Bea says: I saw this without Cecil - although he was there for the opening credits, he could not tolerate the terrible seats we had at the usually very good E St cinema on Sunday afternoon - so close to the screen that we had to recline uncomfortably to see it. It was too much for Cecil, and he went home.
I stayed it out with a friend who had joined us, and after the first 10 minutes found myself swept up enough to mostly forget about the crick in my neck. The story is relatively faithfully kept to (although it has been a while since I've read the Bronte novel), and opens with Jane's flight across the Yorkshire moors following her discovery of the madwoman in the attic at Thornfield Hall. The full tale is then told, beginning with Jane's banishment as an orphaned child to Lurwood School, her placement as a governess to Adele, Mr Rochester's ward, at Thornfield, and whilst there the growing friendship and romance between Jane and Rochester.
The film reaches its crescendo in the attempted marriage of the unwitting Jane, and Mr Rochester, which is stopped and the truth revealed - that Rochester is already married.
Following her flight, Jane lives a relatively quiet life as a country schoolteacher (if inheriting a fortune and being proposed to by a missionary about to leave for India could be described as quiet), until she hears Rochester calling to her across the moors - and returns to find Thornfield burnt to the ground, the mad wife dead, and Rochester blind. Aaah - a happy ending, Bronte-style!
The film is a nicely put together costume drama, although fans of restrained Austen novels made into films might find the Brontes a bit lurid and melodramatic - personally I love all that high drama and dashing about the moors in the rain. The leads turn in good performances, with Judy Dench not quite stealing the show as Mrs Fairfax, the housekeeper. My friend commented that the production had perhaps had the Hollywood treatment (neither of us remembered Rochester suggesting to Jane that they live in sin in the book, but perhaps he does...)
Very much recommended for a dreary Sunday afternoon...
***
Cecil says: No way a guy of 6'3" can be expected to stay in a cinema on the front row with the screen virtually touching his nose, and with no chance of leaning back on the seat back to look up to the screen when the seat back goes up to his shoulder blade. Sorry, but this will have to wait for another dreary Sunday afternoon when Bea has better things to do.
Unless I take her for a run across the Yorkshire moors first...
Tuesday 29 March 2011
Sunday 20 March 2011
Rango
Bea says: Travelling around America and visiting independent cinemas wherever we go is certainly making Cecil and me see some films that we normally wouldn't bother with! This week we plumped for Rango, given a choice between that, Gnomeo and Juliet, and Big Momma's House.
Like many women of my age, I am happy to see Johnny Depp in any way, shape or form, so was pleased to see this film "starred" him, and many other big names (Bill Nighy, Alfredo Molina, for example).
My first impression was that the subject matter was rather deep for the large contingent of 6-12 years old who made up the audience; Rango (a chameleon) is accidently released from his aquarium while travelling with his "owners" in their car, and with the help of a wise armadillo and a town full of characters, explores the philosophy of life, crossing the road, and the spirit of the West, finding much out about himself along the way.
A moral tale for our time, the film's focus on the use/misuse of a finite resource (water) reminded me of both the Short Animations we had recently seen, and once again the old Dr Suess book The Lorax - isn't it about time that was turned into an animated film? The animation was computer based, and nicely done (even though everyone/thing had those strange eyes computer animation seems to give), although I thought perhaps Rango could have used his chameleon ability to change colour a bit more often.
The kids enjoyed the action sequences and some of the jokes; the remainder of which were for the benefit of the adults in the audience, with one or two being rather risque. A somewhat over-long film (just under 2 hours when 90 minutes would have been sufficient), many of the younger members of the audience crashed out before the (happy) ending. A kind of kid-friendly, fun version of True Grit.
**1/2
Cecil says: Bea has said it all really. I loved the way I made the 15 year old girl at the box office giggle with my 'funny' accent. I loved entering yet another independent cinema (the Little in Camden, South Carolina, apparently opened by Mr T Lee Little in 1915, and I'm not sure it's had much interior paintwork done since, or the chairs replaced - but it's just a pleasure to have these old cinemas still running, so we don't care).
And, like Bea, I was amazed that this film kept the kids going, though the prettiest member of the audience (apart from Bea, of course) was a little 3 year old in elegant pearls and dress, who was sucking a dummy on her way in, and looked decidely sleepy on her way out, having probably slept through most of it.
The script did not do much for me, I have to say. Trying to be a bit too deep, for the adults. But just sounding pretentious to me. Then a bit risque, as Bea said, or just rather unpleasant with 'clever' references to puttanesca or the prostate.
