hard to ruin totally such a fantastic plot and such amazing characters. But Joe Wright did his best to (and it surely wasn't Tom Stoppard's screenplay?).
I didn't really care about any of the characters; I didn't feel much empathy for any of it.
Oh dear, the whole charade made me want to read the book again just to take away the image of Keira Knightley as Anna...
**.5
Bea says: I have been waiting for the right moment in my life to read this classic work of literature. After seeing this, I think that time might be now. I wonder if I had read it, this would have been an easier film to watch - but according to Cecil it made no difference at all.
In some ways I didn't mind the whole theatrical premise - it was very opulent and beautiful to look at certainly. But it was - distracting. And it did make me not enter the characters and their situation quite in the way I might have if it had been more conventionally told. But maybe that was also the somewhat wooden acting of Keira Knightley, who has her place but it is not really this. I just don't think she acts well enough - my emotions weren't really hooked at all as Anna moves further and further down the path of self-destruction, and I didn't care enough about her. I wasn't too sure about Matthew MacFadyen either - both he and Knightley seemed to have been told to ham up their Britishness, which was frankly odd in Imperial Russia.
I did enjoy some of the subplots and the actors involved in those - particularly Domhnall Gleeson as Levin, who we have just recently seen in Shadow Dancer, and perhaps I am being too fanciful but there were some references to Dr Zhivago too, or was it just Imperial Russia, steam trains and steppes?
Nice to look at, but if you want to really get caught up in the story, you might be better off buying the book.
**.5
Shadow Dancer
Cecil says: We'd just been to Northern Ireland earlier this summer, so were keen to see this film. On one level, it's historical: beginning with a sectarian killing in the early 1970s but then picking up the threads and the characters some 20 years later, just as peace talks began to make some headway. On another level, it's what the French would term a 'drame psychologique', with issues of trust, loyalty, tribalism, community which never really go away.
Northern Ireland is a better place now than it was 20 years ago, though there are still tensions and a sense of the tribal in some parts even today.
It was a tough place to grow up in, though. And this film does a good job of showing the underlying tension around every aspect of life. I think I'm right in saying that nobody laughs even once throughout the 100 minutes of the film - it's grim. But it's good drama.
Andrea Riseborough stars as the sister of the little boy, shot in a 1970s sectarian attack. She's good, interracting with Mac from MI5, and her family, itself torn apart by conflicting loyalties and demands. Kevin of the IRA is an ever-present sinister character, making sure 'his' people don't stray.
No spoilers in this review. Just to say that, for me, the only weakness in the storyline comes right at the end, when someone acts without the due caution you'd surely be used to taking after years in a place like Northern Ireland.
Interestingly, among the key actors in the film, only Brid Brennan - playing Ma - seems to be from Northern Ireland herself (there's even Gillian Anderson playing the top MI5 bod), and maybe that's why she gets her part across so well.
This is good drama, but no barrel of laughs.
***
Bea says: Grim, gritty, and as Cecil says, not a whole lot of laughs, but a good, suspense-filled thriller plot as we follow the story of a family who are deeply involved in the Troubles, and their complex relationship with both the IRA and MI5. Set in London and Belfast in the early 1990s, I enjoyed the focus of the film on the life and choices of a young woman during that period of history (although I didn't think all of the costuming was entirely accurate). I didn't guess all the twists, and if you enjoy Spooks, you'll like this.
***
Northern Ireland is a better place now than it was 20 years ago, though there are still tensions and a sense of the tribal in some parts even today.
It was a tough place to grow up in, though. And this film does a good job of showing the underlying tension around every aspect of life. I think I'm right in saying that nobody laughs even once throughout the 100 minutes of the film - it's grim. But it's good drama.
Andrea Riseborough stars as the sister of the little boy, shot in a 1970s sectarian attack. She's good, interracting with Mac from MI5, and her family, itself torn apart by conflicting loyalties and demands. Kevin of the IRA is an ever-present sinister character, making sure 'his' people don't stray.
No spoilers in this review. Just to say that, for me, the only weakness in the storyline comes right at the end, when someone acts without the due caution you'd surely be used to taking after years in a place like Northern Ireland.
Interestingly, among the key actors in the film, only Brid Brennan - playing Ma - seems to be from Northern Ireland herself (there's even Gillian Anderson playing the top MI5 bod), and maybe that's why she gets her part across so well.
This is good drama, but no barrel of laughs.
***
Bea says: Grim, gritty, and as Cecil says, not a whole lot of laughs, but a good, suspense-filled thriller plot as we follow the story of a family who are deeply involved in the Troubles, and their complex relationship with both the IRA and MI5. Set in London and Belfast in the early 1990s, I enjoyed the focus of the film on the life and choices of a young woman during that period of history (although I didn't think all of the costuming was entirely accurate). I didn't guess all the twists, and if you enjoy Spooks, you'll like this.
***
Sunday, 26 August 2012
360
Cecil says: We saw this a couple of weeks ago at the Queens Film Theatre in Belfast (a rather extraordinary Georgian looking townhouse from the front, but with a Tardis-like super-modern cinema inside).
Leaving a film so long before reviewing it can mean it fades into insignificance, especially if it was fairly mediocre or dull. One of the local papers, the Irish News, had given 360 a 'boring' label, so we weren't sure what to expect, although the plot sounded intriguing and the cast rather good.
Well, we certainly didn't find it boring. But, when I came to recall my impressions for this review, the odd thing is that the character that came back most strongly was the one played by Anthony Hopkins. This is by no means the main character, but Hopkins played the man so convincingly that his story stayed in my mind much more clearly than all the others.
You see this film is all about our different journeys through life, how they intertwine or connect, and how sometimes the decisions we take don't end up leading to the result we expect.
Hopkins, for example, plays an ageing alcoholic, whose daughter disappeared years ago. Every time he hears on the news of a young woman's body being found, he travels miles, sometimes across oceans, to check it isn't her.
On this particular journey, he meets a young Brazilian woman on the plane; now, she has just split up from her photographer boyfriend; but she also gets chatting to this recently-released sex offender...
I know, I know, it's all sounding rather convoluted, and I haven't even mentioned the Russian mafia or the Slovakian prostitutes, or the British car dealer...
But it is a very engaging film, and what's nice about it, for someone like me who has travelled a lot, is that it portrays travel and movement, and crossing borders as a very normal, run-of-the-mill business. Coincidences and chance encounters are now global.
On some levels it's a bit clichéd, but on others it's quite subtle, and I liked the way 'bad' people and situations are not ALL bad, through and through.
Whatever you make of it, it's not boring. And go to see Anthony Hopkins just for the great acting.
***
Bea says:
I also liked the travel/movement theme to this bittersweet film - but for me it was really about the twists and turns that present themselves to us in life; about the opportunities we take, and the ones that we don't. All the performances were good, although few can match Hopkins in a good role, and the writing was very good indeed - multi-story plot lines can be hard to pull off but this did it effortlessly without any of the "who's that again?"/"what's going on" that can plague them.
But above all, and it happens so rarely in film, TV and books now, this film made me happy, despite numerous very sad story lines, and made me think of the Sheenagh Pugh poem Sometimes - Sometimes, things don't go, after all, from bad to worse.... And that was a priceless feeling for a Saturday night in Belfast.
***1/2
Leaving a film so long before reviewing it can mean it fades into insignificance, especially if it was fairly mediocre or dull. One of the local papers, the Irish News, had given 360 a 'boring' label, so we weren't sure what to expect, although the plot sounded intriguing and the cast rather good.
