The Maze Runner

Seen on our own in a cinema in Kunming, China

Bea says: While I was in the cinema watching this, I remembered either reading or hearing a review of current films, which talked about one release as being so ridiculously derivative that if you’ve seen any films at all over the past 20 years, you’ll spend the entire screening distracted by what it reminds you of.  And although I didn’t know it when we decided to see it, this is that film.

It’s Lord of the Flies!  It’s Labyrinth!  It’s The Beach!  It’s The Matrix!  It’s Memento!  It’s The Hunger Games!  Need I go on?  I am not sure, though, if this film’s target audience would have these reference points.

So – that probably explains the genre, which is fantasy based, young adult, coming of age.  The film is adapted from a novel, and the story centres on a group of boys/young men, who for reasons unknown to them have been sent to an “island” of sorts – a piece of land surrounded by a complex, ever-changing maze, filled with dangers.  They need to survive, and also to try and find their way out of the maze.  Every month a new boy arrives, and none (or few) of the boys have any recollection of who they were before arriving.  This month it is Thomas, our story’s hero, who quickly upsets the established patterns of the boy on the “island”, setting in chain a series of events which lead to both danger and death for some, and liberation for others

 As fantasy stories of this genre go, it’s actually not bad – as a story, if not particularly original.  It’s interesting to think about how similar this is to traditional coming of age rites that young people would have done – finding your way home from an unfamiliar place was, I think, a common coming of age ritual in tribal cultures for example.  Survival skills and the importance of remembering patterns and symbols in the landscape is also important in this story.  I found the section of the film that deals with remembering the maze one of the most interesting bits.  It deals with social structures and how these can be created and then changed, and the need for maturity in managing these.

However, the fact that these themes made it into the film seemed almost accidental, as if the screenwriter and director had never actually read the book, or cared about it.  What they appear to have done instead is to rewrite every scene from a film they could think of that related to these themes, and cobble them together into a new film.  When they ran out of ideas or got worried it was too boring (about ¾ of the way through) they put in a silly CGI sequence that adds nothing to the plot and nearly made me leave.  I’m glad I didn’t – there is some good story-related stuff afterwards!  I am also not sure what the point of the arrival of the girl was – she had barely any scenes and was quickly relegated to the role of “nurse”!

I’m not sorry I saw it, as I would now like to read the book, and I am interested in what will happen in the inevitable part 2 (although I might read the book for that too!), but, really, have some original ideas please!!

**

Cecil says: The most gripping moment in this film for me was when a guy on a silent scooter rode into the auditorium about half way through and freaked us out for a moment as we were watching this film completely alone and we wondered why he chose to sit at the end of our row in an empty 500 seater cinema…

Trouble was I didn’t really care about any of the characters; I found the ethnic mix tiresome and contrived by some committee deciding on the politically correct casting, not to mention the key role played by the overweight kid (which felt like another have-to-show-fat-kids-can-contribute moment, though Bea tells me a character like this was key to the story in Lord of the Flies); and as for the puny, pale English actor who turns out to be one of the strongest characters in the tribe, it just felt like poor casting, or designed to appeal to those who like a pretty face.

Bea is right, the only other pretty face in the film is the ‘girl’ sent in half way through for no apparent reason and without any real importance to the plot.

Ironically, given how little I cared, it was the ending which intrigued me most and made me curious as to how they continue the story in Part 2, so if I’m stuck somewhere like China again with no other English language film showing, I may even watch the sequel…

**

Kurmanjan Datka

Seen at Philharmonia Hall Cinema in Osh, Kyrgyzstan

Cecil says: We chose this film because we liked the poster and it was the only film showing in Osh that afternoon that didn’t look like an action film, a kids’ comedy or a melodrama. We definitely got lucky because this was a classic costume drama which actually helped us enjoy - and understand – Kyrgyzstan over the following days.

It’s the first time I have been moved to tears by a film where I understood nothing of the dialogue (which was all in Russian or Kygyz without subtitles). That’s how powerful this film was.

Basically this is the story of Kyrgyzstan’s national heroine Kurmanjan Datka, who lived for almost 100 years from 1816 until early in the 20^th century. We’d never heard of her, of course, though once we’d seen the film, we noticed that Osh’s main street is named after her, and in the middle of town there is a wonderful three storey high yurt commemorating hers and her husband’s lives, modelled presumably on the kind of place they used to live in.

This is a wonderfully visual film, both for the scenery shown (although we learnt later that most of it was filmed in the lusher, greener north of the country, though the action is set in the dusty, barren south and in the more desert areas of Uzbekistan) and for the costumes.

It’s an epic film along the lines of Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia and you don’t need any knowledge of Kyrgyz history to appreciate the tale of feisty young girl who catches the eye of local landlord, defies custom by refusing to marry the ugly older man her father finds for her, and then has to battle to survive after her husband is killed in some sort of conspiracy story.

As she grows older she becomes something of a stateswoman, negotiating with the Russians who have moved into the region, and dealing with her own issues of grief and loss as her various sons are convicted of crimes and killed by the Russian authorities.

This is an extraordinary film. We felt privileged to be seeing it with an audience of locals, some of whom were also in tears and others of whom applauded at the end. Apparently, it has been nominated as the Kyrgyz entry for the Oscars foreign language film category this year, and it would certainly get my vote.

A fantastic film I’d gladly see again, with or without subtitles. Best film I’ve seen in 2014. Oh, and I can’t wait for the director to follow-up with parts 2 and 3, as apparently he plans once he has the funding…

*****

Bea says:  Cecil and I are of one mind on this one – I love historical epics anyway, and this one was just magnificent.  Even if I hadn’t been able to follow the plot, I wouldn’t have minded as the beautiful scenery and rich, colourful costumes alone would have kept me spell bound.  Probably most similar – in recent years – to Braveheart, this is a story that it seems is vitally important for the now independent Kyrgyz people to be able to tell, and it was wonderful to see it in a lovely old theatre in Osh, where much of the action takes place.  Cecil and I, although we couldn’t understand much else, were also thrilled when the action moved to Kokand and Bukhara, both of which we had recently visited.  It really did help us understand the countries we were visiting.

The film was made on a relative shoestring (1.5 million dollars), and it is impressive to see how much could be done with that – although I read an interview with the director that said he did struggle badly with the low budget.

I also enjoyed watching a historical epic that had at its centre the story of a woman and that did touch on some of the difficulties experienced by women generally, both now and historically (the near-stoning that takes place at the start of the film, arranged/forced marriage, and the position of women in society).

A definite must-see;  I want to see it again with English subtitles, so will be on the lookout and hoping for a win at the Oscars so it gets a wider audience!