Five minutes in, I was pretty bored, actually, and was probably more restless than the 6-year-olds.
The storyline picked up half way through as the residents of 'Dirt' fought to get their stolen water back (and a plot of some sort emerged from the philosophy and dirty jokes).
But I didn't really care, I was not very impressed, and was more interested in the decor and audience than I was in what was happening on the big screen in front of me.
*.5
Like many women of my age, I am happy to see Johnny Depp in any way, shape or form, so was pleased to see this film "starred" him, and many other big names (Bill Nighy, Alfredo Molina, for example).
My first impression was that the subject matter was rather deep for the large contingent of 6-12 years old who made up the audience; Rango (a chameleon) is accidently released from his aquarium while travelling with his "owners" in their car, and with the help of a wise armadillo and a town full of characters, explores the philosophy of life, crossing the road, and the spirit of the West, finding much out about himself along the way.
A moral tale for our time, the film's focus on the use/misuse of a finite resource (water) reminded me of both the Short Animations we had recently seen, and once again the old Dr Suess book The Lorax - isn't it about time that was turned into an animated film? The animation was computer based, and nicely done (even though everyone/thing had those strange eyes computer animation seems to give), although I thought perhaps Rango could have used his chameleon ability to change colour a bit more often.
The kids enjoyed the action sequences and some of the jokes; the remainder of which were for the benefit of the adults in the audience, with one or two being rather risque. A somewhat over-long film (just under 2 hours when 90 minutes would have been sufficient), many of the younger members of the audience crashed out before the (happy) ending. A kind of kid-friendly, fun version of True Grit.
**1/2
Cecil says: Bea has said it all really. I loved the way I made the 15 year old girl at the box office giggle with my 'funny' accent. I loved entering yet another independent cinema (the Little in Camden, South Carolina, apparently opened by Mr T Lee Little in 1915, and I'm not sure it's had much interior paintwork done since, or the chairs replaced - but it's just a pleasure to have these old cinemas still running, so we don't care).
And, like Bea, I was amazed that this film kept the kids going, though the prettiest member of the audience (apart from Bea, of course) was a little 3 year old in elegant pearls and dress, who was sucking a dummy on her way in, and looked decidely sleepy on her way out, having probably slept through most of it.
The script did not do much for me, I have to say. Trying to be a bit too deep, for the adults. But just sounding pretentious to me. Then a bit risque, as Bea said, or just rather unpleasant with 'clever' references to puttanesca or the prostate.
Five minutes in, I was pretty bored, actually, and was probably more restless than the 6-year-olds.
The storyline picked up half way through as the residents of 'Dirt' fought to get their stolen water back (and a plot of some sort emerged from the philosophy and dirty jokes).
But I didn't really care, I was not very impressed, and was more interested in the decor and audience than I was in what was happening on the big screen in front of me.
*.5
Saturday 12 March 2011
A somewhat gentle man
Cecil says: This is basically a Norwegian version of Kaurismaki. The same bleak humour; the same pace; the same insights into the hum-drum and the mundane.
Ulrik is just leaving prison in the opening scene after a 12-year stretch for shooting a man. It's a nice opener, with the prison guard urging him never to look back but just look forward. And the first thing he does when he's walked 10 metres out of the prison: he looks back, of course.
His old gang mates have kept an eye on his family while he's been inside and they are on hand to find him accommodation and a job. It's barely better than his prison cell though, deep down in the bowels of his gang leader's sister's house.
He's urged by the gang to take revenge on the guy who shopped him to the police. And this is the plot: how does he adapt back into 'normal' life; will he carry out the revenge; will his family have him back; what does he want from his life?
If you thought of Norway as being all fjords and northern lights and wealth based on oil and gas, think again. This is the downside of Norway: the apartment blocks built in the 50s; the dead cafes; the daily grind Norway which probably exists but you won't usually see as a tourist.
It's actually a heart-warming film if you look closely enough. Though you need time to get under Ulrik's skin and be in his space.
The sex scenes are extraordinary. There are quite a few of them, but there's little love or affection: note the hearty pat on the back by one of his lovers after they finish.
And if you're squeamish, turn away when he deals with the violent husband of one of the characters.
I never quite get Kaurismaki films but I somehow enjoy them. Maybe Hans Peter Molland is a little bit more accessible, but I'm still not sure I got half of it; a Norwegian audience would probably have been rolling in the aisles half the time.