Well, we certainly didn't find it boring. But, when I came to recall my impressions for this review, the odd thing is that the character that came back most strongly was the one played by Anthony Hopkins. This is by no means the main character, but Hopkins played the man so convincingly that his story stayed in my mind much more clearly than all the others.
You see this film is all about our different journeys through life, how they intertwine or connect, and how sometimes the decisions we take don't end up leading to the result we expect.
Hopkins, for example, plays an ageing alcoholic, whose daughter disappeared years ago. Every time he hears on the news of a young woman's body being found, he travels miles, sometimes across oceans, to check it isn't her.
On this particular journey, he meets a young Brazilian woman on the plane; now, she has just split up from her photographer boyfriend; but she also gets chatting to this recently-released sex offender...
I know, I know, it's all sounding rather convoluted, and I haven't even mentioned the Russian mafia or the Slovakian prostitutes, or the British car dealer...
But it is a very engaging film, and what's nice about it, for someone like me who has travelled a lot, is that it portrays travel and movement, and crossing borders as a very normal, run-of-the-mill business. Coincidences and chance encounters are now global.
On some levels it's a bit clichéd, but on others it's quite subtle, and I liked the way 'bad' people and situations are not ALL bad, through and through.
Whatever you make of it, it's not boring. And go to see Anthony Hopkins just for the great acting.
***
Bea says:
I also liked the travel/movement theme to this bittersweet film - but for me it was really about the twists and turns that present themselves to us in life; about the opportunities we take, and the ones that we don't. All the performances were good, although few can match Hopkins in a good role, and the writing was very good indeed - multi-story plot lines can be hard to pull off but this did it effortlessly without any of the "who's that again?"/"what's going on" that can plague them.
But above all, and it happens so rarely in film, TV and books now, this film made me happy, despite numerous very sad story lines, and made me think of the Sheenagh Pugh poem Sometimes - Sometimes, things don't go, after all, from bad to worse.... And that was a priceless feeling for a Saturday night in Belfast.
***1/2
Friday, 3 August 2012
Cosmopolis
Bea says: It's been a while since I've watched a Cronenberg film, but not too much has changed since I did. Still very avant-garde, but also very beautiful, and still obsessed with bodily functions.
The action of Cosmopolis mostly takes place inside a limousine, in a kind of not-too-distant, dispossessed future which is actually very scarily like our present world (currency collapse, the occupy movement etc). A series of guests visit our beautiful, young protagonist (last seen in Twilight!), the head of a multinational corporation, as he drives through the streets of a large city, protected, and cut off, by his bodyguards and the armoured vehicle he is in, and it is only towards the end of the film that he leaves it to meet two people important to his life in different ways.
This film has some of the clearest, most interesting and perfect dialogue I have ever heard, and reminded me of some of the old playwrights I have read - Brecht, or Beckett perhaps. I saw from the credits that it is an adaptation of a novel, and it feels like it. It is something so sharp, so different, that holds up a mirror to our lives. If you like Cronenberg, see it. If you don't, well, maybe it would be hard going; nothing really happens, but actually lots does, all at the same time, but you might just find it stays with you.
What do I mean??
***
Cecil says: At first I thought this modern, arty cinema in Inverness had a fantastic sound system; but then, as the dialogue of the film continued in the crisp, clear tones Bea described, I wasn't sure whether it was the intention of the director or whether the Eden Court had a super acoustic. Thing is, I have no intention of going to see this film again anywhere else to find out...
It's not to say that it was a bad a film or even that I wriggled in my seat in a 'help-get-me-out-of-here' kind of way. But it wasn't a lot of fun, let's face it. I actually didn't really know who Cronenberg was, and maybe if I had realised, I might have chosen a different film.
That said, Bea and I did find ourselves talking about the film for some hours afterwards over dinner, so it was thought-provoking and challenging.
Bea's right that it felt a lot like a Brechtian play, with characters not quite talking to the camera, but certainly making comments on the world, the situation, life. But it also felt a lot as if it was trying to do for the 21st century what Metropolis did in the 1920s. A questioning of the way society is going and where we'll all end up.
Juliette Binoche intrigued me, as ever. She does sex on film incredibly well, but is it erotic? For some reason, not, but is THAT intentional?
I also liked the lead bodyguard - was he Danish? And rather disappointed as his fate...But I'll say no more or that might spoil the shocks...
**.5
The action of Cosmopolis mostly takes place inside a limousine, in a kind of not-too-distant, dispossessed future which is actually very scarily like our present world (currency collapse, the occupy movement etc). A series of guests visit our beautiful, young protagonist (last seen in Twilight!), the head of a multinational corporation, as he drives through the streets of a large city, protected, and cut off, by his bodyguards and the armoured vehicle he is in, and it is only towards the end of the film that he leaves it to meet two people important to his life in different ways.
This film has some of the clearest, most interesting and perfect dialogue I have ever heard, and reminded me of some of the old playwrights I have read - Brecht, or Beckett perhaps. I saw from the credits that it is an adaptation of a novel, and it feels like it. It is something so sharp, so different, that holds up a mirror to our lives. If you like Cronenberg, see it. If you don't, well, maybe it would be hard going; nothing really happens, but actually lots does, all at the same time, but you might just find it stays with you.
What do I mean??
***
Cecil says: At first I thought this modern, arty cinema in Inverness had a fantastic sound system; but then, as the dialogue of the film continued in the crisp, clear tones Bea described, I wasn't sure whether it was the intention of the director or whether the Eden Court had a super acoustic. Thing is, I have no intention of going to see this film again anywhere else to find out...
It's not to say that it was a bad a film or even that I wriggled in my seat in a 'help-get-me-out-of-here' kind of way. But it wasn't a lot of fun, let's face it. I actually didn't really know who Cronenberg was, and maybe if I had realised, I might have chosen a different film.
That said, Bea and I did find ourselves talking about the film for some hours afterwards over dinner, so it was thought-provoking and challenging.
Bea's right that it felt a lot like a Brechtian play, with characters not quite talking to the camera, but certainly making comments on the world, the situation, life. But it also felt a lot as if it was trying to do for the 21st century what Metropolis did in the 1920s. A questioning of the way society is going and where we'll all end up.
Juliette Binoche intrigued me, as ever. She does sex on film incredibly well, but is it erotic? For some reason, not, but is THAT intentional?
I also liked the lead bodyguard - was he Danish? And rather disappointed as his fate...But I'll say no more or that might spoil the shocks...
**.5
Monday, 2 July 2012
Rock of Ages
Cecil says: I kind of knew this was going to be about the music industry before I sat down to watch it, and the opening scene looked fairly normal at first: young teenage girl gets onto Greyhound bus in small town America.
Then she begins singing. And my first thought was: well, that's not very realistic, is it. But then the whole bus full of passengers takes up the chorus, and we're off...And it dawns on me: we've come to a musical. OH MY GOD. I wasn't ready for THAT!!
It's probably the first time I've been to a musical since Stayin' Alive in the 1970s. But you know what, this film grew on me as it found its way through the ups and downs of kids trying to make it on the music scene in LA.
Alec Baldwin was brilliant as the ageing night club owner; Russell Brand almost as good as his side-kick and partner (and I'm no fan of Russell Brand in real life, so that's quite something coming from me); and Catherine Zeta-Jones adding a bit of evil to the storyline, kind of like one of the villains in a Batman film ("we're gonna clean up this city", but in fact they're the evil ones).
And Tom Cruise does a pretty good job as the idiosyncratic mega-star, but I'm sure others will rave about him, so I'll leave it at that. My one question is: did he do his own singing or was it dubbed??