****1/2

The Equalizer

Seen at Vladikavkaz Cinema in North Ossetia

Cecil says: My alternative title for this film is: Russian mafia meets its match in B&Q.

Basically, it’s a chance for Denzil Washington to play the tough guy, but apparently a goodie. It’s just got loads of violence, much of it far too graphic for my liking, pretty horrible characters with far too much testosterone for their own or anyone else’s good, and women characters that are all either helpless or caught up in vice or both.

Admittedly, we may have missed out on the subtleties of the dialogue since the whole thing was dubbed into Russian, but I somehow don’t expect we missed too much.

All it did for me was make me scared to walk the 200m back to our hotel in case any of the Russian youth around us in the cinema had got any ideas from the film.

*

Bea says: Once again we had limited choice at our nearest cinema while on the road.  Many years ago in the late 80s I think, I used to watch the ?BBC version of the The Equalizer television series with my dad as we both liked it.  The series featured mild mannered, middle aged but ex-MI5 agent Edward Woodward as The Equalizer – a kind of Robin Hood-style hitman, who settles the score for marginilised and vulnerable people (usually women) who for some reason the police can’t or won’t help.  As I recall, Edward may have advertised in a newspaper (The Times maybe?) and people would leave him messages on his answerphone – how quaintly antiquated that seems now.

Well, there aren’t that many similarities between that The Equaliser and this one.  Denzel is middle aged, mild mannered and a quiet and exacting type, as was Woodward, and clearly has some kind of training to be able to take on 5-6 bodyguards etc single handedly.  He does befriend a young local working girl who frequents the same diner as he does, and when she is beaten up by her pimps he takes them on.  There ends any similarities I remember – the rest of the film is extreme graphic violence of what ensues, with The Equalizer helping out a few friends along the way.  It is extremely graphic, I think – unnecessarily so and actually ends up (perhaps also because as Cecil says, we didn’t understand much of the dialogue due to it being dubbed into Russian) making Washington’s Equalizer appear a bit of a psychopath. I concur with Cecil - It certainly did give us both the heebie-jeebies walking back to our hotel down the dark evening streets of Vladikavkaz.

All seems to end well however, with the young working girl surviving, and finding a new life path, and The Equaliser continuing in his mild mannered way.  I read that this film had a troubled production, so I hope that there isn’t a sequel on the way.  I don’t know what Washington was thinking of accepting this role as it hardly portrays his talents.  My advice – buy the original 80s series on DVD for an exercise in the more subtle approach to violence.

*

If I stay

Seen at the Lara Cinema in Trabzon, Turkey

Bea says: This ended up being the best choice of a pretty average bunch of standard release movies for the one evening we had free in Trabzon, and we were delighted that our new found travelling friends Jem and Jane (blog link) decided to join us.

For me, If I Stay would have been a very good story and character led depiction of a quiet, focused, sensible teenager navigate the transitional choices of childhood into adulthood – should she reap the reward of her years of hard work on the cello by accepting a place at Julliard rather than moving in with her local boyfriend and attending a local college etc etc.  Primarily but not exclusively told from the perspective of Mia, the teenager, the film does manage to capture her voice and did take me back to that time of my life very successfully actually, when I too was a quiet, focused, sensible young woman with a local boyfriend and decisions to make.  However this aspect of the story only takes up about half of the film narrative.

What didn’t work for me was the other half, which felt a bit like the writer/producers panicked a bit at some point and thought not enough was happening so added loads more narrative to the script.

 Mia‘s “rocker” parents, who can’t quite believe they have created this cuckoo in the nest, were poorly developed – particularly the mother role (name actress playing) – and just too stereotypical for words.  Their characterisation, and the plot in general, suffered from the entire selling premise of the film - that the whole family are in a (spoiler alert) fatal car accident after deciding to go for a drive on a snow day (er – who does that?), and only Mia is left and must decide whether to stay (ie on Earth, alive) or go.

Cue moving bedside scenes with best friend (actually by far the better actress and a shame she didn’t play the lead role), boyfriend and grandfather.  There is a place for a good weepy, but I just got annoyed that this was distracting us from the much more interesting life choices (not just whether to stay or go) that Mia was having to make, and which were kind of just resolved or forgotten when the stay or go decision had to be made.  Sure, this happens sometimes in people’s lives.  But much, much more often people’ lives are set out and defined for many years due to decisions they take as young people – and isn’t that a far more interesting story to tell, really?

Felt like two separate films merged together, rather unsuccessfully for me.

**1/2

Cecil says: I didn’t relate to any of the characters in the way Bea did (even though I was a shy, sensible teenager, I never actually had any major life decisions to make in those years). But I did enjoy this film. Maybe because it was a relief to relax and listen to English after a week or more in a foreign land; maybe it was just nice to let the story flow over me, regardless of whether she stayed or went?

Funnily enough, the parallel narrative that annoyed Bea – the accident and its aftermath – felt the most significant to me, but that’s probably because I only recently had a car accident of my own and know only too well how close it was to a stay or go moment if things had been a split second different. That doesn’t make this a better film or storyline, but it meant I did connect to that aspect of the plot.

Part of the fun of watching films in foreign countries is to people watch and to pick up difference in the cinema-going experience. In Turkey, like in Switzerland, films are clearly cut at a half way point for an interval, though in this case it seemed a totally random point, in the middle of some scene or dialogue. The lights suddenly came on and the film stopped; for a second we all thought the projector had broken. But no, people were off to buy drinks, have a chat, check phones (though most people were doing that throughout the film anyway).

And then without any warning it was back on again. I guess Turks must know how long to take for their loo breaks…

So, yes I did enjoy this film more than Bea. The outcome doesn’t matter really, though our friends thought it was very obviously where the film was heading.

For a weekend movie in your home town or thousands of miles away, I’d say go for it. But don’t expect any Oscars

***

The keeper of lost causes - Kvinden i buret

Seen in Cluj-Napoca at the wonderful Cinema Victoria, in Danish with Romanian subtitles...

Bea says: We really wanted to see something at this lovely independent cinema in Cluj, Romania, and out of the 4 films running that day this suited our schedule and looked appealing, as we are fans of The Killing, and this presented itself as a dark, Scandi film noir thriller.

And indeed it was.  It was in Danish with Romanian subtitles, so I had to make to do with trying to listen to the Danish with a German ear to pick up odd words, and read any latin-ish type words on the subtitles.  But mostly, I used the visuals to tell me the story, and followed the plot without too much trouble (particularly helpfully, the film played out the key reason for motive in a beautifully filmed flashback sequence which really helped put a lot of jigsaw pieces in place).  I like thrillers and detective stories anyway, and trying to work out the plot in advance so this was kind of like doing that.

