Bea says: As an ex-pat Australian, I always like to see other Australians doing well, so was pleased to see that this film featured not only Guy Pearce (in scarily pantomime baddie mode as the sadistic Charlie Rakes) but was written by the one and only Nick Cave, of whose work I have long been a fan.
Cecil and I have seen a few of these dark, thinking-person's Western-style films over the years (Get Low for example), and it is a genre that I really enjoy. Of course, this is not really set in the West; the action takes place in Prohibition-era hillbilly Virginia as locals rake in the dough brewing moonshine in the hills to sell in the cities, when Rakes is sent in from Chicago to put a stop to it.
Our affections are quickly won by the moonshining Bondurant brothers, particularly man-of-few-words Forrest, and Rakes' stop at nothing tactics make him easy to dislike, with one scene so disturbing I felt physically ill. The Bondurant's operation is the last left standing when the final showdown between Rakes and the moonshiners occurs, but it is at great cost. However, the film is not altogether bleak.
Lovely, evocative music - particularly the Amish/Mennonite church hymn - and spectacular scenery are added extras to this absorbing story - but not for the faint-hearted.
****
Cecil says: As Bea says, this is not one for the squeamish. Right from the opening scene, where youngest brother Jack hasn't the heart (or balls, in his brothers' eyes) to kill a pig on their farm (but another of them does...), this is full of moments that make you wince and cringe at the atrocities committed.
We grow to like these Bondurants: Forrest who stands by his principles; Howard who rages and roars, but also gets side-tracked at key moments; and little runt Jack, who narrates through the voiceover. I guess we are supposed to relate to this guy most closely, though for Brits watching this film, he'll surely remind us of Billy Mitchell in Eastenders, trying to prove himself next to his tough, bullying brothers.
Prohibition and the gang wars were a tough old time in US history, though I can't help thinking if I'd lived through that period, I'd have been more like the other farmers in the area, keeping my head down to avoid trouble, and only getting roused into reaction when the authorities go one step too far...
Good story, well told. Nick Cave screenplay brilliant, and only a shame he didn't write more of the songs that went with the storyline.
***.5
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Hope Springs
Bea says: A friend staying for the weekend joined Cecil and me in seeing this fairly new release at our local cinema - billed as a comedy, and starring Meryl Streep, what could go wrong?
Well, nothing did go wrong, although it is worth saying that this "comedy" is really quite a bittersweet, and very character-driven, tale of the ups and downs of marriage - there were certainly times when the audience were roaring with laughter, but there were equally times when you could have heard a pin drop in the cinema, as some of the more painful moments of married life were explored.
Meryl Streep is always good, but Tommie Lee Jones was, if anything, better, with perfect timing and playing really well against Streep. I was vaguely surprised by this, so checked out Jones' career on Wikipedia, to discover that he has a Broadway background - that explains that, then.
This film is definitely worth seeing - and not just if you have had a long relationship; this is thought-provoking stuff and gives plenty to think about. Not much to critique here - well written from Vanessa Taylor, well directed and superbly acted from all three main characters - Streep, Jones and Steve Carell playing things a bit straighter as Dr Feld.
****
Cecil says: I agree with Bea, actually.
I didn't even know Steven Carell was the name of that diminutive actor who normally plays comic roles in rather second-rate movies, but he does a grand job here as the straight-faced therapist, cajoling Streep and Jones to explore what's gone wrong in their marriage and carry out various exercises aimed at getting things moving again.
I couldn't help wondering if the pin-drop silence Bea refers to in our cinema was down to the average age of the audience there that day: quite a few must have got to that 31 years' marriage stage, when things just trundle along in a rather mundane way and you can begin to question where now...
Although the couple spend most of the film way up north in Maine, Bea and I fancied we recognised the posh hotel they end up decamping to after they've had their fill of the cheap and dreary motel. Unless we're mistaken, it was the historic Griswold Inn in Essex, Connecticut. You can't be sure from the credits at the end, but we did remember that Meryl Streep's Mum lives about 5 miles away, so she must know the hotel well herself.