A feel-good film, but not the slightest bit thought-provoking. But, hey, for a bit of innocent fun, worth seeing.
***
Bea says: Working too hard? Endless UK rain getting you down? Worries? Troubles? Go and see this film, it's the perfect antidote. You can disengage your brain and forget all about real life completely for a couple of hours, and you'll leave with a smile on your face.
I had read a review of Rock of Ages the week before we went to see it, and it was on the strength of that review that I suggested it to musical-hating Cecil - I had been under the impression that it was the story of a struggling nightclub which was about to go bust and whose entire future hung on legendary ageing rocker Stacee Jaxx (played by an apparently 29 year old looking Tom Cruise), and featuring music from the 1970s. After the film, I told Cecil this and we both fell about laughing - had the reviewer actually seen the the film at all?
Rock of Ages is kind of about a struggling nightclub, and a gig by Stacee Jaxx (played by the very under-rated, and very funny Tom Cruise, who looks awesome, although not 29!), but it mostly about two young people trying to make it in Hollywood, like so many before them, and features a quite hard (although not heavy) rock soundtrack from the late 1980s - think Bon Jovi and Aerosmith, whose frontmen I gather Stacee Jaxx is based on. I was young in the late 1980s and I wasn't into this kind of music, or those kinds of men, at that time, but these were big hits and I remembered all but one, and Cruise was fantastic. Great fun.
***
Then she begins singing. And my first thought was: well, that's not very realistic, is it. But then the whole bus full of passengers takes up the chorus, and we're off...And it dawns on me: we've come to a musical. OH MY GOD. I wasn't ready for THAT!!
It's probably the first time I've been to a musical since Stayin' Alive in the 1970s. But you know what, this film grew on me as it found its way through the ups and downs of kids trying to make it on the music scene in LA.
Alec Baldwin was brilliant as the ageing night club owner; Russell Brand almost as good as his side-kick and partner (and I'm no fan of Russell Brand in real life, so that's quite something coming from me); and Catherine Zeta-Jones adding a bit of evil to the storyline, kind of like one of the villains in a Batman film ("we're gonna clean up this city", but in fact they're the evil ones).
And Tom Cruise does a pretty good job as the idiosyncratic mega-star, but I'm sure others will rave about him, so I'll leave it at that. My one question is: did he do his own singing or was it dubbed??
A feel-good film, but not the slightest bit thought-provoking. But, hey, for a bit of innocent fun, worth seeing.
***
Bea says: Working too hard? Endless UK rain getting you down? Worries? Troubles? Go and see this film, it's the perfect antidote. You can disengage your brain and forget all about real life completely for a couple of hours, and you'll leave with a smile on your face.
I had read a review of Rock of Ages the week before we went to see it, and it was on the strength of that review that I suggested it to musical-hating Cecil - I had been under the impression that it was the story of a struggling nightclub which was about to go bust and whose entire future hung on legendary ageing rocker Stacee Jaxx (played by an apparently 29 year old looking Tom Cruise), and featuring music from the 1970s. After the film, I told Cecil this and we both fell about laughing - had the reviewer actually seen the the film at all?
Rock of Ages is kind of about a struggling nightclub, and a gig by Stacee Jaxx (played by the very under-rated, and very funny Tom Cruise, who looks awesome, although not 29!), but it mostly about two young people trying to make it in Hollywood, like so many before them, and features a quite hard (although not heavy) rock soundtrack from the late 1980s - think Bon Jovi and Aerosmith, whose frontmen I gather Stacee Jaxx is based on. I was young in the late 1980s and I wasn't into this kind of music, or those kinds of men, at that time, but these were big hits and I remembered all but one, and Cruise was fantastic. Great fun.
***
Sunday, 17 June 2012
Ill Manors
Bea says: I had read a review of Ill Manors earlier in the day we decided to go and see it, and nearly put Cecil off by telling him there was lots of rap music in it - not his favourite! However, the music was great throughout - not that aggressive, misogynist rap I don't like either, but thoughtful rap, of the ilk of groups like Public Enemy (and I am showing my age here!). There was also a spellbinding spoken word scene ("Pity the plight of young men") filmed as an open-mike piece in a London pub which just rooted me to the spot and has stayed with me since.
This sad, sad story of the descent into drugs, violence and prostitution of so many young people on the London estates was harrowing to watch, but just about avoided bleakness by following the personal stories of the characters, and letting us see who got out, and how.
Director and writer Ben Drew apparently struggled to make this film, about his real life experiences growing up in London, and I am glad he stuck with it - someone to watch.
***
Cecil says: Riz Ahmed is becoming the Bill Nighy of the ethnic minority acting role - he seems to be in nearly every film we see these days - or is that more a reflection of the type of film we go and see? In any case he's good, as are the other actors, many of whom I gather from Wikipedia were basically East End friends of the director, so they knew the roles they were playing.
As Bea says, when I heard the film would be backed by virtually constant rap music, I almost turned the car round and drove home, but actually I was gripped from the outset and enjoyed the soundtrack - if you can use the word 'enjoy' about anything in this film.
If you want a cheery, happy-go-lucky film, Ill Manors is not for you. It is almost unbearably bleak, with some scenes making me grimace at how horrific they were, and how believable they were.
And in addition to liking the soundtrack, I was amazed that - on the whole - I managed to follow the dialogue of 'street' slang; I guess I might have struggled more if this had been set in LA or New York, but London is familiar enough and I couldn't help wondering how many incidents and characters like these I had walked past over the years without having any idea of them.
Good film? Yes, definitely. But there were only 4 of us sitting in Stockton-on-Tees multiplex. Hmmm, more suited to the Tyneside Cinema or Gala in Durham I'd have thought.
***.5
This sad, sad story of the descent into drugs, violence and prostitution of so many young people on the London estates was harrowing to watch, but just about avoided bleakness by following the personal stories of the characters, and letting us see who got out, and how.
Director and writer Ben Drew apparently struggled to make this film, about his real life experiences growing up in London, and I am glad he stuck with it - someone to watch.
***
Cecil says: Riz Ahmed is becoming the Bill Nighy of the ethnic minority acting role - he seems to be in nearly every film we see these days - or is that more a reflection of the type of film we go and see? In any case he's good, as are the other actors, many of whom I gather from Wikipedia were basically East End friends of the director, so they knew the roles they were playing.
As Bea says, when I heard the film would be backed by virtually constant rap music, I almost turned the car round and drove home, but actually I was gripped from the outset and enjoyed the soundtrack - if you can use the word 'enjoy' about anything in this film.
If you want a cheery, happy-go-lucky film, Ill Manors is not for you. It is almost unbearably bleak, with some scenes making me grimace at how horrific they were, and how believable they were.
And in addition to liking the soundtrack, I was amazed that - on the whole - I managed to follow the dialogue of 'street' slang; I guess I might have struggled more if this had been set in LA or New York, but London is familiar enough and I couldn't help wondering how many incidents and characters like these I had walked past over the years without having any idea of them.
Good film? Yes, definitely. But there were only 4 of us sitting in Stockton-on-Tees multiplex. Hmmm, more suited to the Tyneside Cinema or Gala in Durham I'd have thought.
***.5
Sunday, 20 May 2012
Like Crazy
Bea says: On a rare day off work, Cecil took me off to the "Senior Screen" at the Odeon, Darlington, where I'm pleased to report I won the raffle (free entry next time) and enjoyed tea and biscuits on the way in. No one seemed to mind that I'm actually not a Senior.