If you are a fan of The Killing, this is remarkably similar – anti-hero type detective suffering from PTSD gets assigned to a desk job, but investigates a disappearance with his desk job mate and eventually solves the crime, through many twists and turns. We in the audience know what has happened to the disappeared person, and our story is interspersed with her situation and the policemen trying to follow the trail – will they get to her in time?

Definitely not for the faint hearted – there are scenes of quite brutal violence and torture, somewhat disturbingly so.  Although I enjoyed the story, it was disturbing and I thought of it a few days later when in Brasov we saw a poster for the annual Non Violent Film Festival.   The violence is mostly of course directed at a woman, and the perpetrator as well as the rescuers are male – and that is different to The Killing.

***

Cecil says: Yes this felt very much like a Saturday afternoon at home on the setee with a  DVD of The Killing, only Sarah Lund was absent for this episode.

As Bea says, the Danish crime genre is great but I can’t help feeling it’s becoming a bit of a cliché of itself. Scenes filmed in dark places that make you wonder if it is in fact a black & white film, the same actors with the same emotional and family issues (but that is also in The Wire so seems to be the type we have to see on police films these days)., as the soundtrack, we just kept expecting The Killing tune to chime up..

But the plots are good, and as Bea says, this needed to be a story you could follow in spite of the Danish audio and Romanian subtitles. And yes, the scenes where we discover the motive are actually vital to us getting the whole story, though I think we were both doing OK up to then too.

The tooth extraction scene was just a bit too graphic and lengthy for my liking. We discussed afterwards how a 1970s or 1950s police film might have put that across so that more is left to the imagination. Do we really need to see – and hear – that much?

It was great to see this film in Cluj. I had often seen the name Cluj appear on those EU Media Programme funded films at the intro when they flash up the participating towns and the Cinema Victoria was great. As was the price: at less than £2 for both of us, you can’t get cheaper than that.

***

Diplomatie (Diplomacy)

Seen in Vienna, dubbed in German from the French original

Cecil says: We’d heard about this film as we passed through Paris and found out it was to be released in Germany just after we left, so we were delighted to find it suddenly in front of our eyes in Vienna.

We found a small independent cinema and wanted to escape from the pouring rain. Diplomatie had just begun five minutes earlier, but we thought we’d go for it.

All we knew was that it was about how a Swedish man had saved Paris from being bombed by the Nazis during the War. We didn’t even know which end of the Paris occupation this was (just before the Germans arrived, or just before they left), but with having been in Paris for the 70^th anniversary of the Liberation, this felt like a very appropriate film to see.

I’ve no idea how the film begins, but within seconds of sitting down we knew it had to be as the Germans were leaving, since there were scenes of German soldiers looking slightly the worse for wear and uniforms smudged or torn, with sweat on their brows.

As usual in German/Austrian cinemas, this film was dubbed (I guess from French, even though Schloiendorff is of course German), which meant some of the dialogue was extremely quick (do the French really talk that much faster than the Germans?), so we both may have missed some of the subtleties of the script, but this was a gripping film from the moment we took our seats.

It’s all about how a Swedish (neutral in theory) diplomat manages to persuade the Germans not to blow up most of the Paris landmarks as they abandon the city. The film is big on dialogue and on the persuasive methods of the Swede, as he slowly convinces the man in charge that for historical reasons, family reasons, and any other reasons he thinks might work, it is wrong to press the trigger.

There are a few things we didn’t quite understand, like why the hardline officer let his junior leave with a laissez passer early on in the film – and it is his return towards the end that reveals to him that he has been duped after all.

And there’s the lovely moment when the man who early on is most nervous about the project ends up being the one who actually stops it happening – but we won’t do a spoiler on that one.

I’d love to see this film again to get those nuances, and maybe see it in the original (French).

Well worth an afternoon out of the rain. I’d go even in brilliant sunshine

****

Bea says: Despite being interested in WW2 history in Europe, this film made me realise how little I actually knew about the German occupation of Paris, and how Paris actually escaped the bomb damage that scars almost all of the rest of the major European cities, and it was very personally resonant as we had just been in Paris as it celebrated 70 years since liberation.

 We saw it about a week into our time in German speaking countries, and so I had had a chance to recover some of my fluency in German after a long break, but as Cecil says the dialogue was fast paced, and somewhat complex as well, but although I did not follow all of the intricacies, I did keep up with the plot – visual contextual clues helping a lot, as did the extremely expressive face of …, the Swedish diplomat.  Perhaps it was because I was relying more on visual cues to check out my understanding of the dialogue but I have rarely seen facial features used so well in film. 

A gripping film, particularly as the pace and tension builds throughout.  I would also love to see it again, and in fact could have watched it again straight away.

****

Black Coal

Seen at Les 3 Luxembourg in Paris.

Cecil says: We joined ten or so people on a wet Monday afternoon for this first taste of Chinese cinema on the big screen; a chance to have a bit of an insight into a country we’ll be visiting before we know it, and a chance to see just how much Mandarin I’ve learnt in the last 12 months…

Black Coal was labelled as a ‘policier’ film by the local magazine Pariscope, so we figured this could be the kind of plot we could follow in spite of any language issues. I’ll let Bea say how she got on with the plot in the absence of Mandarin and limited French.

It’s a bit of a grim film, showing the rough side of urban China, but it’s a gripping story and with the kind of plot we THINK we worked out between us at the end. No spoilers here, though.

The ‘hero’ is a kind of Chinese version of McNulty (for anyone who’s a fan of The Wire), a divorced cop who turns to drink and gets himself shot in an early scene as he tries to arrest some young gangsters, but who perseveres in trying to solve the mystery of the body parts that turned up all over China hidden among coal trucks off the back of goods trains.

The plot centres around a dry cleaners, where a young woman appears to be connected to virtually all the men who die through the film, and a skating rink (significant also because half the bodies seemed to have ice skates on them still…).

There’s lots of apparently gratuitous violence (police slapping the face of suspects; murderers hacking victims to death – JUST off camera, though); and a couple of sex scenes, the first of which is quite disturbing and involves our hero’s soon-to-be ex; and the second a steamy affair in a big wheel, which evoked memories of both The Third Man (no sex there of course, though) and Titanic.

I enjoyed this film, though, and the two hours flew by, even though I only recognised two or three lines of Mandarin and was alarmed at how little Pinyin (or Roman alphabet) appears on Chinese streets.

One funny observation: whereas in the UK we are often the only people to stay behind for the full credit roll at the end, for this film the credits were all in Chinese script and we left the room fairly quickly, but this Parisian audience stayed faithfully in its seats as the credits rolled at the end. How different is the cinema-going habit between Britain and France

***

Bea says:  I like detective films and books, and when Cecil suggested this one I thought I might be able to manage despite having no Mandarin and limited French – and I was right.  Although I didn’t entirely follow every twist and turn in the plot, I did get enough contextual and visual information to combine with the bits of French subtitling I could read to work out what was going on, and who the killer (or killers) might be. 

