Bea says: Went to see this completely on spec, as we had a couple of hours to kill in Newcastle and were charmed by this lovely Art Deco arthouse cinema. The film was starting as we arrived, and an appointment later in the day meant we needed to see something right then and there, or not at all, so we bought tickets (half price on Tuesdays) and ran up three flights of stairs to catch the opening credits.
That it was going to be a surreal experience was obvious from the outset - a kind of semi-real animation, lots of symbolism (apples, snakes etc), but there is a story to follow: in a city I assumed was Prague, office worker Evzen (Vaclav Helsus) experiences a kind of mid-life crisis when he dreams of a beautiful young woman, who at first is known to him as Eva (Klara Issova). So entranced is he by this experience that he searches for ways to control his dreams, via a psychoanalyst and a second hand book dealer, in order to repeatedly return to his dream life with her. Slowly, the true identity of Eva is revealed (although I had already guessed who she might be - no contemporary young woman would wear an outfit like her red one!)
Although the symbolism was at times baffling and at times heavy handed, the animation is quite wonderful, and the story engaging. Some 15 years ago or more I spent some time in Prague in the deep midwinter, and the grey streets, basic living accommodation and curt service in shops and restaurants really rang true - for that time anyway (although Prague seems to be nothing like that anymore). Watch out for the crone (Emilia Dosekova), who, just like in Greek tragedy, will give an interpretation of what's happening...
Not a bad way to spend a dull winter's afternoon.
***
Cecil says: Well, we walked into the cinema just as the opening shots were on screen, and I thought for a minute I'd walked into an old Monty Python showing, with Terry Gilliam's animations. But no, this was the basis of the whole film: Monty Python meets Bunuel.
Those Python cartoons were good because they were filled with humour. Some members of our Tyneside audience tried the odd cheerful chuckle, but this film was not a barrel of laughs (though, funnily enough, the last Czech 'comedy' I saw had a similarly surreal theme, so maybe it's the way they tell 'em over there...).
Surreal is usually lost on me, mainly because I resent spending a couple of hours of my life trying to guess just what allegory or irony the director is trying to get across.
I guess this way of combining animation with real actors is just a bit better than the Jurassic Park, Cowboys & Aliens genre, so I wasn't exactly bored but I can't say this is a film I would have chosen, had we sat down and studied the listings for Newcastle yesterday afternoon...
And films about dreams? They're almost as boring as hearing other people recount their previous night's dreams. Unless you're a psychoanalyst, maybe?
*.5
Wednesday 28 December 2011
Monday 26 December 2011
The Help
Cecil says: The best film I've seen in 2011. In fact I've now seen it twice (once on my travels in America and now this weekend in Stockton's great little art centre) and I haven't seen any film twice since The King's Speech about this time last year.
This is the story of the black women who worked as domestic helps for the white middle classes in early 1960s Mississippi. Actually, it's also a portrayal of the imposed conformity hanging over the Stepford Wives types on the white side of the fence. But there are also great observations on individual relationships that develop within and across these two main stories.
I guess I'm biased because I have just come back from a visit to Mississippi and Alabama. In Mississippi, I had the good fortune to meet a woman who was herself a 'help' until just a few years ago, but is now living her dream by running her own restaurant in Aberdeen, just a few miles from where this film is set.
In Alabama, I visited Montgomery, where the civil rights movement was born, where the white bus drivers in the 1950s and 60s were really as bad as they come across in this film; and where some white people's views are just as discriminatory as they were portrayed in The Help.
So the film had a very real resonance for me, even though it's set almost 50 years ago.
It's wonderfully well acted all the way through. There aren't many familiar faces, either (Allison Janney - who played CJ in West Wing - and Sissy Spacek really being the only actors I recognised), but the performances across the board are fantastic, from Viola Davis (playing Aibileen), through Emma Stone (Skeeter) and Octavia Spencer (Minny) to little Eleanor Henry, who plays the poor, unloved 3-year-old Mae.
The story lines are strong, the dialogue quick-witted and complex enough (with the accents) for me actually to want to see this film a 3rd time (and I haven't done that since Jules et Jim), and enough social comment to leave you thinking about things on many many levels: relationships, society, race, gender...I could go on, but I'd just say: go and see it for yourself...
*****
Bea says: I had heard so much about this film, not only from Cecil (as he saw it alone, before I did), but also had heard part of the book serialised on Woman's Hour, and many reviews and discussions. So I was prepared for the story, and the topic and it did not sweep me away with emotion quite as it did Cecil, who came to it completely unprepared.
Like Cecil, I mostly appreciated the aspect of the film that is about telling the stories of people whose stories are less told, and indeed whose lives and thoughts are rarely enquired into - a very powerful part of this story and film indeed. The transformative nature of this kind of storytelling is clearly rendered in the film, and the scenes just preceding the closing credits are incredibly moving because of this.
The film made me - now nearly 6 months back from DC - feel nostalgic and almost homesick for the USA, although the USA I lived in is nothing like the South of the 1960s. After the film, Cecil and I mused on the iconic nature of bus travel in the USA; an important part of the civil rights movement, and a big part of our US experience too (athough perhaps not so much for most middle Americans these days). The growing sense of change of the 1960s is almost palpable in the film, and even though I wasn't born the era is so well known through film and literature that it felt recognisable to me too.
There were things I didn't like as much about this film too - it felt a little cliched at times, all the maids were good, hearty people, all the white employers were unfulfilled, repressed and unhappy. I am not sure if the book deals more in the shades of grey of human life than the film did - but I will find out, as I plan to read it now I have finally seen the film.
***
This is the story of the black women who worked as domestic helps for the white middle classes in early 1960s Mississippi. Actually, it's also a portrayal of the imposed conformity hanging over the Stepford Wives types on the white side of the fence. But there are also great observations on individual relationships that develop within and across these two main stories.
I guess I'm biased because I have just come back from a visit to Mississippi and Alabama. In Mississippi, I had the good fortune to meet a woman who was herself a 'help' until just a few years ago, but is now living her dream by running her own restaurant in Aberdeen, just a few miles from where this film is set.
In Alabama, I visited Montgomery, where the civil rights movement was born, where the white bus drivers in the 1950s and 60s were really as bad as they come across in this film; and where some white people's views are just as discriminatory as they were portrayed in The Help.
So the film had a very real resonance for me, even though it's set almost 50 years ago.
It's wonderfully well acted all the way through. There aren't many familiar faces, either (Allison Janney - who played CJ in West Wing - and Sissy Spacek really being the only actors I recognised), but the performances across the board are fantastic, from Viola Davis (playing Aibileen), through Emma Stone (Skeeter) and Octavia Spencer (Minny) to little Eleanor Henry, who plays the poor, unloved 3-year-old Mae.
The story lines are strong, the dialogue quick-witted and complex enough (with the accents) for me actually to want to see this film a 3rd time (and I haven't done that since Jules et Jim), and enough social comment to leave you thinking about things on many many levels: relationships, society, race, gender...I could go on, but I'd just say: go and see it for yourself...
*****
Bea says: I had heard so much about this film, not only from Cecil (as he saw it alone, before I did), but also had heard part of the book serialised on Woman's Hour, and many reviews and discussions. So I was prepared for the story, and the topic and it did not sweep me away with emotion quite as it did Cecil, who came to it completely unprepared.
Like Cecil, I mostly appreciated the aspect of the film that is about telling the stories of people whose stories are less told, and indeed whose lives and thoughts are rarely enquired into - a very powerful part of this story and film indeed. The transformative nature of this kind of storytelling is clearly rendered in the film, and the scenes just preceding the closing credits are incredibly moving because of this.
The film made me - now nearly 6 months back from DC - feel nostalgic and almost homesick for the USA, although the USA I lived in is nothing like the South of the 1960s. After the film, Cecil and I mused on the iconic nature of bus travel in the USA; an important part of the civil rights movement, and a big part of our US experience too (athough perhaps not so much for most middle Americans these days). The growing sense of change of the 1960s is almost palpable in the film, and even though I wasn't born the era is so well known through film and literature that it felt recognisable to me too.
There were things I didn't like as much about this film too - it felt a little cliched at times, all the maids were good, hearty people, all the white employers were unfulfilled, repressed and unhappy. I am not sure if the book deals more in the shades of grey of human life than the film did - but I will find out, as I plan to read it now I have finally seen the film.
***
Wednesday 30 November 2011
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Cecil says: As the camera pans over the main characters in the opening scenes, it lands on great actor after great actor: John Hurt, Colin Firth, Gary Oldman, Toby Jones, Bendict Cumberbatch. You know this is going to be a great film, even if you have vague memories of that really good TV series back in the late 70s, which dramatised the same story.
And sure enough, this is a top quality film: can’t beat the plot (Le Carre); the cast (see above); and the filming (in ‘MI6 HQ’; in the dingy flat of ‘Control’; in the bars of Budapest).
It’s another reminder of how much the world has moved on since those dark days of the 1970s when, again, you had to pick sides and, if you were playing for one side and pretending to be on the other side, you had to weave a very complex web of intrigue behind you in order not to be found out.
Of course, when the TV series was made in 1979, the Cold War was still going strong, so it’s a tribute to the quality of the story and the novel that it stands the test of time to make such a good film so many years on.
It reminds me of a time (the 1980s) when friends of mine had their phone tapped; and another period (the late 60s) when my parents were approached by Special Branch wanting information on student troublemakers.
It probably still happens today, but somehow, from the Odeon Seniors morning in Darlington, it all felt a long time ago, and all the better for being historical...
***.5
Bea says: A strong (Le Carre) story, and a super-strong cast make this a winner from the outset – although let’s face it, this cast could be reading nursery rhymes and it would still be fantastic. The plot does require concentration, and it would be helpful to have read the book before perhaps, or at least be more familiar with the Smiley series than I am.
But concentration pays off eventually, and in this world of high level spying there are no friends, no enemies and no one can be trusted…
Also interesting were the subplots around relationships, Smiley’s and those of his colleagues; in fact this interested me more than the spy plots (and I think it was supposed to).
I heard Le Carre interviewed recently, commenting on Spooks, and he was rather dismissive of it, saying it made spying look like it was all women and fast cars, and in fact it was nothing like that at all – really?
***.5
Tuesday 29 November 2011
The Ides of March
Bea says: This was one of those great experiences where I knew relatively little about a film, and loved it. All I knew about this one was that it was something to do with US politics, and as Cecil and I are just returned from Washington DC, it fitted with our recent experiences.
For me the film was about the process of disillusionment. It follows a few days in the working life of Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling), a young and talented staffer to the democrat presidential candidate, the film opening with the candidate, Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) delivering an inspiring speech about the future of America, and Myers watching with face shining with hope and belief.
As the days progress however, Myers unwittingly uncovers a secret about Morris, and he also lets his talent go slightly to his head, unwisely mis-timing a set-up meeting with the opposing candidate’s people, and even more unwisely confiding in head staffer Paul Zara (the brilliant Philip Seymour Hoffman) about it.