The film that day was one we had never heard of - "Like Crazy"; all we knew was that it was a romcom. It turned out to be a very good one. The film follows the story of two young people who meet at university in LA; but as one is not from the USA, they are forced to continue their relationship long distance, with distinct on and off periods, and a rushed marriage to enable immigration visas.
This film really spoke to me; as someone who lives in a country they were not born in, and I have experienced some of the difficulties the couple in the film run into, some of which anyone in a relationship could relate to (the scene at Camden market made me snort with laughter - I've had that conversation a few times!).
The writing was very good - the story strong and involving, and it is nicely filmed as well. The performances are sound, and the end well done; the end of something, the beginning of something else. One interesting point - despite our so-called enlightened times, it was notable that it was the young woman who gave up her promising career to move to LA, not the other way around.
Definitely worth a see, and a good DVD/Netflix purchase too.
***
Cecil says: As someone who has had more than my fair share of 'international' relationships, I was gripped by this film from the word go, and could relate to lots of what was going on throughout.
I'm not sure it was appreciated by the Darlington 'seniors', though. There were grumbles from people around us as the film finished, and I guess if your relationships have always centred around the boy or girl next door or at most from the next town 10 miles away, then many of the issues and exotic romance of the storyline would not mean much.
As Bea says, some of the dialogue and situations were banal, but that was almost the painful beauty of the plot and the script.
Let's face it, relationships with someone on another continent are pretty hard to manage and keep going. It's not just visas (though my heart sank as they decided not to bother with their visa conditions quite early on in the film); it's the phone calls and texts abroad; the disconnect as you meet again after some long period apart. All this and more are the story of Like Crazy.
Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones do a great job as the passionate, but trans-atlantic couple. Their profiles on IMDb show that they're pretty busy and will be appearing in lots of films in the coming months, but they've not really made much of an impact so far (though I did actually see Felicity Jones at the premiere of Cheri some three years ago).
I'm not sure what happened to Like Crazy on general release. A good film, well worth seeing. But why did it end up at the Darlington Seniors morning??
***.5
The film that day was one we had never heard of - "Like Crazy"; all we knew was that it was a romcom. It turned out to be a very good one. The film follows the story of two young people who meet at university in LA; but as one is not from the USA, they are forced to continue their relationship long distance, with distinct on and off periods, and a rushed marriage to enable immigration visas.
This film really spoke to me; as someone who lives in a country they were not born in, and I have experienced some of the difficulties the couple in the film run into, some of which anyone in a relationship could relate to (the scene at Camden market made me snort with laughter - I've had that conversation a few times!).
The writing was very good - the story strong and involving, and it is nicely filmed as well. The performances are sound, and the end well done; the end of something, the beginning of something else. One interesting point - despite our so-called enlightened times, it was notable that it was the young woman who gave up her promising career to move to LA, not the other way around.
Definitely worth a see, and a good DVD/Netflix purchase too.
***
Cecil says: As someone who has had more than my fair share of 'international' relationships, I was gripped by this film from the word go, and could relate to lots of what was going on throughout.
I'm not sure it was appreciated by the Darlington 'seniors', though. There were grumbles from people around us as the film finished, and I guess if your relationships have always centred around the boy or girl next door or at most from the next town 10 miles away, then many of the issues and exotic romance of the storyline would not mean much.
As Bea says, some of the dialogue and situations were banal, but that was almost the painful beauty of the plot and the script.
Let's face it, relationships with someone on another continent are pretty hard to manage and keep going. It's not just visas (though my heart sank as they decided not to bother with their visa conditions quite early on in the film); it's the phone calls and texts abroad; the disconnect as you meet again after some long period apart. All this and more are the story of Like Crazy.
Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones do a great job as the passionate, but trans-atlantic couple. Their profiles on IMDb show that they're pretty busy and will be appearing in lots of films in the coming months, but they've not really made much of an impact so far (though I did actually see Felicity Jones at the premiere of Cheri some three years ago).
I'm not sure what happened to Like Crazy on general release. A good film, well worth seeing. But why did it end up at the Darlington Seniors morning??
***.5
Sunday, 22 April 2012
Headhunters - Hodejegerne
Bea says: "A Norwegian thriller", Cecil told me, and that sounded a good prospect after the massive success of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Killing, and so on. So on a wet Saturday afternoon we did a little shopping, a little bit of lunch, and a damp walk around a bit of the city walls in York before heading over to the City Screen to catch this one for an afternoon matinée.
And a great rip-roaring tale it was too - Roger Brown is a headhunter for an IT type firm, Pathfinder, but lives well beyond his means with a beautiful trophy wife and gorgeous suburban house. To fund his lifestyle, he steals valuable works of art and sells them on. However, things quickly spiral out of control when the mysterious and enigmatic Clas arrives in town, a prime candidate for a Pathfinder job, he is both the temporary owner of a valuable piece of art and a rival for Brown's wife's affections. The intricate plot is quite fun to follow, and in fact kept me guessing most of the time, although there were a few "er - that wouldn't happen" moments. Not at all likeable at first, the sequence of events and trials makes us warm to Roger as the story develops.
Quite a lot of blood, gore and sex, but no overly fancy special effects - just a good story and a nice, tightly directed and well-acted piece. Definitely worth seeing, and a must-see if you have been enjoying the recent Scandinavian take on the thriller genre.
****
Cecil says: I thought at first that the director of Headhunters must also have made all "The Girl..." films, because the style is so similar, but I actually preferred the plot to this one, which never descended into what I always call 'Scoobie-Do' moments.
There's something low-key, but almost slapstick about Scandinavian humour, even if the two concepts sound like a contradiction. And this film, although a thriller, was also comic at times, so disastrous were the various events that took poor Roger Brown from his racy, but unlikeable lifestyle to a desperate state where he is fighting for his life in some very unsavoury and blood-curdling moments.
For a crime-thriller, Headhunters did quite a good job at character development. Roger Brown may have won our affections as the film progressed, but by the end, we didn't know who to trust from all the other characters: Clas was clearly pretty evil, but what of Diana, or Lotte? Who COULD he trust? Who should we like?
As Be a says, there were a couple of moments where the dialogue or the action didn't quite seem plausible, but on the whole this film raced along and pulled the audience with it. A good afternoon's entertainment.
And what a great cinema York's City Screen is. If you've never been there, check out all the posters on York's old independent cinemas, including this cinema in its early days. But did the church bells from next door always chime through into the auditorium as they did half way through yesterday's film? Took us a while to realise that they couldn't possibly be from the film itself...
****
And a great rip-roaring tale it was too - Roger Brown is a headhunter for an IT type firm, Pathfinder, but lives well beyond his means with a beautiful trophy wife and gorgeous suburban house. To fund his lifestyle, he steals valuable works of art and sells them on. However, things quickly spiral out of control when the mysterious and enigmatic Clas arrives in town, a prime candidate for a Pathfinder job, he is both the temporary owner of a valuable piece of art and a rival for Brown's wife's affections. The intricate plot is quite fun to follow, and in fact kept me guessing most of the time, although there were a few "er - that wouldn't happen" moments. Not at all likeable at first, the sequence of events and trials makes us warm to Roger as the story develops.
Quite a lot of blood, gore and sex, but no overly fancy special effects - just a good story and a nice, tightly directed and well-acted piece. Definitely worth seeing, and a must-see if you have been enjoying the recent Scandinavian take on the thriller genre.
****
Cecil says: I thought at first that the director of Headhunters must also have made all "The Girl..." films, because the style is so similar, but I actually preferred the plot to this one, which never descended into what I always call 'Scoobie-Do' moments.