The film is mostly set in northern China during the winter of 2005, and everything is covered in snow – but not that magical Christmas movie-type snow, this is the long, frozen haul of January or February when everyone is cold and sick of it.  Quite a lot of the action takes place around bleak housing estates, back alleys, the Chinese equivalent of cheap working men’s cafés in Britain, and run down shops, railways lines and fairgrounds.  As such, it’s also an interesting insight into ordinary Chinese life – how people live and work.  It’s gritty, but recognisable, and rather reminded me of Kate Atkinson’s Jackson Brodie books actually.

Highly recommended for something different – particularly if you are a Mandarin speaker or it is subtitled into a language you are confident in!

***

Hector and the Search for Happiness

Seen at Stockton Teesside Odeon

Bea says:  Of those that I have read or seen, the reviews for this film have been mixed – but I loved it.  Perhaps it is because Hector reminded me of Cecil, but it was definitely also the key theme of the relationship of change to happiness in life – something that really spoke to me.

This film – not particularly originally - tells the story of two successful, but rather stuck and bored/boring people; the male in the couple (who is a surprisingly believable psychiatrist) decides to research the secret of happiness and travels the world to find it – I won’t tell you where he does find it, but it’s not hard to guess! 

Despite this rather hackneyed storyline Simon Pegg puts in a charming performance as the eccentric but very likeable Hector and his wife, played by Rosamund Pike, partners him well.

It does have some weaknesses in the writing – the sequence involving Hector being kidnapped and imprisoned was too OTT for my taste; what that was trying to show could have been done with a lighter touch, but overall a lot was made out of a story that in the wrong hands (writers and actors both) could have been really cheesy.  The drawing and portraying of the characters as rather cold and stiff – but not too much (Pike) and eccentric and bumbling – but not too much (Pegg) saved it from that actually.

This film made me feel happy for about a week afterwards – it worked for me!

***

Cecil says: Part of me is worried that this rather geeky intellectual type reminded Bea of me, but there is, I guess, something endearing about him, too.

This is a fun film, with some almost Mr Bean touches as Hector sets off on his first flight, sitting next to the rather uptight businessman heading for China. As Bea says, there are some weaknesses to the plot – surely even someone as geeky as Hector wouldn’t be THAT gullible? And the whole section of the film in ‘Africa’ (big place, that) was rather unbelievable.

But as Bea also says, there were many chords struck for our own experiences and our own journeys through life, though thankfully I don’t hold a candle for any old flames myself (the right thing to say, says Bea behind me as I type… but it’s true, honest)

Simon Pegg carries off the role of Hector really well. He’s got one of those faces you think you’ve seen in lots of films or TV, but when I checked his career the only thing I’d definitely seen him in was Hot Fuzz.

A really nice feel-good film, definitely recommended, and I can’t believe more people weren’t in the cinema in Stockton on that Saturday afternoon.

****

Grace of Monaco

Seen at Northallerton Forum

Bea says: Princess Grace died when I was about 12 or so – not long after another glamorous young woman had married a prince and I was rather enamoured with the idea of princesses at the time.  My mother was probably about 12, or even younger, when Grace got married so she had always been interested in her life.  As a child and teenager, there were always old movies on at our home, so I have seen some of Grace’s films too.  This film was poorly reviewed, but that never puts Cecil and me off, so we popped over to a nearby town to see it recently.

It tells the story of a brief period of Grace’s life when - after 3 children and the romance of marrying a prince has well and truly turned into a gilded cage – she is offered the lead role in Marnie.  There are major political issues in Monaco at the time; she doesn’t really feel part of Monaco anyway, and (like many mothers of small children I suspect) feels distant from her husband, and very hemmed in by court life in the location and era.  Tradition dictates that it is out of the question that she take the film; but she thinks about it while Monaco lurches into crisis – and then she plays a key role in resolving that crisis, and her decision is made.

It is a rather sobering story though – in some ways the person of Grace disappears as the princess evolves; and of course she dies young; just like that other princess I was so enchanted with back in 1982.  Like all films about living, or relatively recently departed royals, it had that rather staid feel of things and events left unsaid and unexplored (The Queen, Diana) as protocol and security stop fuller portrayals. 

Nicole Kidman is an accomplished actress who is sound in the role (and can at least raise her eyebrows now although her face is still a bit too frozen for my liking – I so wish these Hollywood actresses would leave their faces alone, although I understand why they don’t) but I did think that someone more suited to the role might have been January Jones; perhaps that’s because I am used to seeing her in 1950s period costume. 

I also appreciated a bit of a history lesson in the politics of Monaco of the 1950s and 60s which I knew nothing about.  As a film, perhaps one for fans of the era (I am), but interesting nonetheless.

**1/2

Cecil says: When a film gets almost universally bad reviews and I still go and see it, but find it’s not that bad after all, the conspiracy theorist in me begins to wonder why the avalanche of negativity began?

Even if people were bothered about historical inaccuracies, there are enough biopics out there which have had a generous dose of dramatic licence. And who are the people out there in a position to know it is historically inaccurate? Presumably those with a bit of a vested interest in keeping Monaco, the principality and its privileged position intact…

Personally I was fascinated by the context: France in the 1950s/60s, with de Gaulle back in power trying to make his nationalistic mark and the Algerian War in full swing.

I really enjoyed this film, though I didn’t warm to many of the key characters portrayed: the Prince himself, Onassis, even Grace. As Bea says, Kidman does a pretty good job, though I agree that January Jones had more of a resemblance from her portrayal of Betty Draper in Mad Men.

The film also made me regret there aren’t more old black and white movies shown on British TV these days. The UK really needs an equivalent to the US Turner Movie Classics, though whether we’d get to see any more old Grace Kelly movies that way, I’m not sure. Some people say the Crown Prince wouldn’t allow it…But surely they’re the conspiracy theorists too?

***

Locke

Seen at the Electric Cinema in Birmingham

Cecil says: We saw this film quite by chance as it was the cinema we were keen to visit, the Electric being the oldest working cinema in the UK, having first shown films in 1909.

We happened to be free for the Thursday matinée, so we decided to see whatever was on; always a risky business to do that, and I wasn't sure we'd enjoy what was described as a 'one man film' as the lone actor drives his car and deals with life on the journey.

It sounded somewhat similar to the notion of Redford's All is Lost, with not much potential for interaction and a focus on survival. I enjoyed Redford's film but didn't feel ready for any road version of the same.

In actual fact there were hardly any similarities.