In retrospect, I am not sure how well these actions actually fit with Myers’ character – a highly experienced, talented and bright young up and coming staffer might not have made these mistakes. However, Zara promptly boots him off the campaign, and Myers promptly uses his knowledge of Morris’ dirt to get Zara booted off and get himself back on the campaign.
In the final scene Morris is giving yet another inspiring speech about the future of America, and Myers watches him, stony faced.
Beware indeed the ides of March….made me want to read Julius Caesar, and how many films can you say that about?
***.5
Cecil says: As Bea said, coming just after our year in Washington, it all felt very plausible and very real, though it leaves you without much hope or belief in the future...There was a dark tone to this film, emphasised perhaps by the long scenes totally devoid of soundtrack, so it felt all the more real because, let’s face it, most of our conversations are not backed by violins or trumpets, however much we may fantasise about such things.
The trouble with US politics, even more than politics in the UK, is that it is so tribal. You’re either Republican or Democrat; you’re with Candidate X or Candidate Y; you have to choose sides. And if you want a great career in the political scene, you damn well need to make sure you choose the right side (though can’t be bad when the ‘loser’ in this film goes off with a $1m contract with a consultancy afterwards – but I guess, as Bea said after the film, if that’s not what you wanted, then you will go off head hanging low and tail between your legs).
The whole world became aware of the notion of the political ‘intern’ during the Clinton Administration. Bea and I got to see lots of them on the West Wing before we went to DC; and then met loads of those types for real along the corridors of the Capitol (though the interns I worked with personally were not at all like Monica Lewinski!). And, sure enough, in Ides of March here’s another character that fits the ambitious, but glamorous intern image, playing a crucial – but ultimately tragic – role in this film.
I think maybe I saw this film a little too soon after my year in Washington, where my contact with this political world left me more cynical than awestruck, and if you’re already cynical about politics, then this film will do nothing to move you in the other direction.
Having said that, written by George Clooney, directed by George Clooney, and starring George Clooney, is this the opening bid in a presidential campaign for 2016?
It’s a good film, though and deserved more of an audience than the dozen or so souls who braved a dark night down at the Station in Richmond...
***
Wednesday 23 November 2011
The Concert
Bea says: Seen in rather delightful circumstances at our local Town Hall as part of a Town Twinning scheme, and I was able to enjoy a glass of red wine and cheese as I settled into my seat, laid out caberet-style.
The Concert, although ostensibly a French film, is largely in Russian and about life in Russia in the past, and currently.It centres on the conductor and members of a once-famous orchestra, who fell out of favour during the Brezhnev regime and were declared Enemies of the People – and yes, some went to Gulags. The rest disappeared into a life of obscurity and manual, dead-end jobs. Until, by chance, they get the opportunity to impersonate the Bolshoi orchestra for one night in Paris.
What follows is an often slapstick comedy as they secure dodgy funds and passports, and travel to Paris to play together after a 30 year break. However, running throughout is a deeply touching storyline about the hardship and sacrifice of those who survived the communist regime,
and those who didn’t.
and those who didn’t.
I won’t say too much more – if you see it yourself I don’t want to spoil the storyline. But see it if you can – it is beautifully filmed, directed and acted, and the music is divine.
***
Wuthering Heights
Bea says: Took myself off to see this for a Sunday matinee last week at our local cinema – the Station - as Cecil is seeing films on another continent at the moment.
Since I now live in North Yorkshire I thought this revisit of the Bronte classic would be appropriate (although strictly speaking the Brontes lived in West Yorkshire), and chose it instead of The Help. Notentirely sure I made the right decision there!
Well, it was certainly atmospheric, and earthy, with numerous rather long shots of the moon, heather, a flower, etc etc. Everyone looked very, very cold throughout, and everything was very, very muddy. Thelanguage was rather more coarse than I remember in the book, and there were some sex scenes I don’t recall either. But the aim I suspect the director (Andrea Arnold) had – of getting across the base nature of humanity – is achieved. Other than that I wasn’t overly impressed and rather suspect this film will vanish into oblivion.
The film covers only the first part of the book (rather a mistake I always think – it leaves the story hanging, without resolution), and is rather slow in pace – when 2 hours in Cathy stilled hadn’t died, I wondered if I should leave, as many others who had commenced the screening with me had done.
The acting was generally of a good standard; the styling annoyed me (I don’t think Cathy would have worn blue eyeshadow as a young girl, living as she did on a remote Yorkshire farmhouse in an era where only prostitutes and actresses wore makeup...in fact, and this may have been deliberate, the young Cathy looked like she’d stepped straight off a modern day street. At any moment I expected her to check her iphone.)
Arnold is rather the flavour of the month at the moment I gather, and this has achieved quite good reviews, and I guess is it is good to see a young director tackling this literary classic.
I never really liked this book, and find the character of Cathy very irritating, so don’t feel particularly precious about its interpretation – unfortunately I just felt this had been interpreted rather boringly (and it is going some to make the usually quite melodramatic Brontes boring!)
**
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Life, above all
Cecil says: This is a South African film, made with German backing, which seemed a little odd, until I searched around the subject and discovered that the white South African director now lives in Germany.
It's about a young girl, just going into puberty, who has to take on the head of family role as her step-father descends into alcohol and drug abuse; her mother gets more and more sick as the film progresses; her baby step-sister dies; and her other step sister and brother need looking after.
The big, unspoken issue (at least until more than half way through the film) is AIDS. Are they or aren't they affected? It's a question that hangs over the people immediately involved, and it hangs in the air over the rest of the village, who speculate, jump to conclusions and take on almost vigilante-like stances in case the disease has hit their neighbourhood.
I don't normally read reviews before writing my own, and tonight as I read some of the professional reviewers' thoughts, I realised why. What is it about so-called professional reviewers that they feel they have to deconstruct a film, pull it apart, look at its weaknesses, and above all analyse it. Why is film review such an intellectual (or academic) exercise? Why can reviewers not tell us how they related to the film instead???
I found myself like an outside observer in this film. Was that because it was all about the black community in South Africa (not a single white actor, though that actually felt quite refreshing)? Was it the subtitles and a language I could not understand (and yet, I quite enjoyed the sound of this language and found the subtitles very readable)? Was it because the focus was on a 12-13 year old girl taking on responsibilities I could not relate to?
I actually don't know why I felt hardly any emotion or involvement in the characters (though I thought Chanda was brilliantly acted by a first time actress Khomotso Manyaka), though the storyline carried me through from start to finish.
Maybe it was because the main resonance in my own life story concerns something that happened before I was even born: my parents also lost a baby and struggled to deal with their grief for most of their lives afterwards; like the parents in Life Above All, they chose not to tell their other kids initially what had happened, but in our case with long-term emotional damage resulting from the very protective secrecy they had attempted to impose.
Actually, in the case of the family in this film, the fact that baby Sarah's death is kept from the two young kids leads them to continue to play with her in their fantasy games, with almost disastrous consequences. I didn't really take a message from all this, but it did strike me how enormously difficult infant death is to deal with for all family members, however they die.
I saw this film in the wonderfully-named Knickerbocker Cinema in Holland, Michigan, along with about 100 others. The cinema is now run by the local university, which is great, but I couldn't help wondering why more students were not present and why I was almost the youngest person in the audience...
***
It's about a young girl, just going into puberty, who has to take on the head of family role as her step-father descends into alcohol and drug abuse; her mother gets more and more sick as the film progresses; her baby step-sister dies; and her other step sister and brother need looking after.
The big, unspoken issue (at least until more than half way through the film) is AIDS. Are they or aren't they affected? It's a question that hangs over the people immediately involved, and it hangs in the air over the rest of the village, who speculate, jump to conclusions and take on almost vigilante-like stances in case the disease has hit their neighbourhood.
I don't normally read reviews before writing my own, and tonight as I read some of the professional reviewers' thoughts, I realised why. What is it about so-called professional reviewers that they feel they have to deconstruct a film, pull it apart, look at its weaknesses, and above all analyse it. Why is film review such an intellectual (or academic) exercise? Why can reviewers not tell us how they related to the film instead???
I found myself like an outside observer in this film. Was that because it was all about the black community in South Africa (not a single white actor, though that actually felt quite refreshing)? Was it the subtitles and a language I could not understand (and yet, I quite enjoyed the sound of this language and found the subtitles very readable)? Was it because the focus was on a 12-13 year old girl taking on responsibilities I could not relate to?
I actually don't know why I felt hardly any emotion or involvement in the characters (though I thought Chanda was brilliantly acted by a first time actress Khomotso Manyaka), though the storyline carried me through from start to finish.
Maybe it was because the main resonance in my own life story concerns something that happened before I was even born: my parents also lost a baby and struggled to deal with their grief for most of their lives afterwards; like the parents in Life Above All, they chose not to tell their other kids initially what had happened, but in our case with long-term emotional damage resulting from the very protective secrecy they had attempted to impose.
Actually, in the case of the family in this film, the fact that baby Sarah's death is kept from the two young kids leads them to continue to play with her in their fantasy games, with almost disastrous consequences. I didn't really take a message from all this, but it did strike me how enormously difficult infant death is to deal with for all family members, however they die.
I saw this film in the wonderfully-named Knickerbocker Cinema in Holland, Michigan, along with about 100 others. The cinema is now run by the local university, which is great, but I couldn't help wondering why more students were not present and why I was almost the youngest person in the audience...
***
Monday 31 October 2011
One Day
Bea says: I saw this one quite a while ago, late one Saturday afternoon when Cecil was away. I went to see it alone, and left feeling very introspective and rather wistful, perhaps even a bit low as it is a sad tale indeed.
Like perhaps everyone of my age (early 40s), I could relate to Anne Hathaway's character - I too was rather clever and a bit of a nerd at university (although I did have plenty of boyfriends), and I too discovered myself more in my 20s and 30s. I could relate to the clothes, the hair and the ups and downs of life. Although I don't really have anyone in my life quite like Dexter, there are of course a few "maybes" or "might-have-beens". So far, so predictable.
What was less predictable for me (as I haven't read the book) was the plot twist which saw a different outcome than the usual and predictable romantic comedy format; instead moving the film into tearjerker format. I didn't shed many - if any - tears though. I was just left with an overwhelming sadness for those amongst us who have to go on despite loss. And that made me think about all my own losses - hence introspection, wistfulness, and a rather low feeling. Not a bad feeling, just a low feeling.
Overall a rather good film, although people tell me the book is better (aren't they always?). I kind of wish they'd given an up and coming Yorkshire actress a go at the leading role. Even I, as an Australian, was irritated by Hathaway's (lack of a) Yorkshire accent!
***
Cecil says: Bea is right about the Yorkshire accent. In fact, it was only some way into the film that I remembered someone telling me that she was supposed to be from Yorkshire (and actually we learn nothing about her family at all throughout the film). Hathaway's attempt at an English accent was pretty good, really, but then she'd suddenly remember to pronounce 'luck' like 'look' and you'd realise again that this is supposed to be a Yorkshire lass. Yes, either find a Yorkshire actress or just forget Yorkshire and have Hathaway as the nice English rose she was playing...