There's something low-key, but almost slapstick about Scandinavian humour, even if the two concepts sound like a contradiction. And this film, although a thriller, was also comic at times, so disastrous were the various events that took poor Roger Brown from his racy, but unlikeable lifestyle to a desperate state where he is fighting for his life in some very unsavoury and blood-curdling moments.
For a crime-thriller, Headhunters did quite a good job at character development. Roger Brown may have won our affections as the film progressed, but by the end, we didn't know who to trust from all the other characters: Clas was clearly pretty evil, but what of Diana, or Lotte? Who COULD he trust? Who should we like?
As Be a says, there were a couple of moments where the dialogue or the action didn't quite seem plausible, but on the whole this film raced along and pulled the audience with it. A good afternoon's entertainment.
And what a great cinema York's City Screen is. If you've never been there, check out all the posters on York's old independent cinemas, including this cinema in its early days. But did the church bells from next door always chime through into the auditorium as they did half way through yesterday's film? Took us a while to realise that they couldn't possibly be from the film itself...
****
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Black Gold
Cecil says: We saw this with just four other people at the Stockton Arts Centre; great venue with lots of independent films, but obviously not what the people of Stockton fancy seeing on a Friday night.
I really enjoyed this film, which was a kind of mix of Lawrence of Arabia, if only for the epic, desert scenes and the war going on all around, and I, Claudius, for its depiction of the studious, but clumsy and nervous kid growing up to be a great leader. There was also a touch of Local Hero, which we had just re-seen the previous night on telly funnily enough.
On one level this was all about oil. Texans find oil in a disputed bit of desert and want to drill, baby, drill. Trouble is, the stretch of desert that covers the oil is a disputed territory that is supposed to be a no-man's-land according to a treaty signed between the warring factions some years earlier.
Like in Local Hero, there is a conundrum over which way to go: take the American money and feed/educate your people, or stick to your principles and maintain an old traditional lifestyle that has served your tribes for centuries?
There are so many big issues in this film. It's about life and death, brotherly love, loyalty, families, east v west, and probably a host more.
Best way to approach the film is just to sit back and let it flow over you. You can do all the analysis you like afterwards. Just enjoy the story and great location filming.
Casting was great: Funny that we only saw Riz Ahmed and Freida Pinto a few weeks ago in Trishna (he also playing a hip westernised guy, but in Trishna he was Indian of course); Mark Strong excellent as the Sultan. The only gripe I'd have is that they couldn't find any strong Arab actors for any of the lead roles. Antonio Banderas as an Arab? Hmmmm.
Anyway, great evening entertainment. People of Stockton, you missed out!
***.5
Bea says: As I have often said in this blog, it's good to see a film you know little or nothing about. Black Gold was a gem - the early days of oil in the desert, told through the story of two warring sheikhs and their sons and daughters, it was also a kind of Arabian Romeo and Juliet. It had not occurred to me that prior to oil the Arab sheikhs were poor - in our day and age that's hard to imagine, although the warring and infighting between the tribes is, sadly, very easy to. It's also about the universal theme of time passing, of progress, and how things change, and are lost, as that time passes.
It's beautifully shot, and well written and produced - although a quite slow-paced story the time doesn't drag at all - and the rich colours and fabrics of the Bedouins are a feast for the eyes, as are the old cities in the desert.
Made me want to leave for an oasis in the desert immediately.
***
Monday, 9 April 2012
The Hunger Games
Bea says: We could hardly have seen this in a more surreal environment - the beachfront cinema at Redcar is surrounded by a strange, industrial landscape, lit up at night, and with tankers and containers ships lit up out to sea. We felt as though we were in Blade Runner, and so it was a suitable scene set for The Hunger Games.
I don't know the book series, but had heard good things of this adaptation, but I only vaguely knew the storyline and had no real expectations. So I was pleasantly surprised by this post-armageddon tale of survival and a kind of reality TV game taken to the worst extreme - a kind of Lord of the Flies for a modern generation. I really, really enjoyed seeing a young woman as the hero of the story, and although she scrubbed up well in some scenes, in most she was strong, skilled and was suitably attired for what she was doing (I'm looking at you here, Angelina Jolie!).
Performances were competent, and it was nicely done overall, although as Cecil said after, it was an action story, without a whole lot of character development required. The story was engaging, although of course we knew all along who would "win" the Games. But the two and a half hours passed quickly, and I've even considered picking up or downloading the second book to catch up on the storyline - I doubt whether I'll get Cecil to Part 2!
A diverting film - take along some young people, or a sci-fi fan.
**1/2
Cecil says: Bea doesn't know me that well, clearly. I actually enjoyed this film and would be happy to attend any follow-up, if a Hunger Games II is indeed planned...
I had expected that this film would be full of crash-bang computer-generated animation, but apart from a ridiculous scene where the Games organisers suddenly conjure up a herd of wild beasts, the film actually felt quite realistic and fairly believable, in a futuristic kind of way.
Given its popularity among the late teens age-group - at least in the pre-publicity - I was half expecting a Twilight-type of plot and scenario. But there were no fantasy-based vampire kisses here; the romance was a bit predictable, but plausible, and of course in part II, we may find the romance is not what we think...Hey, you see, I can't wait for Part II...
Overall, the film felt like a mix between I'm a Celebrity, Get me Out of Here and Strictly Ballroom (but the latter may be down to the lead compere for the Games alone, though the outfits and make-up - on boys as much as girls - did feel a bit like the Ballroom glam scene).
In a way, this film couldn't go wrong, though. I was bewitched by the venue: the Regent Cinema in Redcar actually sits on the beach, and we hear that loos can occasionally flood - with sea water - during high tide! This cinema is a gem; it may not have been renovated for a few decades, but who cares? This kind of cinema is so rare in this country and long may it survive.
At £4 a seat, it's pretty good value and there was quite a good crowd there for this opening night of The Hunger Games. Hey, I hadn't queued to see a film since we waited outside the Byrd Theatre in Richmond, Virginia, where - by the way - ticket prices were about £2. Perhaps a lesson for those setting cinema ticket prices...
***
Monday, 26 March 2012
Trishna
Bea says: I was intrigued by the idea of this retelling of the classic Hardy novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles, set in contemporary India, so when Cecil proposed the choice of it or another film for a dreary Monday evening in Glasgow, I went for Trishna.
The Glasgow Film Theatre reminded me very much of our old favourite venue in London, the British Film Institute; hip, diverse clientele, and a short introduction to the film, delivered by someone who was clearly a fan of the director, Michael Winterbottom, and drinks and discussion in the café afterwards.
Despite being a film blogger I am afraid I have not seen any other Winterbottom films, although I remember the stir that 24 Hour Party People caused. It has also been a long, long time since I read Tess, and since I watched the Polanski version starring Nastassia Kinski, which is a fairly faithful period adaptation, but thinking the story over I could see how it might work in contemporary times in India – and indeed it did.
The story follows Trishna, the oldest daughter of a poor rural man living in village in Rajasthan. Her beauty catches the eye of young Anglo-Indian heir, Jay, who arranges for her to work at his father’s hotel empire when her own father is injured in a road accident and the family desperately need money.
When Tess subsequently returns home in trouble, an abortion is arranged, and she is packed off to work in her uncle’s factory and cook and keep house for him and his invalid wife. Jay crosses her path once again, and this time she goes to live with him in Bombay – a life of ease and leisure, and with her family well supplied with cash, but also a life of shame.
However, once Trishna tells Jay about the abortion, their relationship changes. He leaves for some time, and once returned, they leave Bombay for the hotel again, in a chilling reprise of their former roles as master and servant that surely can only end badly.