Locke was thoroughly engaging right from the start, and there's quite a cast - of voices, at least - as Ivan Locke drives his car from somewhere north of Birmingham (felt very appropriate for this cinema) down to London and takes phone call after phone call to try to deal with the string of crises that have suddenly hit his life.

It's only as the film develops and you realise more about Ivan's life that the opening scene becomes significant. Keep an eye out for the moment when he sits at the red light with the big lorry behind him and clearly makes his decision.

On one level we see how resolute Ivan is: once he has taken this Decision, he will follow it through no matter what the consequences, and there are potentially dire consequences for both his personal and professional life.

But he is also basically a good man, who wants to do the right thing by the people he interacts with. The trouble is that his very linear logical approach to things works well in dealing with a major building project at work, but is less useful when it comes to emotional issues.

I loved Ivan's resourcefulness at solving the work issues, and learnt a fair bit about cement in the process (!), though I'm not sure I'd have taken the same decisions or said the same things as he did in the emotional situations. In fact, I don't think I'd have made that car journey at all if I'd been him, but I don't want to say too much for fear of plot-spoiling...

Tom Hardy was brilliant as Ivan Locke; I loved the character of Donal (voiced by Andrew Scott); and I could feel empathy for all his family back at home (Eddie, Sean and wife Katrina).

And thanks also to the Electric's manager for the day who chatted to us at the end about how Director Steven Knight had done a Q&A on the opening night, and revealed that they had sat Hardy in a car 16 days in a row, with the actors sitting on phones in hotel rooms making the calls; they ran through the script 16 times straight and then edited the final cut from those 16 takes.

Brilliant! And loved the result. Oh, and great cinema too (though fewer old fittings in the room we saw it in than in Thirsk's Ritz Cinema - 1912 - for example...)

****

Bea says: 
When Cecil outlined the plot for this film I didn't feel a great desire to see it, as I was worried it would be too "male" - about one man driving - and I would be bored.

As Cecil says above though, nothing was further from the truth and in fact this is an engaging, narrative-led film about marriage, mistakes, mid life, parenthood, and work.  These are themes that most of us can relate to, and in fact the way they are presented and portrayed means that there is significant space to think about other options and ways of doing things - this is something I really liked about the film.  As Ivan speaks on the phone, and occasionally to himself, the very lack of action on screen means that there is time to think "would I say that?", "would I decide to do that?".

Ivan's character is quite likeable, and in fact I recognised in the desperate unravelling of his life moments when my life has felt like that - suddenly everything sliding out of reach.  Really well-written.  Sterling job from Tom Hardy.  Highly recommended.

***

The Book Thief (Die Buecherdiebin)

Seen at the Northallerton Forum

Bea says:  From the opening scenes of this film I was entranced and spellbound.  It is beautifully shot throughout, and as a steam train puffs its way through a snow-bound landscape we begin to follow the story of Liesl (Sophie Nelisse) - at the time about 12 years old - and the people who experience WW2 with her in a German town.

I related strongly to this film, as my own German grandmother was probably only slightly older than Liesl when war broke out, and the details in the film (the kitchens, the laundry work, the food, or lack of it) were all very reminiscent of the stories she used to tell me.  And my family were, like these people, in the most part ordinary Germans who got through the war by keeping their heads down.  They neither spoke out (and I am not excusing that) nor absolutely supported what was going on, except by silence.

Like the family in the film they - until the horrors of WW2 began - lived alongside Jewish people, had them as friends and neighbours, used the shops and services they ran.  But the family in the film do more than this - they take in a Jewish man (Max, played by Ben Schnetzer) and hide him in their house for two years.  Hans Hubermann, Liesl's adopted father (ably played by Geoffrey Rush) speaks out when a Jewish neighbour is arrested - and the crippling fear that results after his name is taken by the Nazi officer is a terrible reminder of what those times were like.

This is a film adaptation from a novel, and all the characters are well developed.  When Liesl goes to live with her new family, my heart sank as Rosa Hubermann, her new "mother" (brilliantly played by Emily Watson) initially seemed to be a cliched wicked stepmother type. However, we see many sides to Rosa's character as the film progresses, and come to understand her more deeply.

There is a great deal of sorrow and death in this film, as befits the times it is set in, sadly.  But it is a film about the things that connect people beyond race and religion - a love of books, and a promise made in the trenches of WW1, and it does have some hope.  Absolutely wonderful.  Not quite perfect - as sad as it is to say, it is very unlikely indeed that Max would have survived after leaving the Hubermann's house.  While that reunion scene was very lovely after all Liesl had lost, it was the only bit of the film that did not quite ring true for me.  There were a few other points, but I know that Cecil will  mention them so I will not.
****

Cecil says: There isn't much I can add to Bea's thoughts this time. This was a totally absorbing film, which made me realise how few films we see - at least in the English-speaking world - dealing with World War Two from behind a German family's front door. We've seen films about French and Danish resistance lately but never much to look at how it was to be an ordinary German family through those years.

I was just not sure about the accents.

I mean, why cast a film full of Aussies, Brits and other English speakers if you are then going to get them to speak in a strong German accent and throw in the odd fragment of German language?

I can almost picture the auditions now, with Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson (both brilliant, as Bea says) struggling to master their comic-book caricature of zee cherman aksent vee orll used to mimic at school.

There must have been some logic for it, but I couldn't fathom it. Having said that, it did kind of work, though I wonder how a German audience would react to it (except that they won't hear it because in Germany they dub nearly all their films).

And there were smatterings of German dialogue through the film, along with the opening credits referring to the film in both its English and German title.

I also wasn't sure about the Voice of God (or the Grim Reaper), who introduces the film and draws it to a close. There's a little bit of Wenders (Himmel ueber Berlin) or Von Trier (Europa) here, but I preferred those and again wondered what the narrative voice added.

Liesl was great, though, and enchantingly played throughout.

****

Her

Seen at Cines Trueba in San Sebastian (Donostia)

Cecil says:  To be honest, the trailers in cinemas hadn't made me rush to see this film. After all, the story of some geeky guy falling in love with a voice on his computer didn't really sound like my kind of movie.

But when you're in a foreign country - especially a country like Spain where the vast majority of foreign films are dubbed rather than subtitled - you sometimes have to go with the flow and see something you wouldn't normally choose to back home.

Actually, I enjoyed this film.

Theodore is far from geeky, though I'm not convinced that moustaches will come back into fashion a 'few years into future' when this film is supposedly set. He has a very creative job working for the wonderfully named BeautifulHandWrittenLetters.com, where his job is write very intimate letters for customers who clearly have better things to do in this not-too-distant future.

But his problem is that he is going through a divorce and he is feeling lonely, while struggling to separate fully from his estranged wife.

The film plots his growing relationship with an Operating System (OS), called Samantha (with Scarlett Johansson's voice), whose computer learns more about him the more they talk and gradually takes on human-like emotions, leading the two of them to fall in love.