There's something about films that very conspicuously take you year by year through a retrospective of someone's life. It almost forces the viewer to say: "Ah, yes, 1992. That was the year I was ...". And to relive those awkward, character-building moments of your own development as you witness the lives of these two on screen.
I had to wonder what the mainly pensioner audience I watched this with in Darlington made of it all. What were they doing in 1988? or 2005? It didn't stop them packing the cinema on a gloomy Monday morning, though, and 70 or so bums were on seats for this Seniors screening, served up with free coffee, tea and biscuits. Excellent initiative by the Darlington Odeon.
There is a sadness hanging over the whole film, though, as Bea says. Sure, there are the 'wasted years' we have all had in relationships that weren't going anywhere, and that was powerfully portrayed in Emma's relationship with the hapless stand-up comedian. But, it is poor Dexter, from the rather privileged background (and my God, how many of those did I cross paths with during my university days), who never quite escapes from the directionless emptiness, even with his nice connection to his daughter right at the end.
There were some moments that didn't come across as very likely to happen in reality, like the timing of Emma's break-up with the jazz pianist and her running after Dexter, but overall this film worked well, with lovely soundtrack and nice shots of Edinburgh at the beginning and end.
****
Sunday 25 September 2011
Happy, Happy ("Sykt lykkelig")
Cecil says: I should have learnt my lesson by now: don't be fooled by the one-liners on the film posters. "Hilarious", "joyful", "comic" this was not. And I ought to know also that a Nordic film with a title like "happy, happy" will be out to test our notions of what is happiness and is less likely to be a rolling-in-the-aisles experience than you might think.
Having said all that, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It was drama along the lines of that UK TV series from the 1990s "Cold Feet"; in fact, one of the lead actresses in this film (Maibritt Saerens, who plays Elisabeth) bore an uncanny resemblance to Karen from Cold Feet (Hermione Norris), both in looks and temperament.
And there was one scene, which might have been hilarious, had it not been a rather tame reminder of the nude vicar chase in Room with a View...
No, this is all about two couples living in snow-covered Norway in the middle of nowhere. One couple comprises the nervous, child-like Kaja and her taciturn, hunter-type husband Eirik. The other couple are the newly-arrived urbanites: Elisabeth is a lawyer, sophisticated and out-of-place in this rural outback away from culture and conversation; her husband Sigve a smiling mean-well man who prefers to sing or go for a run than join the neighbour on a hunting trip.
Of course things never turn out quite how you expect, on film or in real life in many cases, and this plot has lots of twists and turns as the four learn about each other and themselves over a period that cannot last more than a few weeks (though time is not that important here).
There's also the sub-plot of their two sons: the urbanite couple with an adopted black kid "from Africa", and the local couple with the very blond, very fair Theodor. Except Theodor is not very fair and plays out his own frustrations in a disturbing slave-master roleplay game with poor old Noa, which carries on intermittently throughout the film.
And then there's the four singers, who begin and end the whole film, and throw in a few excellent numbers in between scenes. They are kind of somewhere between the Blues Brothers and Four Puffs and a Piano, and I'm not really sure what role they are playing, except possibly as some Brechtian commentator on how things develop in the storyline. It's great music, though, and they're fine singers, so I'll be watching out for them - their names appeared in the credits, but I can't find them now when I search online, so if anybody reading this can tell me who they are, please help...
And finally, I saw this one alone in DC (Bea and I still apart for one week more). I checked the UK release date and of course, there is none. It opened in Norway a year ago, and played in France, but no, the Brits aren't interested it seems. Well, I think they're wrong and would like to see it on release when I'm back.
So, not hilarious, not even a comedy, but I'll give it ***.5 out of 5
Having said all that, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It was drama along the lines of that UK TV series from the 1990s "Cold Feet"; in fact, one of the lead actresses in this film (Maibritt Saerens, who plays Elisabeth) bore an uncanny resemblance to Karen from Cold Feet (Hermione Norris), both in looks and temperament.
And there was one scene, which might have been hilarious, had it not been a rather tame reminder of the nude vicar chase in Room with a View...
No, this is all about two couples living in snow-covered Norway in the middle of nowhere. One couple comprises the nervous, child-like Kaja and her taciturn, hunter-type husband Eirik. The other couple are the newly-arrived urbanites: Elisabeth is a lawyer, sophisticated and out-of-place in this rural outback away from culture and conversation; her husband Sigve a smiling mean-well man who prefers to sing or go for a run than join the neighbour on a hunting trip.
Of course things never turn out quite how you expect, on film or in real life in many cases, and this plot has lots of twists and turns as the four learn about each other and themselves over a period that cannot last more than a few weeks (though time is not that important here).
There's also the sub-plot of their two sons: the urbanite couple with an adopted black kid "from Africa", and the local couple with the very blond, very fair Theodor. Except Theodor is not very fair and plays out his own frustrations in a disturbing slave-master roleplay game with poor old Noa, which carries on intermittently throughout the film.
And then there's the four singers, who begin and end the whole film, and throw in a few excellent numbers in between scenes. They are kind of somewhere between the Blues Brothers and Four Puffs and a Piano, and I'm not really sure what role they are playing, except possibly as some Brechtian commentator on how things develop in the storyline. It's great music, though, and they're fine singers, so I'll be watching out for them - their names appeared in the credits, but I can't find them now when I search online, so if anybody reading this can tell me who they are, please help...
And finally, I saw this one alone in DC (Bea and I still apart for one week more). I checked the UK release date and of course, there is none. It opened in Norway a year ago, and played in France, but no, the Brits aren't interested it seems. Well, I think they're wrong and would like to see it on release when I'm back.
So, not hilarious, not even a comedy, but I'll give it ***.5 out of 5
Saturday 10 September 2011
Colombiana
Cecil says: It's not often I go to films on my own, but Bea and I are apart for a few weeks. So I watched this one with nine teenagers in a 250-seater movie theater in downtown Athens, Tennessee.
The film opens with a helicopter-eye view of somewhere third-world-looking. It's interspersed with lots of guns, grenades, fighting, so we're probably supposed to wonder if it's Beirut or Damascus (though, hey, maybe not, if we think about the name of the film we came to see...).
That's right: it's somewhere in Colombia, probabaly Medellin, in 1992. There's this awful scene next with two druglords having meaningful man-to-man brotherly hugs before they go off and try to kill each other. And then we're left to focus on the daughter.
She's about 9 when her Dad is killed and the third scene is actually a rather good chase through the shanty town (not often you get a chase so early in a film), as she dramatically gets away from the drug gang members.
We quickly switch to 15 years later and this cute, but feisty 9 year old has become a lethal killer herself, bent on revenge for the killing of her parents.
To be honest, the best parts of the film are the opening scenes. I never saw Angelina Jolie in Catwoman, but somehow I felt throughout that this was a kind of carbon copy. Zoe Saldana does a pretty good job, but I reckon her stunt double had more fun in this movie.
And the police side of it was somewhere between Columbo and Without a Trace. Just got me thinking: why do we always emotionally side with the FBI over the CIA in these stories? And just how quickly CAN these sort of services track you down in the bathroom of X apartment block, using all their modern technology?
You also had suspend disbelief most of the way through the final scenes. Where did Cataleya get the money for all this very sophisticated armoury? How did she manage to case her joints so thoroughly before going on the killing spree?
That said, it runs along smoothely, and takes you with the flow. I haven't really been a great Luc Besson fan since his very early stuff in the 1980s, but this was not bad. Some might find the ending a bit too tidy, but I kind of liked it - and great Johnny Cash song to bring on the credits at the end...
Such a shame more people don't use the cinema in these small towns, They're lucky to have a big screen venue still there. Hey, two of the teenage couples spent the evening snogging on the back row, but in a way, that's great. Isn't that what teenagers are SUPPOSED to do (I can remember going to see Abba The Movie with one girlfriend and I don't think we saw more than five minutes of the film). Where are the rest of the Athens community? Come on, guys, it cost just $10 (that's £6 if you're a Brit) and you just can't beat the big screen for atmosphere, regardless of who you're with...Shame Bea wasn't there, though.
***
The film opens with a helicopter-eye view of somewhere third-world-looking. It's interspersed with lots of guns, grenades, fighting, so we're probably supposed to wonder if it's Beirut or Damascus (though, hey, maybe not, if we think about the name of the film we came to see...).
That's right: it's somewhere in Colombia, probabaly Medellin, in 1992. There's this awful scene next with two druglords having meaningful man-to-man brotherly hugs before they go off and try to kill each other. And then we're left to focus on the daughter.
She's about 9 when her Dad is killed and the third scene is actually a rather good chase through the shanty town (not often you get a chase so early in a film), as she dramatically gets away from the drug gang members.
We quickly switch to 15 years later and this cute, but feisty 9 year old has become a lethal killer herself, bent on revenge for the killing of her parents.
To be honest, the best parts of the film are the opening scenes. I never saw Angelina Jolie in Catwoman, but somehow I felt throughout that this was a kind of carbon copy. Zoe Saldana does a pretty good job, but I reckon her stunt double had more fun in this movie.
And the police side of it was somewhere between Columbo and Without a Trace. Just got me thinking: why do we always emotionally side with the FBI over the CIA in these stories? And just how quickly CAN these sort of services track you down in the bathroom of X apartment block, using all their modern technology?
You also had suspend disbelief most of the way through the final scenes. Where did Cataleya get the money for all this very sophisticated armoury? How did she manage to case her joints so thoroughly before going on the killing spree?
That said, it runs along smoothely, and takes you with the flow. I haven't really been a great Luc Besson fan since his very early stuff in the 1980s, but this was not bad. Some might find the ending a bit too tidy, but I kind of liked it - and great Johnny Cash song to bring on the credits at the end...
Such a shame more people don't use the cinema in these small towns, They're lucky to have a big screen venue still there. Hey, two of the teenage couples spent the evening snogging on the back row, but in a way, that's great. Isn't that what teenagers are SUPPOSED to do (I can remember going to see Abba The Movie with one girlfriend and I don't think we saw more than five minutes of the film). Where are the rest of the Athens community? Come on, guys, it cost just $10 (that's £6 if you're a Brit) and you just can't beat the big screen for atmosphere, regardless of who you're with...Shame Bea wasn't there, though.
***
Sunday 28 August 2011
The Guard
Cecil says: This is the kind of film that would no doubt get a very different audience reaction in Ireland than it did in the arthouse cinema we saw it in in York city centre last night. You need to know what the references to Limerick, Cork, Galway, Connemara really mean to get some of the jokes. So lines that got a chuckle in York would probably have them bent double with laughter in Irish cinemas...
What's it all about? An off-beat, grumpy but mischievous rural cop gets caught up in an international drug dealing gang about to pull off a major landing of cocaine off the Irish coast. A politically-correct, well-cut black FBI agent is shipped in from America to lead the police bid to stop the gang.
