Seriously, this film is sweet and funny and all the rest but Ryan Gosling is the hottest I have ever seen him. As Emma Stone quite rightly says "F***!! It's like you've been photoshopped!"
Right, on to actually reviewing the film and not Goslings physique.
As I said it is sweet and funny in equal measure, but also quite sad. The film focuses on the breakdown of a marriage and subsequent effect on the different family members. The marriage in question is between Steve Carell and Julianne Moore, with Ryan Gosling as the ladies man guru who takes Carell under his wing, and Kevin Bacon as the 'other man'.
For those familiar with Carell's back catalogue you will know he is a versatile actor, able to do the more serious roles (Little Miss Sunshine) and the most bizarre characters (Anchorman). His role as Cal Weaver in this movie is more reminiscent of Dan In Real Life, another sweet and funny film, where he gets to play it straight and downtrodden. What you notice first off, like with the film Last Night, is the lack of effort made by Carell for dinner in his appearance...actually not just for dinner, in the everyday too. But then you notice the lack of effort when his wife says she wants a divorce, that she has slept with another man. The most dramatic thing he does is roll out of a moving car just to avoid the conversation his wife is trying to have with him.
Cue Ryan Gosling, noticing Carell whining night after night about his broken marriage he takes it upon himself to redress the situation, quite literally. Carell transforms from a man who should never dress himself to a sharply suited and booted gentleman able to bag the ladies quite as well as his younger mentor.
This film is not entirely focused on the two gentleman and their conquests, surrounding their story is the young would be lawyer Hannah (Emma Stone) who thinks she is happy with her current kinda dweeby guy played by Josh Grobin (hugely talented singer and very funny guy), and has been hit on by Gosling and intrigued him. Anyone who reads my reviews probably knows by now how obsessed I am with Emma Stone, I just think she is such a great actress, and am supremely jealous she got to spend so much quality time with Goslings abs in this movie.
Also in the mix of characters are Julianne Moore, Carells' wife, who is dealing with the consequences of her choices, and also a keen Kevin Bacon who wants to begin a relationship with her.
Then there is the lovestruck 13 year old son of Carell and Moore, Robbie, who has fallen for the 17 year old babysitter, who is herself in lust with Carell.
All of these stories make up the criteria for love being crazy and stupid. And I enjoyed all of the dimensions of the story, I genuinely laughed out loud frequently, cringed too, but most importantly did not hate any character or facet of the story which is what films like these can often suffer from.
The film benefitted from being written by Dan Fogleman, the man responsible for Disney’s Cars and Tangled, who looked at the situation with a fresh pair of eyes. Though he does adhere to convention in some places, there is a refreshing end to the film, and it’s the kind I really respond to in a movie, when everything is not tied up in a neat happily ever after package. I guess this is where Fogleman was able to steer away from Disney and inject reality into his script, though obviously keeping as much as possible in the happy camp.
The directors, Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, handled the story and cast well, having been previously responsible for I Love You Phillip Morris (starring Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor) I knew the film would not be sappy and the comedy would not be forced, though there is the pre-requisite farcical fight toward the end but this was one of the moments I laughed the hardest I think.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, the acting I cannot complain about, the story I really enjoyed and felt was almost true to life, and it delivered surprises that I was not expecting. If you have seen and enjoyed films such as Dan In Real Life or The Kids Are Alright you will not be disappointed by Crazy.Stupid.Love.
Monday 19 December 2011
Sunday 18 December 2011
Last Night: what happens when couples fail in communication
I was recommended to watch this film by a friend, who refused to give me her own opinion on it lest I be swayed or, more likely, in case I hated it and then felt afraid to write this or say what I thought...
I'm still not sure how much I liked this film, its serious and intense, really intense. Reminds me of Closer, where you slightly question your own views and morals, and become absorbed in the relationships.
In synopsis then, we have the central characters Jo and Michael, played by Keira Knightley and Sam Worthington. They seem typical, Jo gets ready for a staff party of her husbands in under a minute, no thought or care to how she looks or what she is wearing, so the two are obviously comfortable enough for her not to dress up. Then at said party Jo notices a woman, Eva Mendes, a colleague of Michael's who is obviously a very attractive woman, and attracted to her husband. A fight at home ensues, with Michael being forced to admit he does feel attracted toward his co-worker, with whom he is going on a business trip the next day.