The end of Tess has fascinated me since I discovered at my local book club that two different versions of the book exist – one with a tragic end and one with a happier outcome. I won’t say any more about which one this is.
But it was a beautifully done, thought-provoking film which shows just how universal and enduring Hardy’s themes are – and how well he wrote about the lives of women.
***
Cecil says: I haven’t read Tess of the d’Urbevilles, so I could sit back and enjoy this film just for its storyline and filming on set in India, without needing to make any comparisons with the text of the book.
Actually, the guy who introduced the film on the stage of the GFT almost put me off staying to see the film. As Bea says, he was clearly an old fan of director Winterbottom, but the more he spoke of Winterbottom’s past films, the less I wanted to see this one…
It’s quite a nice touch to have these personal introductions to films, but somehow, rather like professional film reviewers, this kind of intro can tend to try too hard to impress an audience. Even if we’d had time to go to the bar afterwards to talk about the film, I don’t think I’d have dared to go along because I wouldn’t be well enough read or know enough big words to feel at ease in such company.
So, what of the film?
Well, actually, it’s an interesting plot; not often you see films about Anglo-Indians returning to the homes of their ancestors, with all the connections – but also disconnections – that involves. But in fact, we enter much more closely into the heart and mind of Trishna than we do of Jay. Our hearts sink – as probably hers would have – when Jay says, after reading the Kama Sutra, that all women are either ‘maids, courtesans or single ladies’ – “which are you?”
You sense that her big chance of escape from the dependence on others might be through her dancing, but then that way out also closes off. Was that her decision or would she have been doomed whatever she chose?
It all sounds rather depressing and hopeless, I know, but actually the setting of the film in India made it a colourful spectacle that was a pleasure to watch, from the beauty of the rural village to the chaos of Mumbai (though I’m sure someone at some point called it Bombay…).
I have only a vague memory of my brief trip to Bombay when I was 7, but what I’ll never forget is the heat. Colourful and exciting it might be, but I couldn’t help reminding myself at each scene change in Trishna that everything that was taking place, from bus journeys to hotel rooms, from dance studios to desert drives would be happening in intense heat. Not something that would affect the characters in a Thomas Hardy novel. But then I shouldn’t be referring to Hardy: this film is worth seeing whether or not you know his books.
****
Sunday, 19 February 2012
The Woman in Black
Bea says: I was keen to see this after hearing a radio interview with the author of the book it was adapted from (Susan Hill, The Woman in Black). On the radio, Susan Hill was engaging and interesting, and I decided to see the upcoming film on the basis of the interview, and the anticipated thrill of a good, old fashioned ghost story, so I dragged Cecil down to our local cinema for the afternoon show.
The book is now on either the GSCE or A level syllabus, which perhaps explains its popularity and the amount of young people in the audience (or perhaps that is more to do with Daniel Radcliffe!) Radcliffe does a good turn as Arthur Kipps, a grieving and poorly performing young lawyer who takes a make-or-break case to settle the affairs of a widow in the north east of England. Arriving in town, he is greeted with suspicion and before long the eerie events begin. It is indeed a good old-fashioned ghost story (and actually not very original - but I am sure Cecil will say more about that!) with all the requirements of such a story: mist, derelict houses, Victoriana, strange children etc etc. The ending rather caught me by surprise; and I am still not sure whether I think it was an interesting departure from the usual ghost story formula or just a cop-out. I am a wimp and easy to scare, but I certainly got the chills and jumped out of my skin a few times (so much so that the young woman next to me laughed more at my reactions than got scared herself!).
The film is beautifully shot and worth seeing just for the scenery, costumes and Victoriana of the widow's house. Although set in the north east of England, a little bit of internet research has told me that the house and causeway scenes were shot in Essex, and the railway scenes on the Bluebell steam railway.
**1/2
Cecil says: To get really scared by a ghost story, I need to be immersed in the plot and for the surprises to work on me I need no distraction around me...
What were those eerie whispering voices all around us? Oh damn yes, it was the kids from Richmond High School lower sixth...
And those shady figures moving around the auditorium? Yep, same kids - and some younger - heading off to the loo (I thought it was older men who had incontinence problems??)
But hey that rustling and crackling noise is scary. Where does it come from? Oh darn, it's the kids behind us munching on popcorn...
I'll barely mention the flashing lights as Facebook pinged up on mobile phones all round the place every 5 minutes.
So, without total immersion in the atmosphere, I'm afraid this film did nothing for me. It just came across as silly and soooo like any other cheap horror, mystery film over the years (and yes, there WAS the usual Scoobie-Doo plot to it)...
In the evening after the film, we decided to watch an old DVD in the absence of anything good on telly. Herzog's Nosferatu was our choice. And blow me down if I didn't get the impression that the maker of The Woman in Black had nicked (no, sorry, been inspired by) idea after idea from Nosferatu: from tentative search room by room of a mysterious house; through tombs that have a convenient diagonal opening through the middle so you can open it; hell, Nosferatu even had a woman in black for god's sake. But Nosferatu was a great film...
*.5
The book is now on either the GSCE or A level syllabus, which perhaps explains its popularity and the amount of young people in the audience (or perhaps that is more to do with Daniel Radcliffe!) Radcliffe does a good turn as Arthur Kipps, a grieving and poorly performing young lawyer who takes a make-or-break case to settle the affairs of a widow in the north east of England. Arriving in town, he is greeted with suspicion and before long the eerie events begin. It is indeed a good old-fashioned ghost story (and actually not very original - but I am sure Cecil will say more about that!) with all the requirements of such a story: mist, derelict houses, Victoriana, strange children etc etc. The ending rather caught me by surprise; and I am still not sure whether I think it was an interesting departure from the usual ghost story formula or just a cop-out. I am a wimp and easy to scare, but I certainly got the chills and jumped out of my skin a few times (so much so that the young woman next to me laughed more at my reactions than got scared herself!).
The film is beautifully shot and worth seeing just for the scenery, costumes and Victoriana of the widow's house. Although set in the north east of England, a little bit of internet research has told me that the house and causeway scenes were shot in Essex, and the railway scenes on the Bluebell steam railway.
**1/2
Cecil says: To get really scared by a ghost story, I need to be immersed in the plot and for the surprises to work on me I need no distraction around me...
What were those eerie whispering voices all around us? Oh damn yes, it was the kids from Richmond High School lower sixth...
And those shady figures moving around the auditorium? Yep, same kids - and some younger - heading off to the loo (I thought it was older men who had incontinence problems??)
But hey that rustling and crackling noise is scary. Where does it come from? Oh darn, it's the kids behind us munching on popcorn...
I'll barely mention the flashing lights as Facebook pinged up on mobile phones all round the place every 5 minutes.
So, without total immersion in the atmosphere, I'm afraid this film did nothing for me. It just came across as silly and soooo like any other cheap horror, mystery film over the years (and yes, there WAS the usual Scoobie-Doo plot to it)...
In the evening after the film, we decided to watch an old DVD in the absence of anything good on telly. Herzog's Nosferatu was our choice. And blow me down if I didn't get the impression that the maker of The Woman in Black had nicked (no, sorry, been inspired by) idea after idea from Nosferatu: from tentative search room by room of a mysterious house; through tombs that have a convenient diagonal opening through the middle so you can open it; hell, Nosferatu even had a woman in black for god's sake. But Nosferatu was a great film...
*.5
Thursday, 9 February 2012
War Horse
Bea says: I was a little reluctant to go and see this as I was worried I would require industrial quantities of tissues to get through it. As it happened, I didn't, as although this film certainly did tug at my heartstrings it was in a Hollywood/Spielberg kind of way and I held out on the tears.