***
Bea says:
A darkly comic film, which I enjoyed. The taciturn Ulrik is well played, and the story (described by Cecil above) accessible. Although I did wonder half way through - why are so many films made about criminals and lives of crime? Surely it's not that common? Or do I risk sounding like Silje, Ulrik's daughter-in-law, who wants her baby to only be around "normal" people, who work in nurseries with plants, not in the underbelly of crime.
Like Cecil, what I appreciated most about this film is its portrayal of very ordinary Norwegian life, with everyone looking a bit rough, and many scenes in and out of the 1950s apartment blocks I know so well from my own experiences in continental Europe.
I wasn't particularly caught up in the will-he won't-he go straight aspect of the story, as usual for me I was more interested in the relationships between all the characters; in some ways I think there were better stories in here that weren't told - a tender love affair that could grow between Ulrik and Karen-Margarite, Strictly Ballroom-style perhaps, the ugly duckling becoming a swan etc.
But it was entertaining and a diversion, and I chuckled a lot - what more can you ask of a Friday night trip to the flicks?
**1/2
Ulrik is just leaving prison in the opening scene after a 12-year stretch for shooting a man. It's a nice opener, with the prison guard urging him never to look back but just look forward. And the first thing he does when he's walked 10 metres out of the prison: he looks back, of course.
His old gang mates have kept an eye on his family while he's been inside and they are on hand to find him accommodation and a job. It's barely better than his prison cell though, deep down in the bowels of his gang leader's sister's house.
He's urged by the gang to take revenge on the guy who shopped him to the police. And this is the plot: how does he adapt back into 'normal' life; will he carry out the revenge; will his family have him back; what does he want from his life?
If you thought of Norway as being all fjords and northern lights and wealth based on oil and gas, think again. This is the downside of Norway: the apartment blocks built in the 50s; the dead cafes; the daily grind Norway which probably exists but you won't usually see as a tourist.
It's actually a heart-warming film if you look closely enough. Though you need time to get under Ulrik's skin and be in his space.
The sex scenes are extraordinary. There are quite a few of them, but there's little love or affection: note the hearty pat on the back by one of his lovers after they finish.
And if you're squeamish, turn away when he deals with the violent husband of one of the characters.
I never quite get Kaurismaki films but I somehow enjoy them. Maybe Hans Peter Molland is a little bit more accessible, but I'm still not sure I got half of it; a Norwegian audience would probably have been rolling in the aisles half the time.
***
Bea says:
A darkly comic film, which I enjoyed. The taciturn Ulrik is well played, and the story (described by Cecil above) accessible. Although I did wonder half way through - why are so many films made about criminals and lives of crime? Surely it's not that common? Or do I risk sounding like Silje, Ulrik's daughter-in-law, who wants her baby to only be around "normal" people, who work in nurseries with plants, not in the underbelly of crime.
Like Cecil, what I appreciated most about this film is its portrayal of very ordinary Norwegian life, with everyone looking a bit rough, and many scenes in and out of the 1950s apartment blocks I know so well from my own experiences in continental Europe.
I wasn't particularly caught up in the will-he won't-he go straight aspect of the story, as usual for me I was more interested in the relationships between all the characters; in some ways I think there were better stories in here that weren't told - a tender love affair that could grow between Ulrik and Karen-Margarite, Strictly Ballroom-style perhaps, the ugly duckling becoming a swan etc.
But it was entertaining and a diversion, and I chuckled a lot - what more can you ask of a Friday night trip to the flicks?
**1/2
Sunday 6 March 2011
The Lost Thing - and other animated shorts
Cecil says: We went to see this collection of Oscar-nominated short animated films really because we had already seen the other films on at the Cine in Athens, Georgia. It was actually a pleasure. But first a quick word on the cinema itself.
We always like to visit the local independent cinema when we travel to different places and this was no exception. A Swiss woman called Birgit set this Indy cinema up a few years ago by converting an old tyre factory in a 1950s shed. And she's done a great job. They now have three screens and a pretty good audience through the door, though with an arty town like Athens, it would be a scandal NOT to have an arty cinema. Only thing is: how come when we searched 'Movie theaters in Athens, Georgia', the listings for Cine did not come up???
So to the short films themselves. My overall feeling on leaving the cinema was that you somehow have to be a misfit, a bohemian, a troubled soul or someone in search of themselves to star in an animated film these days: there was no Mickey Mouse or Deputy Dawg here.
I think I liked 'Let's Pollute' best. A rare piece of real irony from an American director, and a lovely spoof on those 1950s public service cartoons about waste and crossing the road. But it was all about pollution, of course!