Funnily enough, I had to get Bea to remind me of the outcome of their relationship reviews; I had forgotten how the film ends. What lingers from this movie is a feel-good, but challenging mood.
Lovely film to see, though I wonder how I'd feel if my marriage wasn't working out too well...
***.5
Well, nothing did go wrong, although it is worth saying that this "comedy" is really quite a bittersweet, and very character-driven, tale of the ups and downs of marriage - there were certainly times when the audience were roaring with laughter, but there were equally times when you could have heard a pin drop in the cinema, as some of the more painful moments of married life were explored.
Meryl Streep is always good, but Tommie Lee Jones was, if anything, better, with perfect timing and playing really well against Streep. I was vaguely surprised by this, so checked out Jones' career on Wikipedia, to discover that he has a Broadway background - that explains that, then.
This film is definitely worth seeing - and not just if you have had a long relationship; this is thought-provoking stuff and gives plenty to think about. Not much to critique here - well written from Vanessa Taylor, well directed and superbly acted from all three main characters - Streep, Jones and Steve Carell playing things a bit straighter as Dr Feld.
****
Cecil says: I agree with Bea, actually.
I didn't even know Steven Carell was the name of that diminutive actor who normally plays comic roles in rather second-rate movies, but he does a grand job here as the straight-faced therapist, cajoling Streep and Jones to explore what's gone wrong in their marriage and carry out various exercises aimed at getting things moving again.
I couldn't help wondering if the pin-drop silence Bea refers to in our cinema was down to the average age of the audience there that day: quite a few must have got to that 31 years' marriage stage, when things just trundle along in a rather mundane way and you can begin to question where now...
Although the couple spend most of the film way up north in Maine, Bea and I fancied we recognised the posh hotel they end up decamping to after they've had their fill of the cheap and dreary motel. Unless we're mistaken, it was the historic Griswold Inn in Essex, Connecticut. You can't be sure from the credits at the end, but we did remember that Meryl Streep's Mum lives about 5 miles away, so she must know the hotel well herself.
Funnily enough, I had to get Bea to remind me of the outcome of their relationship reviews; I had forgotten how the film ends. What lingers from this movie is a feel-good, but challenging mood.
Lovely film to see, though I wonder how I'd feel if my marriage wasn't working out too well...
***.5
Sunday, 9 September 2012
Anna Karenina
Cecil says: Some of the billboards for this film refer to it as 'Joe Wright's Anna Karenina'. Hmmm, that sounded a note of warning in my mind. And once the film began, I just thought: What the...
What's with all the West End choreography? For goodness sake.
It's funny, though, isn't it? When we went to see Brief Encounter on the West End stage, and they combined film clips from the movie with the stage performance, it really worked.
But the ridiculous synchronised office staff, and frozen fixed dancers, who begin moving at a signal from somewhere off-stage. And the constant views of the stage ropes and stage floor.
What WAS he trying to do? A Brechtian distancing of the audience from the action on the screen? Maybe it was to distract away from the less-than-convincing acting on the stage...
Honestly, for one the best, most passionate pieces of literature ever, this was contrived nonsense.
Where it stuck to 'normal' cinematic bits, I got engaged with it. It's hard to ruin totally such a fantastic plot and such amazing characters. But Joe Wright did his best to (and it surely wasn't Tom Stoppard's screenplay?).
I didn't really care about any of the characters; I didn't feel much empathy for any of it.
Oh dear, the whole charade made me want to read the book again just to take away the image of Keira Knightley as Anna...
**.5
Bea says: I have been waiting for the right moment in my life to read this classic work of literature. After seeing this, I think that time might be now. I wonder if I had read it, this would have been an easier film to watch - but according to Cecil it made no difference at all.
In some ways I didn't mind the whole theatrical premise - it was very opulent and beautiful to look at certainly. But it was - distracting. And it did make me not enter the characters and their situation quite in the way I might have if it had been more conventionally told. But maybe that was also the somewhat wooden acting of Keira Knightley, who has her place but it is not really this. I just don't think she acts well enough - my emotions weren't really hooked at all as Anna moves further and further down the path of self-destruction, and I didn't care enough about her. I wasn't too sure about Matthew MacFadyen either - both he and Knightley seemed to have been told to ham up their Britishness, which was frankly odd in Imperial Russia.