Seargeant Gerry Boyle is played by Brendan Gleeson, who is apparently well-known in Irish circles (and for Harry Potter fans, he played 'Mad-Eye Moody' in a couple of the Potter films - none of which I've seen, by the way!). He came across as a little bit Dalziel from Dalziel & Pascoe (the rugged, hard cop, with a soft centre), and a bit more Fitz from Cracker with his psychological insights behind a more blunt exterior.
The film moves along at a nice pace, keeping the chuckles going more than the intrigue over where the plot was heading. Not particularly deep stuff, but good entertainment for a Saturday night when most cinemas are still showing nothing but kids' stuff for the summer holidays. Rather like a Kaurismaki film is best seen in Finland for the full audience reaction, I couldn't help feeling this film would have been best seen in Dublin, or better still Limerick.
***
Bea says: As Cecil says, a quite funny, pleasantly diverting outing for a Saturday night, made even the more enjoyable for me as I have spent time on the West coast of Ireland.
Underneath the comedy and perhaps rather stereotypical presentations of Irish and American cops particularly, were some nice insights - suicide was one of the sub-plots of the film, and Boyle's comment about needing intelligence to commit suicide was interesting as the plot developed, as were the insights into appearing stupid when actually very bright, another sub-theme of the film. There was also a nice post-modern, laugh-at-self moment for the directors/producers, when the film's plot is suggested and fully described by young Eugene, who acts as a kind of Greek chorus or oracle throughout.
Despite its apparent simplicity, and in fact I left it thinking it was quite slight, it had some depth and has given me plenty to write about here!
Some scenes rather too violent for my taste; a bit like Tarantino meets Morse, if that can be imagined...
***1/2
What's it all about? An off-beat, grumpy but mischievous rural cop gets caught up in an international drug dealing gang about to pull off a major landing of cocaine off the Irish coast. A politically-correct, well-cut black FBI agent is shipped in from America to lead the police bid to stop the gang.
Seargeant Gerry Boyle is played by Brendan Gleeson, who is apparently well-known in Irish circles (and for Harry Potter fans, he played 'Mad-Eye Moody' in a couple of the Potter films - none of which I've seen, by the way!). He came across as a little bit Dalziel from Dalziel & Pascoe (the rugged, hard cop, with a soft centre), and a bit more Fitz from Cracker with his psychological insights behind a more blunt exterior.
The film moves along at a nice pace, keeping the chuckles going more than the intrigue over where the plot was heading. Not particularly deep stuff, but good entertainment for a Saturday night when most cinemas are still showing nothing but kids' stuff for the summer holidays. Rather like a Kaurismaki film is best seen in Finland for the full audience reaction, I couldn't help feeling this film would have been best seen in Dublin, or better still Limerick.
***
Bea says: As Cecil says, a quite funny, pleasantly diverting outing for a Saturday night, made even the more enjoyable for me as I have spent time on the West coast of Ireland.
Underneath the comedy and perhaps rather stereotypical presentations of Irish and American cops particularly, were some nice insights - suicide was one of the sub-plots of the film, and Boyle's comment about needing intelligence to commit suicide was interesting as the plot developed, as were the insights into appearing stupid when actually very bright, another sub-theme of the film. There was also a nice post-modern, laugh-at-self moment for the directors/producers, when the film's plot is suggested and fully described by young Eugene, who acts as a kind of Greek chorus or oracle throughout.
Despite its apparent simplicity, and in fact I left it thinking it was quite slight, it had some depth and has given me plenty to write about here!
Some scenes rather too violent for my taste; a bit like Tarantino meets Morse, if that can be imagined...
***1/2
Tuesday 23 August 2011
Oranges and Sunshine
Bea says: Seen for a bargain price in the small Yorkshire market town of Malton - but Cecil will probably tell you more about that!
I was keen to see this film when Cecil suggested it as it is about my home country (Australia), and also about a now fairly famous (or perhaps infamous) episode in its history - the deportation of thousands of British children in care to the "colony", to start a new life. Only this new life, rather than being oranges and sunshine, was usually exploitation and abuse at the hands of the institutions and adults who were supposed to be caring for them.
When I was at university in the 1990s, a fairly groundbreaking drama was screened in Australia which told the story of these "Home Children" (The Leaving of Liverpool, a joint ABC/BBC production, 1993), This drama had a profound impact on the national psyche, as this true story was barely known at the time, and was at times pretty hard to watch as it followed the story of two children who were deported, one to labour in a quarry at an isolated church children's home, and the other into unpaid servitude on a sheep station. Both were abused. It was urban legend that the Head of the ABC had pushed for the making of the drama - because he had been one of the "Home Children" himself.
Oranges and Sunshine, however, looks at this episode in history from a different perspective - that of the British social worker who investigated the cases of the now adult children who had (usually) no papers, patchy memories of life before, and few or disparate family ties. The film portrays the horror of their lives through her work, listening, uncovering and advocating, and it shows the cost to her in terms of health and family.
Although I am not sure the initial scene was required (a bit stereotypical perhaps, and certainly not usual practice for social workers these days, although perhaps it was still in the late 1980s), the film was well made and very watchable, despite it's heavy subject matter. Hugo Weaving really stood out for me, and gave an incredibly moving performance as Jack, and the Loach connection was easy to see in the "real-life" feeling of the adult Home Children (actors) talking about their experiences.
It was also a nice treat for me that it was filmed in my home town of Adelaide (despite not being set there), and even Cecil was able to recognise some key places!
***1/2
Cecil says: As a kid, we had often driven through Malton at a snail's pace because traffic was always at a bottleneck there. We'd never really stopped. So I didn't even know of the existence of the Palace Cinema until I was surfing the net trying to find a film somewhere in Yorkshire that didn't involve Harry Potter, aliens, cars or cartoons.
Up popped this film, which Bea and I saw alone in the Palace Cinema 'lounge' film club room, which sits 10 people max, and is used for showing films you may have missed first time round when they come out on DVD. What an excellent concept; we'll certainly be back!
As to the film, as always the opening scene sets the tone for me, and for anyone 50 or over in the UK, this opening scene just has to remind you of a scene from Cathy Come Home, that groundbreaking drama in the mid-60s that so challenged established ways of dealing with single mothers, the homeless and 'broken families'.
Some way into the film and the social worker sits down with her husband (also a social worker, I think) to discuss her initial findings. There was something about the dialogue here that came across a bit too stilted, a bit too keen to put across the 'message': "What you're talking about here is the illegal mass deportation of children".
And it suddenly reminded me of what annoys me about Ken Loach films: it's they're repetitive lecturing on the moral issue he is dealing with in each film; he tends to ram it down the viewer's throat, even if you got the message in scene one and basically sympathise. It's the kind of thing that has put me off going to Ken Loach films for some years now.
Then, lo and behold, in the credits at the end of this film, who directed Oranges and Sunshine, but Jim Loach. A quick search in Wikipedia, and what do we find out: he's the son of Ken. A good ten years older than Ken was when he made Cathy Come Home, but somehow unable to move away from his Dad's style. Maybe that's no bad thing, if you like the style, but I'm not keen on being preached to when I go to the movies, and this film toyed with preachiness...
That said, it was a compelling story. All the more so for me personally, since these shipments of kids were still going on when I had my trip-of-a-lifetime to Australia in 1967, on an ocean liner (as you did in those days), accompanied thankfully by my parents...
Funnily enough, for a Loach film (sorry, Jim, I know it's your first feature, so I shouldn't tar you totally with your father's brush), there was almost too little political analysis of people like the Brothers running the priory (and abusing the kids). We never really find out whether it is they who send the threatening thugs round to harass Margaret. And, given what Bea says about the TV series they made of what happened, this could have been an awful lot grimmer in the telling.
"Did you enjoy the film?" they cheerily asked, as we came out of our exclusive viewing room. Enjoy is probably not the right word, but it was compelling. I'd recommend this film to others, but if you have the choice of this or the TV series Bea mentions, I'd have chosen the latter for delving deeper into the subject.
***
I was keen to see this film when Cecil suggested it as it is about my home country (Australia), and also about a now fairly famous (or perhaps infamous) episode in its history - the deportation of thousands of British children in care to the "colony", to start a new life. Only this new life, rather than being oranges and sunshine, was usually exploitation and abuse at the hands of the institutions and adults who were supposed to be caring for them.
When I was at university in the 1990s, a fairly groundbreaking drama was screened in Australia which told the story of these "Home Children" (The Leaving of Liverpool, a joint ABC/BBC production, 1993), This drama had a profound impact on the national psyche, as this true story was barely known at the time, and was at times pretty hard to watch as it followed the story of two children who were deported, one to labour in a quarry at an isolated church children's home, and the other into unpaid servitude on a sheep station. Both were abused. It was urban legend that the Head of the ABC had pushed for the making of the drama - because he had been one of the "Home Children" himself.
Oranges and Sunshine, however, looks at this episode in history from a different perspective - that of the British social worker who investigated the cases of the now adult children who had (usually) no papers, patchy memories of life before, and few or disparate family ties. The film portrays the horror of their lives through her work, listening, uncovering and advocating, and it shows the cost to her in terms of health and family.
Although I am not sure the initial scene was required (a bit stereotypical perhaps, and certainly not usual practice for social workers these days, although perhaps it was still in the late 1980s), the film was well made and very watchable, despite it's heavy subject matter. Hugo Weaving really stood out for me, and gave an incredibly moving performance as Jack, and the Loach connection was easy to see in the "real-life" feeling of the adult Home Children (actors) talking about their experiences.
It was also a nice treat for me that it was filmed in my home town of Adelaide (despite not being set there), and even Cecil was able to recognise some key places!
***1/2
Cecil says: As a kid, we had often driven through Malton at a snail's pace because traffic was always at a bottleneck there. We'd never really stopped. So I didn't even know of the existence of the Palace Cinema until I was surfing the net trying to find a film somewhere in Yorkshire that didn't involve Harry Potter, aliens, cars or cartoons.
Up popped this film, which Bea and I saw alone in the Palace Cinema 'lounge' film club room, which sits 10 people max, and is used for showing films you may have missed first time round when they come out on DVD. What an excellent concept; we'll certainly be back!
As to the film, as always the opening scene sets the tone for me, and for anyone 50 or over in the UK, this opening scene just has to remind you of a scene from Cathy Come Home, that groundbreaking drama in the mid-60s that so challenged established ways of dealing with single mothers, the homeless and 'broken families'.
Some way into the film and the social worker sits down with her husband (also a social worker, I think) to discuss her initial findings. There was something about the dialogue here that came across a bit too stilted, a bit too keen to put across the 'message': "What you're talking about here is the illegal mass deportation of children".
And it suddenly reminded me of what annoys me about Ken Loach films: it's they're repetitive lecturing on the moral issue he is dealing with in each film; he tends to ram it down the viewer's throat, even if you got the message in scene one and basically sympathise. It's the kind of thing that has put me off going to Ken Loach films for some years now.