I would describe the story as Black Beauty set in WW1 - a beautiful foal is born in pleasant Devon countryside, and after an idyllic few months is sold at market for the first time to a foolhardy farmer with an idealistic son who is Joey's first and most important and enduring owner/trainer; however a series of owners and trials follows as we see Joey go from farm to war.
Like Black Beauty, Joey forms a bond with another horse who shares in many of his trials, and whose story is more tragic, as we learn just how badly horses were treated during the dark days of the Somme - as well as being reminded just how badly humans were treated too.
The film is long, but didn't drag and the second half moves at a particularly fast clip. The story is engaging (Black Beauty was itself a bestseller, and indeed the stage run of War Horse was a massive success in the West End, so this kind of story is a winner, obviously), and although the war was somewhat toned down a bit for a family audience, it did communicate the horrors pretty well - as well as classics like Gallipoli, say, or Birdsong, which has just been screened on the BBC.
This is Spielberg, so the cinematography is fantastic, the score exactly right, and the effects as good as they could be. I didn't like the sunset scene in Devon at the end - admittedly I don't live in Devon but sunsets don't really look like that in the UK, it looked more like a ranch in the Mid West of America, but I suspect it might have been referencing the stage play at that point as well (which I haven't seen).
I did like experiencing the war from the point of view of a horse - many animals were of course involved in WW1, and that story is rarely told. That brought something different to the usual animal story, and the usual war story.
A good way to spend a very cold, dreary, and icy afternoon, and suitable for the whole family.
***
Cecil says: I didn't like the beginning or the ending, but the middle two hours were OK.
At first, I couldn't help thinking it looked a bit like a combination of Lark Rise to Candleford and Jurassic Park. Might seem an odd combination, but look at how clean everything was, how computer-generated the animals and landscape looked (though the credits at the end did give thanks to the Dartmoor National Park, so I guess Spielberg did actually film there).
And, as Bea says, the ending felt very trite. A bit too glossy, too romantic; a bit like all those classic American sit-coms and films in the 1950s that had to end with happy, smiling families.
Actually, the soundtrack did annoy me, too: a few too many violins right from the opening scenes; it's like Spielberg knew that everyone was supposed to bring hankies and he wanted them used up in the first few minutes.
But, I complain too much. The rest of the film was fairly gripping stuff. Nice casting of all sorts of nationalities, but wow, those Germans, Belgians, French and Danes sure spoke good English!
The British actors were mostly familiar faces: how many films have Emily Watson, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hiddleston and Eddie Marsan been in over the last 12 months? They're in everything, it seems.
As Bea says, a good way to spend a cold winter's afternoon, but surely not an Oscar-winning film?
***
Monday, 9 January 2012
The Iron Lady
Bea says: I was a schoolgirl in the 1980s, and quite politically aware, so despite not living in this country I remember seeing on the news, and hearing heated discussion of, some of the key scenes portrayed in this film (the Falklands war, riots, the miners strike, the poll tax). I remember what a hated (or loved) figure Thatcher was then, and when I arrived in the UK in 1995, not long after she stepped down. So I wasn't sure how I'd feel about this film.
Early on, I had the strange sensation of feeling inspired by someone whose politics I dislike - from the film's portrayal it is certainly true that young Margaret Roberts' attempts to stand for political office are inspiring to women, who generally have an easier time of making their way in the world now. Although I knew she was a grocer's daughter I had not realised how that had hampered her attempts to rise within the Conservative party, and I did relate to her sense of always feeling slightly on the outside due to not coming from the same background as most other people.
The film told the story of her years in power mostly in flashback, as her character is now elderly, and confused. It is a very good portrayal of dementia, in fact - of living in past memories and being bewildered by current life. It attempted, and achieved in my view, a balanced portrayal. As Margaret achieves more power, she becomes more and more single minded and less and less able to suffer fools gladly. One of the final scenes of her prime minister-ship is cringe-worthy - and perhaps suggesting that she was no longer functioning on form at the end.
The film also offers insights into her marriage and to a limited degree her family life, although much has been said before on these, and again strove to portray a balanced view. The portrait of her marriage to Dennis is interesting and touching - and showed his importance as the support behind her power.
It will be said by every reviewer - but Meryl Streep is absolutely pitch perfect and never misses a beat. She is totally believable in mannerisms, and voice. If she doesn't get an Oscar for this, it will be daylight robbery. I have read rumours that she is planning this to be her swansong - she will be missed; perhaps the greatest actor of our generation. There are overall good performances in this film, but Streep acts everyone else off the screen.
****1/2
Cecil says: This film is more to do with dementia and grief than it is about the so-called Thatcher Years. Given that most of the preview clips ARE from her flashback memories of her days in power, I can imagine many cinemagoers being a little disappointed if they have been led to believe that this film would transport them back to the glory days (or nightmare years, depending on your perspective).
Sure, we get reminders of certain key moments in her premiership, as Bea says, but this is much more about the Thatcher dealing with the grief of losing Dennis, and coping with old age.
When I first heard about this film being made, I wasn't sure I would want to see it, especially as I was one of those who detested the woman when she was in power. Did I want reminders of those bad old days which scarred my youth (all my 20s were lived under Thatcher)?
I was convinced by the interview with Streep as she went into the premiere showing in London last week. She came across so thoughtfully and was careful with how she expressed herself on a subject which she recognises still evokes strong passions in this country two decades on.
As Bea says, Streep was utterly brilliant. The tone of voice, the small mannerisms all captured perfectly. Rather like in Thatcher's governments, the other actors just faded into insignificance alongside.
What surprised me, and I couldn't tell whether this was the focus of the film or whether it was just a reflection of my own mellowing over the years, was that I felt little surge of blood or passion at any of the scenes. They all felt really very distant, almost as historical as the civil rights movement scenes we had watched in The Help only last month. I guess this is a good thing, since for me the society Thatcher created in the 1980s must have been about the most divided this nation has seen since the Civil War, and the country feels a lot healthier now: even the 2011 riots pale into relative insignificance next to the 1981 equivalents...
Swansong or not, this film really is about Meryl Streep, and is a must-see for all film-lovers.
***.5
Early on, I had the strange sensation of feeling inspired by someone whose politics I dislike - from the film's portrayal it is certainly true that young Margaret Roberts' attempts to stand for political office are inspiring to women, who generally have an easier time of making their way in the world now. Although I knew she was a grocer's daughter I had not realised how that had hampered her attempts to rise within the Conservative party, and I did relate to her sense of always feeling slightly on the outside due to not coming from the same background as most other people.
The film told the story of her years in power mostly in flashback, as her character is now elderly, and confused. It is a very good portrayal of dementia, in fact - of living in past memories and being bewildered by current life. It attempted, and achieved in my view, a balanced portrayal. As Margaret achieves more power, she becomes more and more single minded and less and less able to suffer fools gladly. One of the final scenes of her prime minister-ship is cringe-worthy - and perhaps suggesting that she was no longer functioning on form at the end.
The film also offers insights into her marriage and to a limited degree her family life, although much has been said before on these, and again strove to portray a balanced view. The portrait of her marriage to Dennis is interesting and touching - and showed his importance as the support behind her power.
It will be said by every reviewer - but Meryl Streep is absolutely pitch perfect and never misses a beat. She is totally believable in mannerisms, and voice. If she doesn't get an Oscar for this, it will be daylight robbery. I have read rumours that she is planning this to be her swansong - she will be missed; perhaps the greatest actor of our generation. There are overall good performances in this film, but Streep acts everyone else off the screen.