I did enjoy some of the subplots and the actors involved in those - particularly Domhnall Gleeson as Levin, who we have just recently seen in Shadow Dancer, and perhaps I am being too fanciful but there were some references to Dr Zhivago too, or was it just Imperial Russia, steam trains and steppes?
Nice to look at, but if you want to really get caught up in the story, you might be better off buying the book.
**.5
What's with all the West End choreography? For goodness sake.
It's funny, though, isn't it? When we went to see Brief Encounter on the West End stage, and they combined film clips from the movie with the stage performance, it really worked.
But the ridiculous synchronised office staff, and frozen fixed dancers, who begin moving at a signal from somewhere off-stage. And the constant views of the stage ropes and stage floor.
What WAS he trying to do? A Brechtian distancing of the audience from the action on the screen? Maybe it was to distract away from the less-than-convincing acting on the stage...
Honestly, for one the best, most passionate pieces of literature ever, this was contrived nonsense.
Where it stuck to 'normal' cinematic bits, I got engaged with it. It's hard to ruin totally such a fantastic plot and such amazing characters. But Joe Wright did his best to (and it surely wasn't Tom Stoppard's screenplay?).
I didn't really care about any of the characters; I didn't feel much empathy for any of it.
Oh dear, the whole charade made me want to read the book again just to take away the image of Keira Knightley as Anna...
**.5
Bea says: I have been waiting for the right moment in my life to read this classic work of literature. After seeing this, I think that time might be now. I wonder if I had read it, this would have been an easier film to watch - but according to Cecil it made no difference at all.
In some ways I didn't mind the whole theatrical premise - it was very opulent and beautiful to look at certainly. But it was - distracting. And it did make me not enter the characters and their situation quite in the way I might have if it had been more conventionally told. But maybe that was also the somewhat wooden acting of Keira Knightley, who has her place but it is not really this. I just don't think she acts well enough - my emotions weren't really hooked at all as Anna moves further and further down the path of self-destruction, and I didn't care enough about her. I wasn't too sure about Matthew MacFadyen either - both he and Knightley seemed to have been told to ham up their Britishness, which was frankly odd in Imperial Russia.
I did enjoy some of the subplots and the actors involved in those - particularly Domhnall Gleeson as Levin, who we have just recently seen in Shadow Dancer, and perhaps I am being too fanciful but there were some references to Dr Zhivago too, or was it just Imperial Russia, steam trains and steppes?
Nice to look at, but if you want to really get caught up in the story, you might be better off buying the book.
**.5
Shadow Dancer
Cecil says: We'd just been to Northern Ireland earlier this summer, so were keen to see this film. On one level, it's historical: beginning with a sectarian killing in the early 1970s but then picking up the threads and the characters some 20 years later, just as peace talks began to make some headway. On another level, it's what the French would term a 'drame psychologique', with issues of trust, loyalty, tribalism, community which never really go away.
Northern Ireland is a better place now than it was 20 years ago, though there are still tensions and a sense of the tribal in some parts even today.
It was a tough place to grow up in, though. And this film does a good job of showing the underlying tension around every aspect of life. I think I'm right in saying that nobody laughs even once throughout the 100 minutes of the film - it's grim. But it's good drama.
Andrea Riseborough stars as the sister of the little boy, shot in a 1970s sectarian attack. She's good, interracting with Mac from MI5, and her family, itself torn apart by conflicting loyalties and demands. Kevin of the IRA is an ever-present sinister character, making sure 'his' people don't stray.
No spoilers in this review. Just to say that, for me, the only weakness in the storyline comes right at the end, when someone acts without the due caution you'd surely be used to taking after years in a place like Northern Ireland.
Interestingly, among the key actors in the film, only Brid Brennan - playing Ma - seems to be from Northern Ireland herself (there's even Gillian Anderson playing the top MI5 bod), and maybe that's why she gets her part across so well.