Then, lo and behold, in the credits at the end of this film, who directed Oranges and Sunshine, but Jim Loach. A quick search in Wikipedia, and what do we find out: he's the son of Ken. A good ten years older than Ken was when he made Cathy Come Home, but somehow unable to move away from his Dad's style. Maybe that's no bad thing, if you like the style, but I'm not keen on being preached to when I go to the movies, and this film toyed with preachiness...
That said, it was a compelling story. All the more so for me personally, since these shipments of kids were still going on when I had my trip-of-a-lifetime to Australia in 1967, on an ocean liner (as you did in those days), accompanied thankfully by my parents...
Funnily enough, for a Loach film (sorry, Jim, I know it's your first feature, so I shouldn't tar you totally with your father's brush), there was almost too little political analysis of people like the Brothers running the priory (and abusing the kids). We never really find out whether it is they who send the threatening thugs round to harass Margaret. And, given what Bea says about the TV series they made of what happened, this could have been an awful lot grimmer in the telling.
"Did you enjoy the film?" they cheerily asked, as we came out of our exclusive viewing room. Enjoy is probably not the right word, but it was compelling. I'd recommend this film to others, but if you have the choice of this or the TV series Bea mentions, I'd have chosen the latter for delving deeper into the subject.
***
Wednesday 27 July 2011
The Art of Getting By
Cecil says: The best thing about this film was actually the venue: Rochester's Cinema Theater (yes, it reminds me of getting Gateau Cake in my home town of Hull as a kid; and in many ways Rochester is rather like Hull, funnily enough). The Cinema dates back to 1914, and claims to be one of America's oldest continuously running theaters. Hats off to the local community that restored the place in the 80s and kept it running today. And, only $5 each for a double bill (we didn't bother staying for the X-Men...).
The Art of Getting By has had quite a few bad reviews, but actually I quite enjoyed it.
I think we needed a simple teen love story after the grief and sadness of the last film we saw. And the main character, George, had a certain resonance for me, taking me back to my last years at high school, with his philosophical approach to life and his fumbled attempts at romance.
Of course, not all of us 'got the girl' during our high school years, and I don't want to ruin things for those who haven't seen the film yet, but you kind of know things will all turn out OK for George in the end, just because this is a feel-good movie and it wants to end happily.
So George felt fairly believable, if perhaps a bit of a caricature of the kind of 17 year old some of us would like to have been. We don't really know much about Sally, the target of George's affections and friendship. But maybe that's the reality of teenage romance and friendship: we don't really get inside the head of the people we date and/or fancy, do we? At least, not at that age...
Overall, though, as I say, I actually enjoyed this film. Not really very memorable, but another nice way to spend a cool evening while it's hot outside.
Oh, and get this: Sally is played by Emma Roberts, who is none other than the niece of Julia; she got into film by hanging out on sets when her aunt was performing over the years. Easy for some, huh?
***
Bea says: A nice-looking film, with easy-on-the-eye actors playing all the lead roles, and New York's Upper East Side starring as itself in autumn/winter, all leaves in the park and Christmas lights. In fact I whiled away time through the rather thin plot by just enjoying the visuals.
The story was diverting, if not particularly original - angst-ridden, slightly gawky, and not very good student George gets a shot to hang out with the "A" list popular kids when he becomes "just friends" with Sally. Borrowing rather heavily from 80s classic Less Than Zero, all the teens in the film are privileged, wealthy and not lacking in opportunity, with mostly disinterested parents. The film does focus closely on George and his inner and outer life, so we do get some insights into his relationship with his mother, but other characters, such as Sally's mother, are rather stereotyped. George makes another new friend through the course of the film - an older ex-student of the school, and introduces him to Sally - with predictable results. So far, so like true life.
I might have been happier with this film if it resisted the urge to add on a very unlike real-life sugar coated happy ending.
**
The Art of Getting By has had quite a few bad reviews, but actually I quite enjoyed it.
I think we needed a simple teen love story after the grief and sadness of the last film we saw. And the main character, George, had a certain resonance for me, taking me back to my last years at high school, with his philosophical approach to life and his fumbled attempts at romance.
Of course, not all of us 'got the girl' during our high school years, and I don't want to ruin things for those who haven't seen the film yet, but you kind of know things will all turn out OK for George in the end, just because this is a feel-good movie and it wants to end happily.
So George felt fairly believable, if perhaps a bit of a caricature of the kind of 17 year old some of us would like to have been. We don't really know much about Sally, the target of George's affections and friendship. But maybe that's the reality of teenage romance and friendship: we don't really get inside the head of the people we date and/or fancy, do we? At least, not at that age...
Overall, though, as I say, I actually enjoyed this film. Not really very memorable, but another nice way to spend a cool evening while it's hot outside.
Oh, and get this: Sally is played by Emma Roberts, who is none other than the niece of Julia; she got into film by hanging out on sets when her aunt was performing over the years. Easy for some, huh?
***
Bea says: A nice-looking film, with easy-on-the-eye actors playing all the lead roles, and New York's Upper East Side starring as itself in autumn/winter, all leaves in the park and Christmas lights. In fact I whiled away time through the rather thin plot by just enjoying the visuals.
The story was diverting, if not particularly original - angst-ridden, slightly gawky, and not very good student George gets a shot to hang out with the "A" list popular kids when he becomes "just friends" with Sally. Borrowing rather heavily from 80s classic Less Than Zero, all the teens in the film are privileged, wealthy and not lacking in opportunity, with mostly disinterested parents. The film does focus closely on George and his inner and outer life, so we do get some insights into his relationship with his mother, but other characters, such as Sally's mother, are rather stereotyped. George makes another new friend through the course of the film - an older ex-student of the school, and introduces him to Sally - with predictable results. So far, so like true life.
I might have been happier with this film if it resisted the urge to add on a very unlike real-life sugar coated happy ending.
**
Monday 25 July 2011
Beginners
Bea says: A sad film. Touted as a fun-loving flick about a young man's dad coming out at an advanced age, it is actually about death, loss and grief, and in fact is a good exploration of these themes - but it is, nevertheless, a sad film to watch. This might be because I have watched Cecil experience many of the events of the film, and have some experience with them myself, and I suspect that most audiences will contain significant numbers of people who can directly relate to the loss of one or both parents.
The plot follows Oliver (Ewan McGregor), whose father Hal (Christopher Plummer) admits he has always been gay following the death of Oliver's mother. A short period of enjoyable exploration of Hal's long-suppressed sexuality follows (support groups, Pride, nightclubs, and a boyfriend, Andy, well played by Goran Visnjic), but all too soon he is diagnosed with cancer, and his decline and death follows. There are some insights into what being gay was like in the 1950s, Hal's youth, and I enjoyed hearing the recording of Ginsberg reading.
The story then follows Oliver, who has always struggled to form meaningful, long-lasting relationships, and who is trying again with Anna (Melanie Laurent) despite being in the depths of grief. A somewhat happy, if bittersweet ending concludes the film.
It left me melancholic, although not unhappily so, and I would definitely recommend seeing this film. A good film for an autumn Sunday afternoon. Not so great for a hot summer Saturday.
***
Cecil says: I felt very like Bea on this one: somewhat duped by the film's preview, which was trying to sell it as a hilarious look at life as an elderly gay man. In fact it was really about grief and sadness, so no wonder we both came away feeling even less like skipping down the street afterwards than we would have anyway on an afternoon of sultry heat.
The shame was that this film was showing at the Little Theatre in Rochester, New York. This is a cinema that sells itself on 'foreign and independent film', but I guess they ran out of such movies, so this was the best on offer this weekend.
It's just two years since my own father died - also of cancer - so I inevitably related to many of the things Ewan McGregor was going through (and it is no surprise to learn that the storyline is actually autobiographical). But maybe if I had known that this was the plot, I might not have chosen such an anniversary reminder.
If Ewan McGregor's character was believable, I can't say the same about his girlfriend, Anna. A bit of a mystery; with an apparently suicidal father (yep, gets cheerier, the more you hear, huh?) and a life without roots. But we don't really get to see much of what makes her tick, which makes me wonder how well Mike Mills knew her, if this is indeed autobiographical?
I didn't like this as much as Bea did; certainly felt duped by the film's release write-up; and can barely even remember any of the scenes about the Dad being gay, so irrelevant they seemed to the underlying plot of grief...
**
The plot follows Oliver (Ewan McGregor), whose father Hal (Christopher Plummer) admits he has always been gay following the death of Oliver's mother. A short period of enjoyable exploration of Hal's long-suppressed sexuality follows (support groups, Pride, nightclubs, and a boyfriend, Andy, well played by Goran Visnjic), but all too soon he is diagnosed with cancer, and his decline and death follows. There are some insights into what being gay was like in the 1950s, Hal's youth, and I enjoyed hearing the recording of Ginsberg reading.
The story then follows Oliver, who has always struggled to form meaningful, long-lasting relationships, and who is trying again with Anna (Melanie Laurent) despite being in the depths of grief. A somewhat happy, if bittersweet ending concludes the film.
It left me melancholic, although not unhappily so, and I would definitely recommend seeing this film. A good film for an autumn Sunday afternoon. Not so great for a hot summer Saturday.
***
Cecil says: I felt very like Bea on this one: somewhat duped by the film's preview, which was trying to sell it as a hilarious look at life as an elderly gay man. In fact it was really about grief and sadness, so no wonder we both came away feeling even less like skipping down the street afterwards than we would have anyway on an afternoon of sultry heat.
The shame was that this film was showing at the Little Theatre in Rochester, New York. This is a cinema that sells itself on 'foreign and independent film', but I guess they ran out of such movies, so this was the best on offer this weekend.
It's just two years since my own father died - also of cancer - so I inevitably related to many of the things Ewan McGregor was going through (and it is no surprise to learn that the storyline is actually autobiographical). But maybe if I had known that this was the plot, I might not have chosen such an anniversary reminder.
If Ewan McGregor's character was believable, I can't say the same about his girlfriend, Anna. A bit of a mystery; with an apparently suicidal father (yep, gets cheerier, the more you hear, huh?) and a life without roots. But we don't really get to see much of what makes her tick, which makes me wonder how well Mike Mills knew her, if this is indeed autobiographical?
I didn't like this as much as Bea did; certainly felt duped by the film's release write-up; and can barely even remember any of the scenes about the Dad being gay, so irrelevant they seemed to the underlying plot of grief...
**
Monday 18 July 2011
Larry Crowne
Bea says: Who on earth are Hollywood getting to screen-write at the moment? (I'm afraid to say the answer is...Tom Hanks). After the poor-to-average writing of Bridesmaids and Bad Teacher, comes this confused attempt at romantic comedy.
The basic plot outline: Tom Hanks plays a middle-aged divorced man who has just been made redundant from his service industry job at "U-Mart". An all round good-guy, he served his country for 20 years in the Navy (as a cook), but, crucially, has no college education. In order to improve his employment prospects, he enrols in his local community college, taking introductory courses in economics, academic writing, and speaking. Enter Julia Roberts, his burnt-out teacher of Speech 101 (or whatever it was called).