On one level it's quite a plausible premise, when you look at a busy tube station or bus stop and everybody is glued to their smart phone these days, probably engaging with real friends, but who knows?

And on some levels, a computer that is programmed to meet all your needs and to adapt to any it can't quite meet is bound to seem quite alluring. But of course, although they have 'sex' together, there is the gap of real physical intimacy, which Samantha rather bizarrely suggests overcoming by calling in a 'surrogate' to play the part of a body. Things don't quite work out and, although to keep the plot going, Theodore somehow wants to maintain the relationship afterwards, as a viewer from that moment on it does seem doomed, and I couldn't help thinking that that was the point where he would stop things by saying: Hold on, No, this is not real.

But hey, the film needed to keep going another 45 minutes so instead they threw in a storyline where it's the Operating Systems (not just Theodore's) that move on and distance themselves.

This idea reminded me of that much scarier Dr Who episode where the aliens quickly learn how humans operate by copying and repeating everything, at first slowly and then faster and faster until they end up saying things before the humans have, and they go on to control humankind. So, although I enjoyed my evening in San Sebastian with this nice psycho-romance drama, I actually preferred the Dr Who version of a computer takeover.

But maybe in the not-too-distant future there will be more and more films like this...

***

Bea says: 
I have always been a fan of Scarlett Johansson - ever since Lost in Translation which I really, really liked (although thousands didn't), so although like Cecil I had my reservations about the plot, I was prepared to give it a go. Instead of Dr Who though, the plot reminded me of a terrible ?1970s ?1980s sci-fi movie called Demon Seed - anyone remember that one? - in which a computer tries to take over the world by impregnating a woman.

Associations aside however, this was a rather nice film about being lonely in the middle of life, in the midst of a city, and despite every available form of communication known to man in place.  Loneliness is an enduring theme that everyone can relate to, and has frequently been explored in this type of winsome romantic city-set film (Breakfast at Tiffany's, Frankie and Johnny, to name a few).  This just does it with a quirky twist - the use of an OS instead of a person - and maybe through that tries to tap into what it means to be human, or maybe doesn't quite get there.  Joaquin Phoenix is superb, and carries the film as he is in nearly every scene and often alone.  The writing is excellent, the cinematography wonderful and music and soundtrack is well used.

Definitely recommended - even if you think it's not for you.  A particularly good option if you find yourself in a city, on a Sunday afternoon, with no friends around and on your own.

***

Dallas Buyers Club

Seen at the Tyneside Cinema in Newcastle

Bea says: I have worked in health care my whole working life, so I was interested to see this retro film about HIV/AIDS and the drugs that treat it, and have been intrigued that despite subject matter usually deemed unappealing (unless given the Hollywood treatment, like Philadelphia) it has been doing well at the box office and getting some good reviews.

Now having seen it, I can say unreservedly that it is the quality of the acting that is drawing people in - both Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto are just so, so good in their respective roles as the protagonist Ron Woodroof and his business partner, Rayon.  They were both amazing to watch and for me this review could almost end there - go and see it, just to see them act.  We have been busy seeing all the big Oscar contenders this year, and if one of these doesn't get a best actor/best supporting actor for this it will be the gritty subject matter and not the performance that is to blame.

The story is (apparently very loosely) based on fact - Ron Woodroof did exist, did have HIV in the early days of the disease, and did set up the Dallas Buyers Club, importing alternatives to the highly toxic AZT doses being given at the time, for people who couldn't get AZT, or didn't want it, or needed something else - particularly for the cognitive changes that AIDS results in.

So part of the storyline gives us a bit of an insight into the pharmaceutical companies' relationships with government, although perhaps not in a very balanced way.  The other part of the film is us getting to know Ron better, and the different shades of his character and personality as his old friends and life become irrelevant in the reality of living with HIV and AIDS.  Ron becomes more likeable through this, more tolerant perhaps, and we see the different facets of his character - probably already there but not shown in the initial scenes - like loyalty, compassion and vulnerability.  So it is a great character study, as it is but to a lesser degree with the character of Rayon.  McConaughey is unrecognisable from his rom-com days, not least because he shed 3 stone to play the part.

It is also, for people my age, a somewhat grim reminder of those early HIV days when people thought you could get AIDS and die from just touching someone, and when we were all told that it was going to be the 20th century plague - and of course in some parts of the world it has been, but that is not the story of this film.

Wonderful. Uplifting, but not in a cheesy way. See it.
****1/2

Cecil says: As Bea says, Ron looked fantastically 1980s, wonderfully Texan and dreadfully ill almost from the start of this film. If you look at posters of the actor and how he normally looks, you can see what a great job McConaughey did.

I never really warmed to the Woodroof character, though, in spite of his mellowing personality and dogged determination to beat the system. There's something awful about the sleazy world of coke sniffing, beer boozing homophobia, alongside the reckless rodeo-loving Texan lifestyle he portrayed. And I was unconvinced by the way Eve, his doctor, 'befriended' him to the extent of going for dinner with him later on in the film.

Rayon, the transsexual, was by far the most believable character in the story, and the one who came across warmly from the outset, though her last moments were perhaps the most distressing in the whole film, and the scene with her father, where she pleads for financial help the most moving.

I'm no health expert, and as a user of homeopathy alongside conventional medicine, you might expect me to be drawn in to the storyline of dreadful pharmaceutical industry management of the drugs industry in the States and feel the same outrage as Woodroof at the FDA regulatory system in America. But his outburst in the public health meeting towards the end, if my experience is anything to go by, would only lead to ordinary members of the public shunning the angry eccentric rather than joining his campaign. The scene felt like an instruction from the director to empathise with Woodroof though.

In fact, in health terms, the character I'd most empathise with was the doctor struck off the US register, who ends up doing wonderful work in Mexico. He comes out of the story far more positively than Eve or Woodroof, in my view.

I did enjoy this film, but it had a sense of foreboding to it virtually from the opening scene (some sordid sex on the fringes of a rodeo show). And, incredibly, it is the 5th film in a row I've seen in 2014 which is really about survival. How many takes on survival will we have in 2014 and is this somehow a message for our time?

I think I need a more positive film next time we go out

***.5

Twelve Years a Slave

Bea says: We have seen one of Steve McQueen's films before (Hunger), and although an excellent film about a difficult subject, it was pretty distressing and not one I would rush back to see.  12 Years a Slave is perhaps a little gentler than that film - just really in the sense that it follows more of a story over a period of years, and we get an opportunity to witness the protagonist's - Solomon Northrup, played well by Chiwetel Ejiofor - personal growth (perhaps not the word, but ability to deal with his situation) and relationships.