This is good drama, but no barrel of laughs.
***
Bea says: Grim, gritty, and as Cecil says, not a whole lot of laughs, but a good, suspense-filled thriller plot as we follow the story of a family who are deeply involved in the Troubles, and their complex relationship with both the IRA and MI5. Set in London and Belfast in the early 1990s, I enjoyed the focus of the film on the life and choices of a young woman during that period of history (although I didn't think all of the costuming was entirely accurate). I didn't guess all the twists, and if you enjoy Spooks, you'll like this.
***
Northern Ireland is a better place now than it was 20 years ago, though there are still tensions and a sense of the tribal in some parts even today.
It was a tough place to grow up in, though. And this film does a good job of showing the underlying tension around every aspect of life. I think I'm right in saying that nobody laughs even once throughout the 100 minutes of the film - it's grim. But it's good drama.
Andrea Riseborough stars as the sister of the little boy, shot in a 1970s sectarian attack. She's good, interracting with Mac from MI5, and her family, itself torn apart by conflicting loyalties and demands. Kevin of the IRA is an ever-present sinister character, making sure 'his' people don't stray.
No spoilers in this review. Just to say that, for me, the only weakness in the storyline comes right at the end, when someone acts without the due caution you'd surely be used to taking after years in a place like Northern Ireland.
Interestingly, among the key actors in the film, only Brid Brennan - playing Ma - seems to be from Northern Ireland herself (there's even Gillian Anderson playing the top MI5 bod), and maybe that's why she gets her part across so well.
This is good drama, but no barrel of laughs.
***
Bea says: Grim, gritty, and as Cecil says, not a whole lot of laughs, but a good, suspense-filled thriller plot as we follow the story of a family who are deeply involved in the Troubles, and their complex relationship with both the IRA and MI5. Set in London and Belfast in the early 1990s, I enjoyed the focus of the film on the life and choices of a young woman during that period of history (although I didn't think all of the costuming was entirely accurate). I didn't guess all the twists, and if you enjoy Spooks, you'll like this.
***
Sunday, 26 August 2012
360
Cecil says: We saw this a couple of weeks ago at the Queens Film Theatre in Belfast (a rather extraordinary Georgian looking townhouse from the front, but with a Tardis-like super-modern cinema inside).
Leaving a film so long before reviewing it can mean it fades into insignificance, especially if it was fairly mediocre or dull. One of the local papers, the Irish News, had given 360 a 'boring' label, so we weren't sure what to expect, although the plot sounded intriguing and the cast rather good.
Well, we certainly didn't find it boring. But, when I came to recall my impressions for this review, the odd thing is that the character that came back most strongly was the one played by Anthony Hopkins. This is by no means the main character, but Hopkins played the man so convincingly that his story stayed in my mind much more clearly than all the others.
You see this film is all about our different journeys through life, how they intertwine or connect, and how sometimes the decisions we take don't end up leading to the result we expect.
Hopkins, for example, plays an ageing alcoholic, whose daughter disappeared years ago. Every time he hears on the news of a young woman's body being found, he travels miles, sometimes across oceans, to check it isn't her.
On this particular journey, he meets a young Brazilian woman on the plane; now, she has just split up from her photographer boyfriend; but she also gets chatting to this recently-released sex offender...
I know, I know, it's all sounding rather convoluted, and I haven't even mentioned the Russian mafia or the Slovakian prostitutes, or the British car dealer...
But it is a very engaging film, and what's nice about it, for someone like me who has travelled a lot, is that it portrays travel and movement, and crossing borders as a very normal, run-of-the-mill business. Coincidences and chance encounters are now global.
On some levels it's a bit clichéd, but on others it's quite subtle, and I liked the way 'bad' people and situations are not ALL bad, through and through.
Whatever you make of it, it's not boring. And go to see Anthony Hopkins just for the great acting.