So far, so good. If it had just been left this way, and the story could have played out as set, it might have managed to be a passable, if predictable and forgettable, romantic comedy. But oh no - enter the scooter gang. Yes, that's right - scooter gang. Is it 1969 you might ask? Are The Who at the top of the charts, and are we all going to Brighton to face-off the Rockers?
Er, no. Although, confusingly, all the members of the scooter gang are dressed as if it's 1994, it actually is the present day, and some poor misinformed Hollywood writer appears to think scooter gangs still exist. Suffice to say that Hanks is befriended by a young female scooter driver - Gugu Mbatha-Raw - (he also drives one) and this is the catalyst for his life to change, as she makes him over, makes his house over and introduces him to her "wild", "free-spirited" way of life, which basically involves riding her scooter around town, and then dropping out of college. Hanks benefits enormously from this, managing in the end to pass his courses and get Julia Roberts, but it remains unclear exactly what scooter girl gets from this relationship.
Hanks, take a writing course.
*
Cecil says: Yes, Bea said it all really. I thought the script had been written by a 15 year-old school boy because the plot was so thin and the characters were caricatures. And not even caricatures, in the case of the scooter gang: they were somehow a Hollywood dream of what gangs should be like: kind of clean, basically good at heart, fun-loving folk. I was surprised it was written by Hanks himself and Nia Vardalos, who wrote My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Nothing else to say, really. Better than standing in the tropical rain on a steamy afternoon in southern Florida. But you know, we saw it 48 hours ago, and I can't remember anything about it.
*.5
The basic plot outline: Tom Hanks plays a middle-aged divorced man who has just been made redundant from his service industry job at "U-Mart". An all round good-guy, he served his country for 20 years in the Navy (as a cook), but, crucially, has no college education. In order to improve his employment prospects, he enrols in his local community college, taking introductory courses in economics, academic writing, and speaking. Enter Julia Roberts, his burnt-out teacher of Speech 101 (or whatever it was called).
So far, so good. If it had just been left this way, and the story could have played out as set, it might have managed to be a passable, if predictable and forgettable, romantic comedy. But oh no - enter the scooter gang. Yes, that's right - scooter gang. Is it 1969 you might ask? Are The Who at the top of the charts, and are we all going to Brighton to face-off the Rockers?
Er, no. Although, confusingly, all the members of the scooter gang are dressed as if it's 1994, it actually is the present day, and some poor misinformed Hollywood writer appears to think scooter gangs still exist. Suffice to say that Hanks is befriended by a young female scooter driver - Gugu Mbatha-Raw - (he also drives one) and this is the catalyst for his life to change, as she makes him over, makes his house over and introduces him to her "wild", "free-spirited" way of life, which basically involves riding her scooter around town, and then dropping out of college. Hanks benefits enormously from this, managing in the end to pass his courses and get Julia Roberts, but it remains unclear exactly what scooter girl gets from this relationship.
Hanks, take a writing course.
*
Cecil says: Yes, Bea said it all really. I thought the script had been written by a 15 year-old school boy because the plot was so thin and the characters were caricatures. And not even caricatures, in the case of the scooter gang: they were somehow a Hollywood dream of what gangs should be like: kind of clean, basically good at heart, fun-loving folk. I was surprised it was written by Hanks himself and Nia Vardalos, who wrote My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Nothing else to say, really. Better than standing in the tropical rain on a steamy afternoon in southern Florida. But you know, we saw it 48 hours ago, and I can't remember anything about it.
*.5
Saturday 9 July 2011
The Tree of Life
Bea says: Beautiful. Captivating. Hypnotic. Dreamlike. All words that went through my mind as I was immersed in the experience of watching The Tree of Life.
Plot? What little there was of one vaguely documents the childhood of Sean Penn's character, Jack, as a boy. Dialogue? Even less, other than dreamy, often biblical, words voiced over images of deserts, rivers, oceans, forests, space, and electron microscope images of our own bodily interiors. One sequence involves dinosaurs - a kind of "before we were here" pre-conception/creation/intelligent design kind of thing I think.
Kind of about death, grief, childhood, marriage, motherhood, religion and meaning in life (says a lot by saying nothing at all). Lots of symbolism and biblical references - some of these I got, some I didn't.
Loved the soundtrack. Go for the experience, not the story.
***
Cecil says: Don't go to this film if you're feeling even the slightest bit sleepy: you won't survive the 2h 18 minutes, I guarantee...
The opening scene was a bit weird, but then it got going with this family in the 1950s, only for the whole story to stop and we had to watch about 20 minutes of wildlife and the world, as Bea says (I hadn't even realised that some of the shots were of our insides). It all felt more like watching a David Attenborough wildlife documentary (without his voice), combined with Jurassic Park, for a very very odd few scenes.
What was THAT all about? And that basically sums up most of the film, I'm afraid. I'm glad Bea knew that much of it was based on biblical allegory; part of me guessed as much; and the last time we went to a film that was all Bible and allegory, I almost walked out (in fact, I think I did). But the music was lovely and some of the filming quite captivating too, so I didn't come that close to leaving.
I knew it had to return to the plot sooner or later, so it just required a bit of patience. Quite disturbing scenes often, boys growing up with a violent father and getting into lots of scrapes.
Rather like a symphony, which comes back to its original theme at the end, you kind of know when this film is drawing to a close because it goes all funny and weird again. So, I left the cinema thinking: hmmm, not sure what that was all about really. I fear the producers wanted me to go away thinking 'wow' - and maybe if I knew the biblical references, I might have. But I didn't.
**.5
Plot? What little there was of one vaguely documents the childhood of Sean Penn's character, Jack, as a boy. Dialogue? Even less, other than dreamy, often biblical, words voiced over images of deserts, rivers, oceans, forests, space, and electron microscope images of our own bodily interiors. One sequence involves dinosaurs - a kind of "before we were here" pre-conception/creation/intelligent design kind of thing I think.
Kind of about death, grief, childhood, marriage, motherhood, religion and meaning in life (says a lot by saying nothing at all). Lots of symbolism and biblical references - some of these I got, some I didn't.
Loved the soundtrack. Go for the experience, not the story.
***
Cecil says: Don't go to this film if you're feeling even the slightest bit sleepy: you won't survive the 2h 18 minutes, I guarantee...
The opening scene was a bit weird, but then it got going with this family in the 1950s, only for the whole story to stop and we had to watch about 20 minutes of wildlife and the world, as Bea says (I hadn't even realised that some of the shots were of our insides). It all felt more like watching a David Attenborough wildlife documentary (without his voice), combined with Jurassic Park, for a very very odd few scenes.
What was THAT all about? And that basically sums up most of the film, I'm afraid. I'm glad Bea knew that much of it was based on biblical allegory; part of me guessed as much; and the last time we went to a film that was all Bible and allegory, I almost walked out (in fact, I think I did). But the music was lovely and some of the filming quite captivating too, so I didn't come that close to leaving.
I knew it had to return to the plot sooner or later, so it just required a bit of patience. Quite disturbing scenes often, boys growing up with a violent father and getting into lots of scrapes.
Rather like a symphony, which comes back to its original theme at the end, you kind of know when this film is drawing to a close because it goes all funny and weird again. So, I left the cinema thinking: hmmm, not sure what that was all about really. I fear the producers wanted me to go away thinking 'wow' - and maybe if I knew the biblical references, I might have. But I didn't.
**.5
Monday 4 July 2011
Midnight in Paris
Cecil says:
I hadn’t seen a Woody Allen film for years. Not, in fact, since the whole saga over his thing about young girls, and the creepy way he continued to play the lead male in his own films opposite some gorgeous young thing. But Midnight in Paris was on at the right time in the right cinema – the Athena in Athens, Ohio (not quite what it once was, when it opened in 1915, since it’s now divided into three screens, but great that it’s still there on the main street in downtown Athens).
The film begins with beautiful shots of Paris: the places, buildings and sights we all love; and the atmosphere that just seems to fill the air for anyone who has ever been there.
But then two things happen early on that take time to adjust to: is that Woody Allen walking across the square in a Hitchcock-style appearance at the end of those opening shots? And then meet the new Woody Allen: Owen Wilson, who plays aspiring writer Gil, is just Woody Allen in a different body. He manages the delivery, the body language, the personality, which were Woody Allen on screen for three decades, and he manages it extraordinarily well.
As to the plot: this aspiring writer is engaged to the wrong woman; they’re in Paris with her parents, whose focus is money and shopping. Gil has a dream, and loves Paris just for being Paris.
He wanders off alone one night and finds himself picked up by some friendly folk in a very old-fashioned car and whisked off to a party where he first meets Zelda, and then Scott…And suddenly he finds himself back in the 1920s, his golden era; the time he would have liked to live in if he could choose.
It’s a kind of cleverer Goodnight Sweetheart (UK TV series), as he gets to meet all the creative, arty thinkers and artists of the period, all of whom lived in or had a connection to Paris. Meanwhile he goes back during the day to his misfit pre-marriage disconnection with his fiancée and her family.
I too love the 20s for style and image, though it’s also true, as the film tries to tell us, that really we don’t know how life would have been in comparison to our own time, because we have no perspective on our own era, and only have distance from the older time.
It’s a great story with some lovely touches (Bunuel being given a tip for a film script; Hemingway constantly being driven to be so manly). One or two slightly ‘unbelievable’ touches like the young couple Gil tries to stop who speak ‘no English’ (unheard of in modern-day Paris); and the Polidor restaurant, which I know and love, being used for the 1920s scenes, but then Gil goes back there during the day and it has become a launderette…Only we know different, don’t we?
Still, minor lapses that take nothing away from a thoroughly enjoyable evening
****
Bea says: This is how to do romantic comedy, Paul Feig and Jake Kasden (see recent reviews of Bridesmaids and Bad Teacher)! A light touch, a good eye, a good story, a bit of intellectual clout for those of us who like to think a bit as well, and it leaves you feeling good. Pretty much perfect.
****
Monday 27 June 2011
Bad Teacher
Bea says: Terrible title, which made me suspect it was going to be a terrible film. Cecil read out the synopsis to me before we left, and that didn't reassure me either. But it was this or nothing (as every other choice was even worse, or we had already seen) at the Regal cinema multiplex in Vienna, West Virginia on Saturday night.
Acutally it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be - thanks mainly to the 3 main players, Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake and Lucy Punch , as well as their director Jake Kasdan. They all showed great comic timing and deadpanned beautifully (although I was the only one in the audience giggling at the "Eat, Pray, Love" scene, and I am sure the young audience did not the Dangerous Minds reference either...). Of course Diaz has done this many times before, but Timberlake was surprisingly good, and was responsible, I am sure, for the swathes of teenagers in the audience - I didn't think young folk like that went to the cinema anymore!
The basic plot is not-as-young-as-she-used-to-be teacher and gold-digger Diaz finds herself dumped by her mealticket fiance, and reluctantly has to return to school to teach yet another year. She is, of course, completely disinterested in her job, and gets through the days showing DVDs to her hapless pupils while plotting how to raise enough money for breast enlargement surgery, in order to catch another rich bloke.