However, there are of course distressing scenes; the worst one for me being the one where Solomon is hung - and having been rescued from death is nevertheless left for the rest of day with the noose around his neck, suspended from a tree with his feet just barely touching the muddy ground below.  Throughout this long, long scene we focus with the camera on keeping Solomon's toes on the ground, and hear his rasping, desperate breathing as he chokes just enough oxygen in to keep alive.  After a while, I put my hands over my ears, and wondered, as I am sure I was supposed to, how could anyone do this to anyone else?

The white plantation-owning characters, and other white characters, were actually a fairly rounded lot though, a mixture of contradictions - in the scene above it is a white man who saves Solomon's life, but still leaves him to, I assume, learn his lesson.  Some of the slave owners are relatively philanthropic, some are less so - and their motivations aren't always easy to understand.  The character of Mistress Epps (played extremely well by Sarah Paulson) was particularly interesting to watch; and I wondered if I had been her, and had been born and brought up in that culture, with those expectations, how differently would I have behaved?  It was a chilling thought, and made me glad I wasn't, and that I have grown in up a time which has had the benefit of Wilberforce, the suffragette movement, and the civil rights movements.

Very thought-provoking stuff.  McQueen is a very good director, had a good story to work with and some excellent actors in his team - my only criticism would be, perhaps just a little to slick, a bit like this film has had the Hollywood treatment.  It's hard to put a finger on what I'd like to be different though.  It also made me want to revisit that classic 70s mini-series, which I remember watching as a child, Roots - but probably because there are just so few films made about slavery there isn't much else to compare this to.

*** 1/2

Cecil says: Perhaps because this is the 4th successive film I've seen this year where the theme is basically 'survival', I actually liked this film the least of the four.

Of course, my hesitation could also be linked to my knee-jerk suspicion of any film nominated for sooooo many Oscars, usually because I can't help thinking that such blanket coverage of nominations must be as much to do with Hollywood's psyche and its own hang-ups as it is about the quality of the film itself.

Cinematographically, though, I simply preferred the Mandela film, the Railwayman movie and the Redford solo sailor epic. They also touched me more immediately for their different portrayals of survival. So, maybe I would have liked Twelve Years more if it had been the first film I'd seen this year?

Having said all that, it is a horrific and fascinating story. It's interesting that, on our travels in the States a couple of years back, we heard quite a lot about the Underground Railway (given a brief mention in the postscript credits because Northrup apparently helped others to escape in later years), but nobody anywhere mentioned the practice of kidnapping and sale into slavery of free blacks. But I guess the Underground Railway has a heroic angle to it, whereas pressgangs and dupesters are a part of America's past they would probably prefer to forget.

I also wondered what the hell Benedict Cumberbatch was doing there? Surely there are enough posh-sounding American actors around who could have played that role just as well. And Cumberbatch is popping up in just about every film or major TV production going at the moment.

Talking of familiar faces, we were both amused to see Omar from The Wire appear early on in this film but then bow out after only a couple of scenes; and then the gay ad man from Mad Men suddenly appeared on the steps of one plantation home, which gave us another reason to smile...

But none of this really takes anything away from the film itself. It does tell a good story; it is a period of American history not often talked about. And the actors do a good job across the board.

Hard to criticise it. But so many Oscar nominations? No, really...

***

All is Lost

Seen at the Birks Cinema in Aberfeldy

Cecil says: This is an extraordinary film in so many ways: there's no dialogue at all; in fact there's a cast of one, which makes it impossible to have a dialogue; it's the first film I've ever seen where I began to feel sea sick half way through; and that is no doubt down to the amazing camera work, often underwater; and yet I was gripped all the way through, although overwhelmed almost from the start with a total sense of foreboding and fear.

I'm writing this without seeing the Oscar shortlists, but surely All is Lost has to be in there at least for its camera work, and maybe even for Robert Redford as best actor.

Robert Redford carries the part off amazingly. There he is, lone yachtsman, having a bit of a kip below deck as the film starts, and we hear the sound of what at first seems to be thunder, but then, as water laps around his feet and little kids' shoes bob around inside the boat, we realise - at the same time as Redford's character - that the boat has been holed and is slowly filling with water as it flows in the waves through the gap...a gap made by an enormous ship's contained which has clearly dropped off one of those mega freight ships.

What follows is an extraordinary sequence of human survival techniques. There's a narrative, too, as one by one, all Redford's protection mechanisms are peeled away like an onion skin, starting with the yacht's communications equipment, through the very boat itself slowly sinking, to Redford's own skin, breached in an effort to retrieve some precious item or other before all was lost.

Slowly, this hi-tech yacht, is pulled apart - though Redford has amazing knowledge of the sea and of boats, leading him to try things I would never have dreamt of doing - and then, once he has jumped ship to his inflatable life raft, we watch things continue to spiral slowly out of control, through storms, sharks, ships not spotting him and flares not working.

He writes a goodbye note to the world - the same note we heard him read out at the start of the film when the screen was totally black. And he puts the note in a glass bottle, ready to throw out to sea, so that somebody one day will know what happened to him.

He hesitates before throwing it out. And for that brief moment, it felt like the Robert Redford of 40 odd years ago before the final scene in Butch Cassidy, when he and Paul Newman know they are about to be killed and have to decide whether to jump over the fence and shoot back. Completely different scenario, but somehow there's a connection: Redford at a key moment at the start and end of his film career?

I won't do a plot spoiler because in a sense the plot, and the end of the narrative, does not matter to this film. It is all about atmosphere, human existence, survival, and how on earth we cope with losing step by step everything that protects us from the elements. And you can't get much more in touch with the elements than being ditched from an inflatable into the middle of the Indian Ocean...

***.5

Bea missed out on this one, having to spend the day at work. But in a sense, it's appropriate to watch this film alone!

The Railway Man

Seen at the Gala Cinema in Durham

Bea says:  I have family history connected with the plot of this film as according to family stories a great uncle of mine died on a hospital ship coming home after being a POW working on the Burma railway, so I was particularly interested in seeing it.  There is a book associated with the film which I have not read, so the story of the quiet, somewhat repressed and very British Eric Lomax was new to me.  But this film was as much about a marriage - and about the overall experience of that wartime generation - as it was about the Burma railway.

The film opens with a charming set of scenes - on a British train - which document Eric (Colin Firth) meeting his wife Patti (Nicole Kidman), but I will let Cecil say more about that as I know these scenes were a highlight for him.  But as is the way with all good plots, things do not remain quite so rosy, and soon we are witness to Eric's post traumatic stress as the memories of his wartime experiences after the fall of Singapore affect him constantly, and we are told the story in flashback as Patti, and Eric's wartime friends, try to help him move on.