***
Bea says:
I also liked the travel/movement theme to this bittersweet film - but for me it was really about the twists and turns that present themselves to us in life; about the opportunities we take, and the ones that we don't. All the performances were good, although few can match Hopkins in a good role, and the writing was very good indeed - multi-story plot lines can be hard to pull off but this did it effortlessly without any of the "who's that again?"/"what's going on" that can plague them.
But above all, and it happens so rarely in film, TV and books now, this film made me happy, despite numerous very sad story lines, and made me think of the Sheenagh Pugh poem Sometimes - Sometimes, things don't go, after all, from bad to worse.... And that was a priceless feeling for a Saturday night in Belfast.
***1/2
Leaving a film so long before reviewing it can mean it fades into insignificance, especially if it was fairly mediocre or dull. One of the local papers, the Irish News, had given 360 a 'boring' label, so we weren't sure what to expect, although the plot sounded intriguing and the cast rather good.
Well, we certainly didn't find it boring. But, when I came to recall my impressions for this review, the odd thing is that the character that came back most strongly was the one played by Anthony Hopkins. This is by no means the main character, but Hopkins played the man so convincingly that his story stayed in my mind much more clearly than all the others.
You see this film is all about our different journeys through life, how they intertwine or connect, and how sometimes the decisions we take don't end up leading to the result we expect.
Hopkins, for example, plays an ageing alcoholic, whose daughter disappeared years ago. Every time he hears on the news of a young woman's body being found, he travels miles, sometimes across oceans, to check it isn't her.
On this particular journey, he meets a young Brazilian woman on the plane; now, she has just split up from her photographer boyfriend; but she also gets chatting to this recently-released sex offender...
I know, I know, it's all sounding rather convoluted, and I haven't even mentioned the Russian mafia or the Slovakian prostitutes, or the British car dealer...
But it is a very engaging film, and what's nice about it, for someone like me who has travelled a lot, is that it portrays travel and movement, and crossing borders as a very normal, run-of-the-mill business. Coincidences and chance encounters are now global.
On some levels it's a bit clichéd, but on others it's quite subtle, and I liked the way 'bad' people and situations are not ALL bad, through and through.
Whatever you make of it, it's not boring. And go to see Anthony Hopkins just for the great acting.
***
Bea says:
I also liked the travel/movement theme to this bittersweet film - but for me it was really about the twists and turns that present themselves to us in life; about the opportunities we take, and the ones that we don't. All the performances were good, although few can match Hopkins in a good role, and the writing was very good indeed - multi-story plot lines can be hard to pull off but this did it effortlessly without any of the "who's that again?"/"what's going on" that can plague them.
But above all, and it happens so rarely in film, TV and books now, this film made me happy, despite numerous very sad story lines, and made me think of the Sheenagh Pugh poem Sometimes - Sometimes, things don't go, after all, from bad to worse.... And that was a priceless feeling for a Saturday night in Belfast.
***1/2
Friday, 3 August 2012
Cosmopolis
Bea says: It's been a while since I've watched a Cronenberg film, but not too much has changed since I did. Still very avant-garde, but also very beautiful, and still obsessed with bodily functions.
The action of Cosmopolis mostly takes place inside a limousine, in a kind of not-too-distant, dispossessed future which is actually very scarily like our present world (currency collapse, the occupy movement etc). A series of guests visit our beautiful, young protagonist (last seen in Twilight!), the head of a multinational corporation, as he drives through the streets of a large city, protected, and cut off, by his bodyguards and the armoured vehicle he is in, and it is only towards the end of the film that he leaves it to meet two people important to his life in different ways.
This film has some of the clearest, most interesting and perfect dialogue I have ever heard, and reminded me of some of the old playwrights I have read - Brecht, or Beckett perhaps. I saw from the credits that it is an adaptation of a novel, and it feels like it. It is something so sharp, so different, that holds up a mirror to our lives. If you like Cronenberg, see it. If you don't, well, maybe it would be hard going; nothing really happens, but actually lots does, all at the same time, but you might just find it stays with you.
What do I mean??