Enter Timberlake, a serious, and seriously well-off, substitute teacher. Throw overachieving teacher-across-the-hall Amy Squirrel into the mix and the film is basically a classic love triangle, with gym teacher Jason Segel waiting in the wings for Diaz's eventual fall.
Unfortunately, the writers are too heavy handed with Diaz's character, and even though she transforms a little through the film, it is difficult to summon up enough liking for her to care whether she ends up happily ever after or not. In fact, I felt more empathy with goody-two-shoes Squirrel, and was more interested in how her rather limited story progressed through the film. This heavy handedness comes hot on the heels of Bridesmaids for me, and kind of concerned me. I had a similar, if slightly less so, reaction to the main character of that film - I didn't really empathise with her enough to care enough about the outcome.
I kind of wonder what these kinds of main characters are trying to say, and I wondered what this film was trying to say overall - that you succeed when you are empty-headed and superficial and care more about your looks than your profession (what a great message...)? Or that money and things are unnecessary and all you need is love? This film felt a little confused, as did Bridesmaids, about where it was ultimately going and what it wanted to do and say, trying to go all out for bad taste and shock, then tying it all up nicely with a sugary ending.
**
Cecil says: Well, I have to take part of the blame for Bea thinking that young kids don't go to the cinema anymore. Thing is, it's me who chooses the films where we are the youngest in the room. So, it was one of the first things I noticed on Saturday, sitting on the back row as ever, that we were probably the oldest couple in the room for a change. I guess we'd need to go to a few more vampire or pirates films to repeat this experience...
I have to confess I was with Bea in caring more about the Squirrel/Timberlake partnership than about the build-up to gym teacher and Camern Diaz getting it together.
I guess both of us probably fell more into the goodie-two-shoes mode at school, though I like to think that both of us have also learnt to appreciate a bit of a wicked side since we left our respective educations. So, while I could recognise the sensible advice Diaz gives the poor, earnest geeky 7th grader about lurv and girls, on the whole, as Bea says, she didn't come across as a very likeable character or as someone we should care about in particular.
I did notice, like Bea, that people in the audience laughed at different episodes and stories: the scene where the kids buy a 'rape kit' got them rolling in the aisles; and similarly the bit where the flatmate goes head over heels over a car parked in the parking lot got a big guffaw across the auditorium.
Thing is, I like slapstick in the Chaplin/Keaton genre, but in a modern-day drama, even one trying to be light-hearted about life, this felt mis-placed (especially as we came across almost that exact incident on our drive home: guy falls off his motorbike and bangs his head on rocks: he was nastily injured, and it just wasn't funny).
I don't know. Maybe I should take a chill pill and lighten up a bit. But don't get me wrong; I didn't spend the entire film tut-tutting or thinking how awful it all was. I enjoyed the story really. It just isn't a film I'd choose to go and see again. But sometimes, you don't have much choice.
**
Acutally it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be - thanks mainly to the 3 main players, Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake and Lucy Punch , as well as their director Jake Kasdan. They all showed great comic timing and deadpanned beautifully (although I was the only one in the audience giggling at the "Eat, Pray, Love" scene, and I am sure the young audience did not the Dangerous Minds reference either...). Of course Diaz has done this many times before, but Timberlake was surprisingly good, and was responsible, I am sure, for the swathes of teenagers in the audience - I didn't think young folk like that went to the cinema anymore!
The basic plot is not-as-young-as-she-used-to-be teacher and gold-digger Diaz finds herself dumped by her mealticket fiance, and reluctantly has to return to school to teach yet another year. She is, of course, completely disinterested in her job, and gets through the days showing DVDs to her hapless pupils while plotting how to raise enough money for breast enlargement surgery, in order to catch another rich bloke.
Enter Timberlake, a serious, and seriously well-off, substitute teacher. Throw overachieving teacher-across-the-hall Amy Squirrel into the mix and the film is basically a classic love triangle, with gym teacher Jason Segel waiting in the wings for Diaz's eventual fall.
Unfortunately, the writers are too heavy handed with Diaz's character, and even though she transforms a little through the film, it is difficult to summon up enough liking for her to care whether she ends up happily ever after or not. In fact, I felt more empathy with goody-two-shoes Squirrel, and was more interested in how her rather limited story progressed through the film. This heavy handedness comes hot on the heels of Bridesmaids for me, and kind of concerned me. I had a similar, if slightly less so, reaction to the main character of that film - I didn't really empathise with her enough to care enough about the outcome.
I kind of wonder what these kinds of main characters are trying to say, and I wondered what this film was trying to say overall - that you succeed when you are empty-headed and superficial and care more about your looks than your profession (what a great message...)? Or that money and things are unnecessary and all you need is love? This film felt a little confused, as did Bridesmaids, about where it was ultimately going and what it wanted to do and say, trying to go all out for bad taste and shock, then tying it all up nicely with a sugary ending.
**
Cecil says: Well, I have to take part of the blame for Bea thinking that young kids don't go to the cinema anymore. Thing is, it's me who chooses the films where we are the youngest in the room. So, it was one of the first things I noticed on Saturday, sitting on the back row as ever, that we were probably the oldest couple in the room for a change. I guess we'd need to go to a few more vampire or pirates films to repeat this experience...
I have to confess I was with Bea in caring more about the Squirrel/Timberlake partnership than about the build-up to gym teacher and Camern Diaz getting it together.
I guess both of us probably fell more into the goodie-two-shoes mode at school, though I like to think that both of us have also learnt to appreciate a bit of a wicked side since we left our respective educations. So, while I could recognise the sensible advice Diaz gives the poor, earnest geeky 7th grader about lurv and girls, on the whole, as Bea says, she didn't come across as a very likeable character or as someone we should care about in particular.
I did notice, like Bea, that people in the audience laughed at different episodes and stories: the scene where the kids buy a 'rape kit' got them rolling in the aisles; and similarly the bit where the flatmate goes head over heels over a car parked in the parking lot got a big guffaw across the auditorium.
Thing is, I like slapstick in the Chaplin/Keaton genre, but in a modern-day drama, even one trying to be light-hearted about life, this felt mis-placed (especially as we came across almost that exact incident on our drive home: guy falls off his motorbike and bangs his head on rocks: he was nastily injured, and it just wasn't funny).
I don't know. Maybe I should take a chill pill and lighten up a bit. But don't get me wrong; I didn't spend the entire film tut-tutting or thinking how awful it all was. I enjoyed the story really. It just isn't a film I'd choose to go and see again. But sometimes, you don't have much choice.
**
Saturday 18 June 2011
Super 8
Bea says: Somewhat to my surprise, Cecil suggested this latest outing from Steven Spielberg as a matinee during a recent stay in Maine - we saw it at the lovely Colonial cinema in the waterfront town of Belfast.
The film did nothing so much as remind me of the halcyon days of my early teenage-hood, when myself and a group of school friends would take ourselves into Adelaide town centre to see whatever the latest Spielberg - or other blockbuster aimed at teens - offering was. Together we saw films like Karate Kid, Back to the Future (all parts), Ghostbusters (all parts) etc, until I went to university and got arty, and they drifted off into married and other lives.
Partly I was reminded of those days because the protagonists of the film were all in their early teenage years, partly it was the era depicted (although 1979 is a little early for me - I was about that age a few years later, in 1983) and partly it was just the general style, story line and events - kids get unwittingly caught up in military cover-up of alien life. Naturally, as in all good yarns involving kids, the kids are much, much cleverer than all the adults involved and manage to save the day with the adults barely noticing.
The Super-8 that the title refers to is also a subject of nostalgia these days - one of the kids is a budding film maker, and the vital sub-plot (although given the title, perhaps the alien conspiracy is really the sub-plot) running throughout is the Super-8 film he is making and planning to enter into a national competition - rather like, I do believe, Mr Spielberg himself used to do as a nipper (a probably well-known gem which I discovered recently at a Smithsonian exhibition). Stick around for the credits, as we always do, and you will get to see the Super-8 film the kids make.
This is pretty standard offering for this kind of genre, and it was entertaining and fairly gripping. My only criticism would be that I would have liked some kind of closure to the plot-line concerning the kids' teacher - who is vital to the film, and whose story is unfortunately abandoned after we see him injured and being ill treated in a military camp. Perhaps a little too much time on special effects and too little on tying up the plot's loose ends?
However, good fun, and good nostalgia.
** 1/2
Cecil says: On one level, this film could do no wrong: it was the end of a perfect day-out in the wonderful town of Belfast and in one of the movie theaters America does so well to preserve. Yes, the Colonial opened in 1912 and is working towards it centenary. They only had a dozen in for this matinee, but the public announcement at the start (projectionist standing on stage - it's so Cinema Paradiso) gave the impression it was sold out last Friday evening, so things are looking Ok for this grand old theatre.
As to the film itself, it did a lot of things I can't stand in movies: combining science fiction with 'real life'; having lots of special effects, which I hate; and making the story about the making of a film. But, you know, I kind of liked this film-making aspect of it. It all felt so like Bugsy Malone, but with the kids a few years older. And it certainly made me regret not having a bunch of creative friends like that when I was school - I'd have loved to be the 'lead' opposite the girl, though it's the make-up artist that gets the girl in the end. Nice twist!
Once all the shit kicked off and the alien monster begins to cause havoc round town, it all began to feel a bit like Scooby-Doo, as so many American movies do, but as long as I let myself go along for the ride, it drew me in and kept me interested.
Yes, we almost didn't bother with the credits, even though we're normally the last people out of the cinema, but if you go to this movie, you MUST stay for the final credits, as Bea says.
**.5
The film did nothing so much as remind me of the halcyon days of my early teenage-hood, when myself and a group of school friends would take ourselves into Adelaide town centre to see whatever the latest Spielberg - or other blockbuster aimed at teens - offering was. Together we saw films like Karate Kid, Back to the Future (all parts), Ghostbusters (all parts) etc, until I went to university and got arty, and they drifted off into married and other lives.
Partly I was reminded of those days because the protagonists of the film were all in their early teenage years, partly it was the era depicted (although 1979 is a little early for me - I was about that age a few years later, in 1983) and partly it was just the general style, story line and events - kids get unwittingly caught up in military cover-up of alien life. Naturally, as in all good yarns involving kids, the kids are much, much cleverer than all the adults involved and manage to save the day with the adults barely noticing.
The Super-8 that the title refers to is also a subject of nostalgia these days - one of the kids is a budding film maker, and the vital sub-plot (although given the title, perhaps the alien conspiracy is really the sub-plot) running throughout is the Super-8 film he is making and planning to enter into a national competition - rather like, I do believe, Mr Spielberg himself used to do as a nipper (a probably well-known gem which I discovered recently at a Smithsonian exhibition). Stick around for the credits, as we always do, and you will get to see the Super-8 film the kids make.
This is pretty standard offering for this kind of genre, and it was entertaining and fairly gripping. My only criticism would be that I would have liked some kind of closure to the plot-line concerning the kids' teacher - who is vital to the film, and whose story is unfortunately abandoned after we see him injured and being ill treated in a military camp. Perhaps a little too much time on special effects and too little on tying up the plot's loose ends?