****1/2
Cecil says: This film is more to do with dementia and grief than it is about the so-called Thatcher Years. Given that most of the preview clips ARE from her flashback memories of her days in power, I can imagine many cinemagoers being a little disappointed if they have been led to believe that this film would transport them back to the glory days (or nightmare years, depending on your perspective).
Sure, we get reminders of certain key moments in her premiership, as Bea says, but this is much more about the Thatcher dealing with the grief of losing Dennis, and coping with old age.
When I first heard about this film being made, I wasn't sure I would want to see it, especially as I was one of those who detested the woman when she was in power. Did I want reminders of those bad old days which scarred my youth (all my 20s were lived under Thatcher)?
I was convinced by the interview with Streep as she went into the premiere showing in London last week. She came across so thoughtfully and was careful with how she expressed herself on a subject which she recognises still evokes strong passions in this country two decades on.
As Bea says, Streep was utterly brilliant. The tone of voice, the small mannerisms all captured perfectly. Rather like in Thatcher's governments, the other actors just faded into insignificance alongside.
What surprised me, and I couldn't tell whether this was the focus of the film or whether it was just a reflection of my own mellowing over the years, was that I felt little surge of blood or passion at any of the scenes. They all felt really very distant, almost as historical as the civil rights movement scenes we had watched in The Help only last month. I guess this is a good thing, since for me the society Thatcher created in the 1980s must have been about the most divided this nation has seen since the Civil War, and the country feels a lot healthier now: even the 2011 riots pale into relative insignificance next to the 1981 equivalents...
Swansong or not, this film really is about Meryl Streep, and is a must-see for all film-lovers.
***.5
Saturday, 7 January 2012
The Deep Blue Sea
Cecil says: Why?
Why was this film called The Deep Blue Sea?
Why have such slow-moving scenes that we spend up to 20 seconds watching a briefcase being shut? Or a pair of leather shoes being handed over from one person to the other, with no soundtrack except the faint creaking of the polished leather?
You kind of sense that Terence Davies must have had some deep, significant message to get across to us through this film. But buggered if I know what it was...
On the face of it, this was a lovely Friday night out: bit of romance (classic love triangle with the lovely Rachel Weisz - Hester - opposite Tom Hiddleston - Freddie, the RAF ace - and Simon Russell Beale - William, the ageing judge); a period piece (set in post-war England); and some good-old hearty singing throughout (ah, haven't pubs changed these days?).
But with an opening scene that has Weisz's voiceover reading out her own suicide note, you kind of sense that this might not be a joyfest; and two minutes in I leant over to Bea to comment on the slow pace. The funny thing is that the preview just prior to the film was of the new Sherlock Holmes movie, which looked more like a Harry Potter set with an old storyline, ie fast-paced, all-action and special effects.
Davies's story plods. And I couldn't help thinking all the way through that his dialogue didn't have enough of the cutting nastiness of Harold Pinter characters that make his films cope with silence so well.
That's not to say that the story didn't appeal to me and challenge me. These relationship dilemma plots are always thought-provoking, and Rachel Weisz is always a pleasure to watch, but no, I must make a commitment to myself: never go to see another Terence Davies film (remember Of Time and the City in 2008???), unless you really have nothing better to do, or you don't mind a glum ending to an evening out.
No, it wasn't that bad. But I can't give it more than **.5
Bea says:
This was a beautiful film to watch (the sets, the clothes, the hair), but like Cecil I found it rather slow for a Friday night - it might have better suited a languid Sunday afternoon perhaps... As it was, I was tired from a busy working week, and had just had a bowl of pasta at the Italian opposite, so had to wriggle and stretch to stay awake.
The story should have been more interesting, but it rather felt that too much was left out (why had Hester married the judge, who she did not love? Or did she love him once? Why was she so convinced that Freddie did not love her in the all-consuming way she loved him - they burnt up the screen whenever on it together. Had she tried suicide before?) Perhaps this was deliberate, to leave us wondering and having to fill in the gaps ourselves, but there was certainly time to flesh the characters out a bit.
Talking about the film this morning, Cecil and I both commented on how beautiful the war/postwar period looked in this film - the scene in Aldwych station for example during a bombing raid. Rather than overcrowding, stink and rats (which is what I imagine it was probably really like), there were candles, children nestled in bedding, and on the remarkably uncrowded platform, tables, bunting, and the lovely singing of a young man (Molly Malone - no accident I am sure as the chorus refrain is "Alive, alive-oh"). Similarly the supposedly austere flat of Freddie.
Lovely to look at, so if you go to see it savour its beauty, but have a good cup of coffee beforehand.
**1/2
Why was this film called The Deep Blue Sea?
Why have such slow-moving scenes that we spend up to 20 seconds watching a briefcase being shut? Or a pair of leather shoes being handed over from one person to the other, with no soundtrack except the faint creaking of the polished leather?
You kind of sense that Terence Davies must have had some deep, significant message to get across to us through this film. But buggered if I know what it was...
On the face of it, this was a lovely Friday night out: bit of romance (classic love triangle with the lovely Rachel Weisz - Hester - opposite Tom Hiddleston - Freddie, the RAF ace - and Simon Russell Beale - William, the ageing judge); a period piece (set in post-war England); and some good-old hearty singing throughout (ah, haven't pubs changed these days?).
But with an opening scene that has Weisz's voiceover reading out her own suicide note, you kind of sense that this might not be a joyfest; and two minutes in I leant over to Bea to comment on the slow pace. The funny thing is that the preview just prior to the film was of the new Sherlock Holmes movie, which looked more like a Harry Potter set with an old storyline, ie fast-paced, all-action and special effects.
Davies's story plods. And I couldn't help thinking all the way through that his dialogue didn't have enough of the cutting nastiness of Harold Pinter characters that make his films cope with silence so well.
That's not to say that the story didn't appeal to me and challenge me. These relationship dilemma plots are always thought-provoking, and Rachel Weisz is always a pleasure to watch, but no, I must make a commitment to myself: never go to see another Terence Davies film (remember Of Time and the City in 2008???), unless you really have nothing better to do, or you don't mind a glum ending to an evening out.
No, it wasn't that bad. But I can't give it more than **.5
Bea says:
This was a beautiful film to watch (the sets, the clothes, the hair), but like Cecil I found it rather slow for a Friday night - it might have better suited a languid Sunday afternoon perhaps... As it was, I was tired from a busy working week, and had just had a bowl of pasta at the Italian opposite, so had to wriggle and stretch to stay awake.
The story should have been more interesting, but it rather felt that too much was left out (why had Hester married the judge, who she did not love? Or did she love him once? Why was she so convinced that Freddie did not love her in the all-consuming way she loved him - they burnt up the screen whenever on it together. Had she tried suicide before?) Perhaps this was deliberate, to leave us wondering and having to fill in the gaps ourselves, but there was certainly time to flesh the characters out a bit.
Talking about the film this morning, Cecil and I both commented on how beautiful the war/postwar period looked in this film - the scene in Aldwych station for example during a bombing raid. Rather than overcrowding, stink and rats (which is what I imagine it was probably really like), there were candles, children nestled in bedding, and on the remarkably uncrowded platform, tables, bunting, and the lovely singing of a young man (Molly Malone - no accident I am sure as the chorus refrain is "Alive, alive-oh"). Similarly the supposedly austere flat of Freddie.
Lovely to look at, so if you go to see it savour its beauty, but have a good cup of coffee beforehand.
**1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)