Side Effects

Bea says: This was certainly a gripping thriller and the time in the cinema passed very quickly indeed through its twists and turns. 

The first half was very good indeed, with a good amount of tension, pace and what was shaping up to be a very good – and subtle – story. 

But then something happened – as if the producers suddenly got worried that it was too boring and decided to make it a bit more sensational.  The storyline got rather silly at that point (complete with One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest-style mental health wards, the sudden onset of completely unexpected and unlikely sexually relationships etc) and if it weren’t for the stellar cast, the film would have been entirely lost.

However everyone acted on beautifully regardless (Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jude Law especially) and I had enough faith in the film to recommend it to others, with, however, the warning that the plot line did go downhill as the film progressed!  Not a bad night's entertainment however.

***

Cecil says: I’m not really sure why this film reminded me of Usual Suspects. Maybe it was the very complex plot, with lots of layers and angles you can only really work out at the end, and even then you might have to go back to the beginning of the film to see all the clues as they appeared.

I’m also not really sure why they felt the need to begin the film with a scene showing a bloodied foot dragging its way across a floor, leaving ghastly stains behind. They then go back three months, and actually rush past this scene about half way through the rest of the narrative. Was the idea to intrigue us? To shock us? To make us do exactly what I’m doing now?

If so, rather like with Usual Suspects, I’m slightly annoyed at being manipulated like that for no real reason, and would rather have had a straight chronological telling of the story.

As it is, the story is a good one, with high drama, and lots of issues Americans in particular are grappling with day-in, day-out.

What ARE the side effects of the drugs against depression (or Rheumatoid arthritis) or any of the other branded drugs being advertised night after night on mainstream US TV channels?

Jude Law and Catherine Zeta-Jones do a great job, though it’s interesting Law is playing a doctor trained in the UK with full-on clipped British accent, whereas Zeta-Jones is playing an American psychiatrist. The other two main characters are played by Rooney Mara and Channing Tatum (don’t you just love these names where, if you didn’t know who they were, you would be hard-pressed to tell which name is male and which female?).

There are a few moments where you’d have to question the portrayal of a senior psychiatrist, as played by Jude Law. Would he really be so touchy-feely with his patients? Would he really interrupt a lunch with his wife to give one client five minutes, when it clearly wasn’t an emergency. I know they were trying to make us doubt his integrity, but you can take things a little too far to be believable.  

And I wish I could remember his quote about the British health system (as compared to the US) or exactly how they pronounced DerHam, where he is supposed to have studied...

It’s hard to say more without spoiling the plot for other viewers. It was a good film, time flew by, but it did lose marks for me in both its unnecessary complexity and its simplicity in some of the assumptions it made. Hard to see at face value how a film can do both, but go and see Side Effects for yourself and see what you think.

***

The House - Dum

Cecil says: When I saw they were showing a Czech film at the Glasgow Film Theatre the other day, I was in two minds. I love the Glasgow Film Theatre and try to go whenever I’m up that way, but I had had a few bad experiences with Czech cinema in the past: weirdly-surreal animations or stupidly-comical farce humour.

Luckily, The House was neither of these. It was actually a fairly dour, real-life drama about an old bloke who has spent decades building two houses for his two daughters. Trouble is, the house he almost finished was to go to a daughter he then disowned because she went off with a ne’er-do-well; and he has co-opted his younger daughter into helping him build the house she doesn’t really want because she has romantic visions of better things away from her small-town Czech Republic life.

It’s not a barrel of laughs, this film. But the story keeps things flowing nicely, and the characters are all quite engaging in their different ways.

The young English teacher who arrives in school and ends up having an affair with younger daughter is slightly unbelievable, or is his character just a bit over-acted? He has about as much charisma as Iain Duncan-Smith on a bad day, but I guess for a teenage girl character like Eva he can appear like a romantic way out of small-town living. When things go wrong, though, his hang-dog look just felt a bit too like a caricature, something Scooby-Doo might do.

And would he really let himself be caught in a clinch with a teenage pupil while they’re both in the staff room? I don’t know. When I was a teacher many many years ago, there was a scandal when two of the teachers were caught in flagrante in the stationery cupboard one day, so I guess these things do happen.

And it was only the odd weakness in the plot that made me think, ‘no’. On the whole, this was a good film about family break-ups, reconciliation, dreams and realities.

It might even make me look on Czech cinema more positively, too.

***

Bea says: Being a big old softy, I was somewhat concerned that this film would be rather sad when I read the synopsis prior to going (father engaged in futile business of building houses for daughters, one of whom had left to an unsuitable marriage, one of whom couldn’t wait to escape their village life in the Czech Republic).

But in fact it was charming – poignant, tender, and a very astute exploration of family life, marriage, youth and age.  

Beautifully constructed, written (and translated), and acted it left me with the warm feeling that, sometimes, good things do happen, despite all the rest.

***.5

Great Expectations

Bea says:  Cecil, being a little older than me, sometimes takes me along to the Seniors Screen at our local Odeon, when I have a Monday free.  A bargain at £3, with tea and biscuits thrown in.  Last Monday was Great Expectations.