It is a terrible story, although I am sure the writers and producers did not in any way reveal the full horror of the abuse and torture that actually went on (for a start the film would have had to be certificate 18 if they did) - things I have read and documentaries I've watched about the Burma railway indicate just how bad it was, and Lomax himself says at one point - "we don't talk about it because no one would believe it".  I am glad they didn't, as what we saw was harrowing enough for me, although very sobering because one of the techniques (waterboarding) is still in use today by so-called "civilised" nations. A clue to just had bad things were was the character of the The Major - starved, trembling, and totally cowed by the Japanese forces.

A few key scenes: I will never be able to watch Brief Encounter again without wanting to shout "give her one, Trevor" - one of the few laughs in this sober film; I was rather surprised to hear that the reason that the British never built the Burma railway while they were in power was because it would be too cruel (hmmm - more likely that it would be an engineering nightmare I suspect...a slight airbrushing of the colonial past I think); and whilst I found the scenes of the reconciliation between Eric and the interpreter who played a significant role in his torture very moving indeed (particularly in remembering the key message of our last film - Mandela: The Long Walk to Freedom) I found myself feeling somewhat uncomfortable by the statement that "they became great friends", and really wanting to understand the psychology behind that - but I suspect that says more about me and where I am in my overall life development.  Perhaps I need to get older, and less angry.

Excellent, excellent performances, writing, directing and producing - sadly there are a lot of good runners for the awards this year and this quiet film might just miss out.

****1/2

Cecil says: I liked this film, too, though I had no personal reference point for the story. It did, however, make me aware that most Brits' association with the subject has been shaped by that 1950s classic The Bridge over the River Kwai. You could almost blame David Lean for focusing our national minds on the bridge alone, not realising that there was a much larger picture, and a much longer railway being built then.

As Bea says, I did enjoy the opening scenes.

The very first shot is actually of Lomax lying prostrate on the floor reciting the very evocative poem he apparently wrote himself (and it gets a repeat during his torture later in the film) about time and clocks and life, or death.

But we then switch to his very entertaining chat-up lines for Patti on the west coast train line as they head through Warrington and up towards Preston. Anyone from that part of the country has to see this film, just for that opener.

Firth and Kidman are fantastic throughout, though I couldn't help reflecting on the age of their characters and then on their own ages as actors, which slightly distracted me through the film. Lomax is supposed to be over 60 by the time the film is set in 1980, though Firth never quite manages to look that old; and similar for Patti and Kidman, who looked a tad too fresh-faced even for a younger partner to Lomax.

My other misgiving relates a little to what Bea referred to: the slightly sanitised view of the whole railway/torture/slave labour conditions. I couldn't tell if it was the pristine nature and glorious width of the Gala cinema's screen in Durham, or the way it was all filmed, but I did feel throughout that I was watching this film rather than part of it, so I felt just slightly detached.

There were very moving scenes, though many of those moments were more associated with the struggles in contemporary life rather than the actual traumas of the wartime period.

By funny coincidence I had to do four hours of hard manual labour the day after watching this film. It was the first time I had done such physical work since I worked on a farm during the summer of 1978. And my body ached afterwards. Nothing, though, compared to being whipped and beaten while digging in hard rock for 14 hours a day in captivity. As Bea says, it is the English Major who best encapsulates how the body and mind would wilt under that sort of pressure.

And maybe the feel of witnessing rather than being part of the hard labour actually stems from the fact that Lomax was indeed lucky enough to be am engineer, so he avoided the hard labour because he was needed by the Japs to help build the lines?

****

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom

Seen at The Station Cinema in Richmond, North Yorkshire

Cecil says: I love this sort of film and they used to make so many more of them in the 80s and 90s – I’m thinking Killing Fields, Boat People, Beko, even Cry Freedom, though I know that got lambasted for focusing too much on the white journalist involved rather than the ‘struggle’.

I’m sure there will be those who criticise this film for glossing over so many periods of South African history, but come on, it’s not a documentary, it’s a movie, and it does a great job synthesising Nelson Mandela’s extraordinary life into two and a half hours. Idris Elba is brilliant as Mandela, and once I’d got over the first few scenes where all I could see was Stringer Bell from The Wire, I was totally drawn in.

Although it isn’t a documentary (and I sometimes wondered why more use wasn’t made of newsreel footage), as a viewer of a certain age, I couldn’t help remembering personal moments: those ‘where was I when...’ kind of thoughts, though very often they were along the lines of ‘sitting in a shaded park reading the newspaper reports of Soweto riots in 1976’, hearing the news of Mandela’s release in my office etc etc. All so far removed from the reality of South Africa, and yet something we all felt so strongly about back in the 70s and 80s.

I mean I used to hate all white South Africans, but this was around the same time that I hated all Tories, and all Americans. And my hatred wasn’t even based on any personal oppression (I wasn’t even old enough to lose my job under Thatcher). So all of those emotions, all that hatred in that divided world of the 1980s makes Mandela’s achievement all the more remarkable in placating and persuading the ‘people’ of South Africa to accept a peaceful path to democracy.

The other thing such historical biopics do is make you aware of time or of moments in history that are turning points. Those few months from November 1989 to spring 1990 when so much happened in the world (I had my own significant moment in Nicaragua in those few months) and so much changed fundamentally. The world really was a different place, and remained so until probably September 2001. But how do you ever know how significant these moments are when they are actually happening?

So, yes, this is a great film also because it lets those of us who lived through that era reflect on it all.

My only question mark, in addition to the lack of newsreel usage, was why they never had crowds singing Nkosi Sikele Afrika; it’s such a beautiful song and it was so much the anthem of that era. But if they had, I don’t think I’d have been able to hold back the tears...

Great movie

****.5

Bea says: I wasn’t quite sure originally about seeing the Mandela film.  I had found the press coverage of his recent death generally quite poor, with blanket coverage which however didn’t really say anything at all about him.  I also thought it might be a bit depressing in parts, and had read reviews that remarked on its length and slowness as a film.

I wasn’t expecting to be completely gripped from the outset by the story of the young (and then older) Mandela.  I wasn’t expecting to be choked up with emotion for most of the film.  I wasn’t expecting to be uplifted.  But I was all of these things, and at the end of film just felt so completely moved.  It’s a great story, generally managing to avoid cliché and well directed and acted, with a familiar face doing a great job of playing the great man, as we are fans of The Wire.

A few moments stood out for me through this 2 ½ hour film – and regular readers know that I am usually highly critical of over-long films, but not this one – when I started to remember the events from my childhood and teenage years of news watching, the concert at Wembley, and the risk Mandela took in urging the people not to resort to violence, but to exercise their right to vote instead.  That decision, one amongst so many, and the TV broadcast he made related to it, was a fantastic lesson in leadership. 

A must see.

*****