However, good fun, and good nostalgia.
** 1/2
Cecil says: On one level, this film could do no wrong: it was the end of a perfect day-out in the wonderful town of Belfast and in one of the movie theaters America does so well to preserve. Yes, the Colonial opened in 1912 and is working towards it centenary. They only had a dozen in for this matinee, but the public announcement at the start (projectionist standing on stage - it's so Cinema Paradiso) gave the impression it was sold out last Friday evening, so things are looking Ok for this grand old theatre.
As to the film itself, it did a lot of things I can't stand in movies: combining science fiction with 'real life'; having lots of special effects, which I hate; and making the story about the making of a film. But, you know, I kind of liked this film-making aspect of it. It all felt so like Bugsy Malone, but with the kids a few years older. And it certainly made me regret not having a bunch of creative friends like that when I was school - I'd have loved to be the 'lead' opposite the girl, though it's the make-up artist that gets the girl in the end. Nice twist!
Once all the shit kicked off and the alien monster begins to cause havoc round town, it all began to feel a bit like Scooby-Doo, as so many American movies do, but as long as I let myself go along for the ride, it drew me in and kept me interested.
Yes, we almost didn't bother with the credits, even though we're normally the last people out of the cinema, but if you go to this movie, you MUST stay for the final credits, as Bea says.
**.5
Thursday 9 June 2011
Bridesmaids
Bea says: Went to see this in Georgetown with a DC friend on a (very) hot afternoon yesterday - we figured the cinema was a good place to find refuge. I didn't know anything about this film, and kept my expectations low as I guessed it would be a kind of Bride-zilla comedy about getting married.
Well, I was actually quite pleasantly surprised. It was, of course, a comedy about getting married, but was also a nice study of friendship, particularly friendships that endure over many years, as well as being a look at getting your life together in your 30s.
The bride (Maya Rudolph) and her best friend/bridesmaid (Kristen Wiig) are indeed clearly not in the first flush of youth, and have lived a little over the years, which makes them a bit more interesting (and easier for me to relate to, being no longer in the first flush of youth myself!). In fact, judging by the music (Wilson Phillips - remember them?? Annoyingly, I can't get "Hold On" out of my head since watching this film!) it was written by, and targetted to, people of exactly my age. In fact I felt the characters were quite well-developed for this kind of genre.
In the 1990s, this film would have starred Meg Ryan, and Kristen Wiig does look a little like her, and had maybe modelled her character on Ryan's goofy style. I found myself missing those Meg Ryan type films, and kind of wished she'd played it; she might have added a little softness to the role.
This film was harder edged and much more explicit than those1990s romantic comedies though (hence the R rating I was surprised to see when we bought tickets, and explained the presence of several teenaged boys, who I was also surprised to see there - until the first sex scene happened), and is definitely not for the faint-hearted or prudish.
All in all, this film was a tonic, and I enjoyed nearly every minute, AND it left me feeling thoughtful, but good. A bit of welcome light relief from all those depressing European films we've been seeing lately....
***
Cecil says: Oo er - perhaps I'd better let Bea choose the next films...Shame I missed this one. I too thought it would be more targeted at 14 year old girls, so was quite happy to let Bea go to this while I slogged away at work...
Well, I was actually quite pleasantly surprised. It was, of course, a comedy about getting married, but was also a nice study of friendship, particularly friendships that endure over many years, as well as being a look at getting your life together in your 30s.
The bride (Maya Rudolph) and her best friend/bridesmaid (Kristen Wiig) are indeed clearly not in the first flush of youth, and have lived a little over the years, which makes them a bit more interesting (and easier for me to relate to, being no longer in the first flush of youth myself!). In fact, judging by the music (Wilson Phillips - remember them?? Annoyingly, I can't get "Hold On" out of my head since watching this film!) it was written by, and targetted to, people of exactly my age. In fact I felt the characters were quite well-developed for this kind of genre.
In the 1990s, this film would have starred Meg Ryan, and Kristen Wiig does look a little like her, and had maybe modelled her character on Ryan's goofy style. I found myself missing those Meg Ryan type films, and kind of wished she'd played it; she might have added a little softness to the role.
This film was harder edged and much more explicit than those1990s romantic comedies though (hence the R rating I was surprised to see when we bought tickets, and explained the presence of several teenaged boys, who I was also surprised to see there - until the first sex scene happened), and is definitely not for the faint-hearted or prudish.
All in all, this film was a tonic, and I enjoyed nearly every minute, AND it left me feeling thoughtful, but good. A bit of welcome light relief from all those depressing European films we've been seeing lately....
***
Cecil says: Oo er - perhaps I'd better let Bea choose the next films...Shame I missed this one. I too thought it would be more targeted at 14 year old girls, so was quite happy to let Bea go to this while I slogged away at work...
Monday 6 June 2011
The Double Hour ("La Doppia Ora")
Bea says: Aside from the great location (the cinema at Plimoth Plantation, Plymouth, Mass.), this was a diverting if eminently forgettable film - in fact I just had to get Cecil to remind me what it was all about before blogging!
This Italian thriller features a young Polish woman (Kseniya Rappoport) who meets a man (Filippo Timi) at a speed dating session, and they develop a relationship. Together, they become a victim of a tragic heist at his place of work. But as the film progresses, more and more questions are posed as to the reality of what we are seeing- what is real, what is not, what are we hearing that is true, what is false? Unfortunately, at about 20 mins in I figured out which way the plot was going to twist and got a little bored waiting for it to happen. The significance of the "doppia ora" (double hour, ie 10.10 or 23.23) seemed a bit tangential, or perhaps I missed something after all?
Nice cinematography. Nicely directed with good performances all round. Great knitwear! Not a bad night out - but a little predictable.
**1/2
Cecil says: Well, I clearly haven't read as many crime novels or seen as many thrillers as Bea, because it took me a lot longer to guess what was going on.
In fact, coming on the back of the last film we had seen: the Juliette Binoche one about reality and fake (see: Certified Copy); I much preferred this one, which was also, as Bea says, about what is reality, what is true and what is in the mind. It was kind of like the TV series "Life on Mars" without the clever 1970s historical references, but with two good-looking lead actors and a setting in northern Italy instead.
But there's not a lot to say about it, as Bea says. And I also haven't a clue what the significance of the 'double hour' is, especially as nobody in the States ever speaks in the 24-hour clock, so that changes the whole notion over here. And that, somehow or other, seemed to be the point of the film...Oh well...
Having said all that, fantastic that the Plymouth 'Plantation', which is kind of museum reality experience area, lets the cinema on site show arty films once a day. Maybe other museums could follow suit in towns where there is no independent cinema?
***
This Italian thriller features a young Polish woman (Kseniya Rappoport) who meets a man (Filippo Timi) at a speed dating session, and they develop a relationship. Together, they become a victim of a tragic heist at his place of work. But as the film progresses, more and more questions are posed as to the reality of what we are seeing- what is real, what is not, what are we hearing that is true, what is false? Unfortunately, at about 20 mins in I figured out which way the plot was going to twist and got a little bored waiting for it to happen. The significance of the "doppia ora" (double hour, ie 10.10 or 23.23) seemed a bit tangential, or perhaps I missed something after all?
Nice cinematography. Nicely directed with good performances all round. Great knitwear! Not a bad night out - but a little predictable.
**1/2
Cecil says: Well, I clearly haven't read as many crime novels or seen as many thrillers as Bea, because it took me a lot longer to guess what was going on.
In fact, coming on the back of the last film we had seen: the Juliette Binoche one about reality and fake (see: Certified Copy); I much preferred this one, which was also, as Bea says, about what is reality, what is true and what is in the mind. It was kind of like the TV series "Life on Mars" without the clever 1970s historical references, but with two good-looking lead actors and a setting in northern Italy instead.
But there's not a lot to say about it, as Bea says. And I also haven't a clue what the significance of the 'double hour' is, especially as nobody in the States ever speaks in the 24-hour clock, so that changes the whole notion over here. And that, somehow or other, seemed to be the point of the film...Oh well...
Having said all that, fantastic that the Plymouth 'Plantation', which is kind of museum reality experience area, lets the cinema on site show arty films once a day. Maybe other museums could follow suit in towns where there is no independent cinema?
***
Monday 30 May 2011
Certified Copy - "Copie Conforme"
Cecil says: I always like Juliette Binoche. I can watch her for hours and never tire of her. So an intense film focused on the intense relationship between Binoche and ‘James’ (William Shimell), with lots of camera shots focusing straight onto Binoche’s face, was bound to keep me happy. Having said that, I think if her part had been played by any other actress, I’d have quickly tired of this film.
Isn’t it funny how, in the same way that Hollywood plots become more and more complex as audiences get wise to the ‘usual’ thriller plot, French films so often descend into more and more multi-layered intellectual game-playing?
How dull was the opening scene of this one? We hear far too much of the Englishman’s lecture to the small-town Italian audience on a pretty obscure, arcane subject: on the importance of originality in art or whether a good copy is not also as important for the story it tells.
Of course, this is probably some scene-setting allegory for the couple’s relationship? Is it real or a fake? Is the kid his or someone else’s? Does it matter that some people they meet think they are married? What is real?
I’m afraid it all gets a bit too deep for my liking, but French films like this so often do. If there’s one nation’s films that can make me feel like a philistine, it’s the French!
Basically, their relationship is a mess, but of course we aren’t allowed any normal story-telling which ends with a clear conclusion on whether it survives or ends; oh no that would be far too conventional for a film of this genre.
I think the only scene I really liked, apart from the lingering close-ups of JB, was where they meet the middle-aged couple in the square. He gives James some friendly advice: put your arm round her, it’ll solve all your marriage problems.
And the wife of insightful man does something interesting which happens so often in real life (like in photos where the fixed smile is so unnatural and the smile ‘after’ the shot is taken is often the true smile): she is asked for her reaction to a statue in the square and replies with something very instinctive and insightful, but when asked to repeat this for the art historian James, she goes all technical, pseudo-intellectual and it sounds awful. Bit like this film, really.
**.5
Bea says:
For the first third of this film I didn’t really warm to either main character – I found their play-acting at being married irritating (why would anyone who didn’t know each other well do that?). When it slowly became apparent that they were, actually, married I became more interested in their relationship issues and dilemmas, but remained vaguely irritated by their earlier play-acting at not being married! I am not sure if this was the reaction the writer and director was trying to elicit from their audience – maybe.
The themes of this film (real-ness, fakery, truth, and simplicity as opposed to complexity) are interesting enough but the film takes it pretty slowly and is very dialogue-heavy with little action. It’s not a bad way to while away a late afternoon (as we did), but we had just done a pretty strenuous coastal hike followed by tea and cakes, and I was feeling rather sleepy and relaxed with lots of endorphins – I would really have preferred something a bit more positive and hopeful on the nature of marriage and relationships. Perhaps I’ve been living in America for too long now, but I found this rather a downer.
**1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)