The Gruffalo was lovely. The longest of the pieces (27 minutes) and a star cast of voices, from Helena Bonham-Carter, through John Hurt, to Robbie Coltrane (though he hid his Scottish accent well).
I didn't much care for the Cow that wanted to be a Burger - a little too much taken from 'Chicken Run' for my liking, and not as good. Nor did I care much for 'Day and Night', which left me a bit bored.
But I'll let Bea talk about the winning film, which was also her favourite...
***
Bea says: Animated short films, even those that are Oscar nominated would not have usually enticed me - my liking of animation is generally too unreliable for me to willingly part with time and money to watch it. But, as I've said before in this blog, sometimes trying film experiences you don't think you'll like is a good exercise. This one was for me.
Of the short films, my favourite was 'The Lost Thing', and not just because it hails from my home country, Australia. A whimisical story, it tells of a child/young person who comes across a Thing on the beach one day. Initially scared, the child soon discovers the Thing is friendly - and, unfortunately, lost. A search for the Thing's home ensues, to no avail, and the child eventually takes the Thing home to disapproving parents, ultimately hiding it in the shed. After seeing an advert on TV, the child attempts to get government help but hearts sink at the grey, forbidding building and multiple forms required to leave the Thing in their hands. A tip off results in finding a whole playground of Things - and the Thing is left very happily there. Fast forward to the child's adulthood, and his reminiscences about the Thing, and about how he doesn't really see Things anymore - perhaps he's stopped looking? Food for thought.... Overall a lovely story and old-style-seeming animation which reminded me of the old Dr Suess book 'The Lorax'.
My least favourite short animation was the Disney entry, 'Night and Day', which involved the cartoon violence and sexism I remember from my childhood, and irritatingly failed to credit the newsreel speech used within it. I guess this, and indeed some of the other Oscar winners in different categories, just shows that big budgets don't always win out!
***
We always like to visit the local independent cinema when we travel to different places and this was no exception. A Swiss woman called Birgit set this Indy cinema up a few years ago by converting an old tyre factory in a 1950s shed. And she's done a great job. They now have three screens and a pretty good audience through the door, though with an arty town like Athens, it would be a scandal NOT to have an arty cinema. Only thing is: how come when we searched 'Movie theaters in Athens, Georgia', the listings for Cine did not come up???
So to the short films themselves. My overall feeling on leaving the cinema was that you somehow have to be a misfit, a bohemian, a troubled soul or someone in search of themselves to star in an animated film these days: there was no Mickey Mouse or Deputy Dawg here.
I think I liked 'Let's Pollute' best. A rare piece of real irony from an American director, and a lovely spoof on those 1950s public service cartoons about waste and crossing the road. But it was all about pollution, of course!
The Gruffalo was lovely. The longest of the pieces (27 minutes) and a star cast of voices, from Helena Bonham-Carter, through John Hurt, to Robbie Coltrane (though he hid his Scottish accent well).
I didn't much care for the Cow that wanted to be a Burger - a little too much taken from 'Chicken Run' for my liking, and not as good. Nor did I care much for 'Day and Night', which left me a bit bored.
But I'll let Bea talk about the winning film, which was also her favourite...
***
Bea says: Animated short films, even those that are Oscar nominated would not have usually enticed me - my liking of animation is generally too unreliable for me to willingly part with time and money to watch it. But, as I've said before in this blog, sometimes trying film experiences you don't think you'll like is a good exercise. This one was for me.
Of the short films, my favourite was 'The Lost Thing', and not just because it hails from my home country, Australia. A whimisical story, it tells of a child/young person who comes across a Thing on the beach one day. Initially scared, the child soon discovers the Thing is friendly - and, unfortunately, lost. A search for the Thing's home ensues, to no avail, and the child eventually takes the Thing home to disapproving parents, ultimately hiding it in the shed. After seeing an advert on TV, the child attempts to get government help but hearts sink at the grey, forbidding building and multiple forms required to leave the Thing in their hands. A tip off results in finding a whole playground of Things - and the Thing is left very happily there. Fast forward to the child's adulthood, and his reminiscences about the Thing, and about how he doesn't really see Things anymore - perhaps he's stopped looking? Food for thought.... Overall a lovely story and old-style-seeming animation which reminded me of the old Dr Suess book 'The Lorax'.
My least favourite short animation was the Disney entry, 'Night and Day', which involved the cartoon violence and sexism I remember from my childhood, and irritatingly failed to credit the newsreel speech used within it. I guess this, and indeed some of the other Oscar winners in different categories, just shows that big budgets don't always win out!
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)