Now, there has recently been a BBC TV production of Great Expectations, and at times during the first half this felt very similar indeed, although as the plot moved along, different episodes in Pip's life were focussed on, so it was in the end different enough - just.  It did make Cecil and I wonder though - Dickens had a pretty good output, why aren't we seeing any of his other works in film?  Like the Pickwick Papers, or A Tale of Two Cities, perhaps? 

So this is Dickens, so the story speaks for itself, and the larger than life characters jump off the screen.  Helena Bonham-Carter does a standout turn as Miss Haversham - but I have always liked her work and it is great to see her regularly back on the big screen - and Ralph Fiennes was almost unrecognisable as Magwitch.  I am afraid I didn't really rate the younger actors although I guess they have time to develop. 

And the rest - atmospheric locations (Kent in particular - although it seemed to be exactly the same location as the BBC television drama), nice costumes, but too much make up on Estella to be truly authentic and in fact it distracted me from what she was saying.

***

Cecil says: As Bea says, it's difficult when two productions come out so soon after each other based on the same literary work. You're almost forced to compare, and although I liked Fiennes as Magwitch, I actually found Ray Winston scarier and therefore more true to my memories from reading the book.

As to Miss Haversham, I liked both Bonham-Carter and Gillian Anderson, so wouldn't try to compare or put them in a league table of favourites. But isn't it interesting - as Bea suggests - that I actually can't remember who played any of the other characters in either the TV production or the film we just saw.

The film did begin with virtually the same marshy set as the TV version. And there was lots of mud on camera, both in swampy Kent and in downtown Victorian London. They did pretty well, for that sense of just how grimey things were, even for the gentleman around town.

But even if they were trying to highlight the mud, there were a few too many shots taken at ankle level for my liking in this film. And a few too many very dark scenes, though again that is probably an attempt to make it more real for us softies living in the 21st century.

Apart from that, I did enjoy this, as did the rest of the 75-80 seniors who were in the audience: a fantastic turn-out for a Monday morning and maybe a lesson other cinemas should learn in terms of scheduling and pricing.

***

Lincoln

Cecil says: OK, I have a confession to make. Within five minutes of the start of Lincoln I had fallen asleep and was apparently heard by Bea to be gently snoring (but only for a couple of breaths, honest).

Trouble was, it was very comfy in the Manly Cinema on Sydney’s North Shore, and the film did begin with a bunch of heavy dialogue by a lot of bearded blokes in black suits talking about very technical things to do, presumably, with the state of the American nation in the midst of the American Civil War.

I did wake up about 20 minutes in to the film and enjoyed the remainder, without any relapse into slumber or boredom.

But part of the problem throughout Lincoln is that it almost feels like part of a Sixth Form (or eleventh grade) multi-media syllabus. It almost needs the teacher to freeze frame now and then to point out who is who and what stage in history we are at.

We managed relatively well, having picked up a fair bit of Civil War history during our year in the States in 2010-11, but how would anybody watching from outside America cope with this film if really all they have as vague reference point is that Lincoln was the President who ended slavery?

Daniel Day-Lewis is, as always, fantastic in role: likeable on some levels, but also exasperatingly boring as he always has to sum up the situation he’s in with some anecdote from his past. Entertaining raconteur, some would say, but boring old buffoon who likes the sound of his own voice, others might have argued…

And I’d love to see some Democrat critique of the film. The Democrats in Congress come across as either scheming underhand politicos or spineless cowards fearful for their own career. Was this really what Democrats were like and if so, how on earth did they transform themselves into a party that could elect Obama? Was FDR the key to Democratic change?

I guess these aren’t the themes of Lincoln, but it might have been nice to get some sort of feel for WHY the Democrats were so opposed to the 13^th Amendment?

I liked this film overall, but I couldn’t help wondering if Spielberg was hoping for a gold star from his history teacher for the effort.

And I might need to see it again once I’ve genned up a bit on some of the key Civil War characters, but I won’t go at the end of a long day next time….

***.5

Bea says: Having spent a year living in Washington DC I was keen to see this film.  Prior to my stint as a docent at the historic American Red Cross headquarters there my knowledge of the American Civil War was based on Gone With the Wind!  Like Cecil, I wondered through the film how those without the benefit of an American education or an interest in the period would cope, and the film was certainly heavy, but I liked that about it - I was ready for it, I guess.

Daniel Day-Lewis was of course excellent in his performance, but the character of Lincoln was stiff and staid, with the weight of the world on his shoulders, and grieving the death of his own son and the many, many sons who had died during the Civil War.  His anecdotes worked for me, they did lighten his character somewhat, as did his affection for his younger son.  I had a little knowledge (from a Smithsonian tour of the American History Museum) of the sadness Lincoln carried with him over his son's death, and of the difficulties that caused his marriage, so I was pleased to see the film address this, and it was certainly good to see Sally Field tackle the role of his wife.

In my opinion, the scene stealer in this film is the highly underrated Tommy Lee Jones, whose performance was shaded both light and dark and not just due to the character he portrayed - we have recently seen Jones in Hope Springs and he did the same thing there, moving me from laughter to tears in the space of a sentence.  He has not always been someone who chose roles well, but I am hoping to see much more of him after these two sterling performances.

One thing I was disappointed by - visiting a civil war hospital in DC and no mention made of Clara Barton?  Shame on you, Spielberg!

***.5

Lawless

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

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

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