***
Cecil says: At first I thought this modern, arty cinema in Inverness had a fantastic sound system; but then, as the dialogue of the film continued in the crisp, clear tones Bea described, I wasn't sure whether it was the intention of the director or whether the Eden Court had a super acoustic. Thing is, I have no intention of going to see this film again anywhere else to find out...
It's not to say that it was a bad a film or even that I wriggled in my seat in a 'help-get-me-out-of-here' kind of way. But it wasn't a lot of fun, let's face it. I actually didn't really know who Cronenberg was, and maybe if I had realised, I might have chosen a different film.
That said, Bea and I did find ourselves talking about the film for some hours afterwards over dinner, so it was thought-provoking and challenging.
Bea's right that it felt a lot like a Brechtian play, with characters not quite talking to the camera, but certainly making comments on the world, the situation, life. But it also felt a lot as if it was trying to do for the 21st century what Metropolis did in the 1920s. A questioning of the way society is going and where we'll all end up.
Juliette Binoche intrigued me, as ever. She does sex on film incredibly well, but is it erotic? For some reason, not, but is THAT intentional?
I also liked the lead bodyguard - was he Danish? And rather disappointed as his fate...But I'll say no more or that might spoil the shocks...
**.5
The action of Cosmopolis mostly takes place inside a limousine, in a kind of not-too-distant, dispossessed future which is actually very scarily like our present world (currency collapse, the occupy movement etc). A series of guests visit our beautiful, young protagonist (last seen in Twilight!), the head of a multinational corporation, as he drives through the streets of a large city, protected, and cut off, by his bodyguards and the armoured vehicle he is in, and it is only towards the end of the film that he leaves it to meet two people important to his life in different ways.
This film has some of the clearest, most interesting and perfect dialogue I have ever heard, and reminded me of some of the old playwrights I have read - Brecht, or Beckett perhaps. I saw from the credits that it is an adaptation of a novel, and it feels like it. It is something so sharp, so different, that holds up a mirror to our lives. If you like Cronenberg, see it. If you don't, well, maybe it would be hard going; nothing really happens, but actually lots does, all at the same time, but you might just find it stays with you.
What do I mean??
***
Cecil says: At first I thought this modern, arty cinema in Inverness had a fantastic sound system; but then, as the dialogue of the film continued in the crisp, clear tones Bea described, I wasn't sure whether it was the intention of the director or whether the Eden Court had a super acoustic. Thing is, I have no intention of going to see this film again anywhere else to find out...
It's not to say that it was a bad a film or even that I wriggled in my seat in a 'help-get-me-out-of-here' kind of way. But it wasn't a lot of fun, let's face it. I actually didn't really know who Cronenberg was, and maybe if I had realised, I might have chosen a different film.
That said, Bea and I did find ourselves talking about the film for some hours afterwards over dinner, so it was thought-provoking and challenging.
Bea's right that it felt a lot like a Brechtian play, with characters not quite talking to the camera, but certainly making comments on the world, the situation, life. But it also felt a lot as if it was trying to do for the 21st century what Metropolis did in the 1920s. A questioning of the way society is going and where we'll all end up.
Juliette Binoche intrigued me, as ever. She does sex on film incredibly well, but is it erotic? For some reason, not, but is THAT intentional?
I also liked the lead bodyguard - was he Danish? And rather disappointed as his fate...But I'll say no more or that might spoil the shocks...
**.5
Monday, 2 July 2012
Rock of Ages
Cecil says: I kind of knew this was going to be about the music industry before I sat down to watch it, and the opening scene looked fairly normal at first: young teenage girl gets onto Greyhound bus in small town America.
Then she begins singing. And my first thought was: well, that's not very realistic, is it. But then the whole bus full of passengers takes up the chorus, and we're off...And it dawns on me: we've come to a musical. OH MY GOD. I wasn't ready for THAT!!
It's probably the first time I've been to a musical since Stayin' Alive in the 1970s. But you know what, this film grew on me as it found its way through the ups and downs of kids trying to make it on the music scene in LA.
Alec Baldwin was brilliant as the ageing night club owner; Russell Brand almost as good as his side-kick and partner (and I'm no fan of Russell Brand in real life, so that's quite something coming from me); and Catherine Zeta-Jones adding a bit of evil to the storyline, kind of like one of the villains in a Batman film ("we're gonna clean up this city", but in fact they're the evil ones).
And Tom Cruise does a pretty good job as the idiosyncratic mega-star, but I'm sure others will rave about him, so I'll leave it at that. My one question is: did he do his own singing or was it dubbed??
A feel-good film, but not the slightest bit thought-provoking. But, hey, for a bit of innocent fun, worth seeing.
***
Bea says: Working too hard? Endless UK rain getting you down? Worries? Troubles? Go and see this film, it's the perfect antidote. You can disengage your brain and forget all about real life completely for a couple of hours, and you'll leave with a smile on your face.
I had read a review of Rock of Ages the week before we went to see it, and it was on the strength of that review that I suggested it to musical-hating Cecil - I had been under the impression that it was the story of a struggling nightclub which was about to go bust and whose entire future hung on legendary ageing rocker Stacee Jaxx (played by an apparently 29 year old looking Tom Cruise), and featuring music from the 1970s. After the film, I told Cecil this and we both fell about laughing - had the reviewer actually seen the the film at all?
Rock of Ages is kind of about a struggling nightclub, and a gig by Stacee Jaxx (played by the very under-rated, and very funny Tom Cruise, who looks awesome, although not 29!), but it mostly about two young people trying to make it in Hollywood, like so many before them, and features a quite hard (although not heavy) rock soundtrack from the late 1980s - think Bon Jovi and Aerosmith, whose frontmen I gather Stacee Jaxx is based on. I was young in the late 1980s and I wasn't into this kind of music, or those kinds of men, at that time, but these were big hits and I remembered all but one, and Cruise was fantastic. Great fun.
***
Then she begins singing. And my first thought was: well, that's not very realistic, is it. But then the whole bus full of passengers takes up the chorus, and we're off...And it dawns on me: we've come to a musical. OH MY GOD. I wasn't ready for THAT!!
It's probably the first time I've been to a musical since Stayin' Alive in the 1970s. But you know what, this film grew on me as it found its way through the ups and downs of kids trying to make it on the music scene in LA.
Alec Baldwin was brilliant as the ageing night club owner; Russell Brand almost as good as his side-kick and partner (and I'm no fan of Russell Brand in real life, so that's quite something coming from me); and Catherine Zeta-Jones adding a bit of evil to the storyline, kind of like one of the villains in a Batman film ("we're gonna clean up this city", but in fact they're the evil ones).
And Tom Cruise does a pretty good job as the idiosyncratic mega-star, but I'm sure others will rave about him, so I'll leave it at that. My one question is: did he do his own singing or was it dubbed??
A feel-good film, but not the slightest bit thought-provoking. But, hey, for a bit of innocent fun, worth seeing.
***
Bea says: Working too hard? Endless UK rain getting you down? Worries? Troubles? Go and see this film, it's the perfect antidote. You can disengage your brain and forget all about real life completely for a couple of hours, and you'll leave with a smile on your face.
I had read a review of Rock of Ages the week before we went to see it, and it was on the strength of that review that I suggested it to musical-hating Cecil - I had been under the impression that it was the story of a struggling nightclub which was about to go bust and whose entire future hung on legendary ageing rocker Stacee Jaxx (played by an apparently 29 year old looking Tom Cruise), and featuring music from the 1970s. After the film, I told Cecil this and we both fell about laughing - had the reviewer actually seen the the film at all?
Rock of Ages is kind of about a struggling nightclub, and a gig by Stacee Jaxx (played by the very under-rated, and very funny Tom Cruise, who looks awesome, although not 29!), but it mostly about two young people trying to make it in Hollywood, like so many before them, and features a quite hard (although not heavy) rock soundtrack from the late 1980s - think Bon Jovi and Aerosmith, whose frontmen I gather Stacee Jaxx is based on. I was young in the late 1980s and I wasn't into this kind of music, or those kinds of men, at that time, but these were big hits and I remembered all but one, and Cruise was fantastic. Great fun.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)