Michael goes to to Philadelphia and has to come to terms with his feelings, while at home his wife meets an old flame on the street and spends time with him, now having to face her own unanswered questions and emotions.
I won't spoil the end, but suffice to say I felt it was an honest portrait of what could happen. While looking it up I came across a review which gave the film one star because they felt the end had destroyed a perfectly good film. I am inclined to disagree. It is the end which makes the previous hour and a half that much more believable, because you do not know what is going to happen. Rather like the end of Love and Other Drugs as much as you want to know what happens next, there is a reason fairytales end with "and they lived happily ever after", because the truth is you don't need to know. Neither Last Night or Love and Other Drugs could possibly have a 'happily ever after' in the true fairytale sense of an easy life with no worries, but a director is wise to cut the film off at a certain point so the audience can create their own ending.
The acting I felt was superb, and it is nice to hear Knightley and Worthington's own accents. Set in New York it is entirely feasible for an English woman and Australian man to be living and working in the city, especially when one is a writer. It is also believable that a Parisian in the form of Guillaume Canet would be in town, as a writer himself, and come to see his former love once more.
I am slightly in love with monsieur Canet, he is a jewel in French acting and directing, and his partner is Marion Cotillard who I think is probably one of the most beautiful people ever and a fantastic actress. A very talented pair. Canet's weight in French cinema is such that I knew his role at least would not be generic or the film flimsy. His and Knightley's relationship is kind of beautiful, and I found myself entirely torn about what I wanted to happen. They have passion and friendship for each other, and I smiled when they smiled.
Worthington and Mendes relationship provoked the opposite reaction in me. I was willing the husband to not become a cliche and hating Mendes for being provocative. Entirely irrational, why should I support the wife and her indiscretion and not the husband? Neither have been honest with each other, or to themselves, and you feel certain situations would not come up had they just communicated with one another. Had Jo told Michael about Alex and her time with him in Paris perhaps she would have held on less to her feelings for the Frenchman, and had Michael been open with Jo about the attractiveness of his co-worker she would have been prepared at the party and he could have dealt with his feelings instead of bottling them.
It is a well written and carefully directed film, a true drama. I think it is quite hard to find good drama not on stage, where you can become swept up in the emotion without feeling like it is being thrown at you. And that was how I felt while watchin Last Night, I became engrossed, all of my senses focused on the screen. It could make a good play.
It isn't a film I would watch again, but I enjoyed it, as much as you can enjoy seeing lives fray in front of you. The performances were all believable, and the stories too, because people lie, they conceal their pasts, and nobody is entirely honest with anybody, except perhaps their psychiatrists. It is a cautionary tale, be honest with yourself and your partner, or there will be consequences you may not want to deal with.
I'm still not sure how much I liked this film, its serious and intense, really intense. Reminds me of Closer, where you slightly question your own views and morals, and become absorbed in the relationships.
In synopsis then, we have the central characters Jo and Michael, played by Keira Knightley and Sam Worthington. They seem typical, Jo gets ready for a staff party of her husbands in under a minute, no thought or care to how she looks or what she is wearing, so the two are obviously comfortable enough for her not to dress up. Then at said party Jo notices a woman, Eva Mendes, a colleague of Michael's who is obviously a very attractive woman, and attracted to her husband. A fight at home ensues, with Michael being forced to admit he does feel attracted toward his co-worker, with whom he is going on a business trip the next day.
Michael goes to to Philadelphia and has to come to terms with his feelings, while at home his wife meets an old flame on the street and spends time with him, now having to face her own unanswered questions and emotions.
I won't spoil the end, but suffice to say I felt it was an honest portrait of what could happen. While looking it up I came across a review which gave the film one star because they felt the end had destroyed a perfectly good film. I am inclined to disagree. It is the end which makes the previous hour and a half that much more believable, because you do not know what is going to happen. Rather like the end of Love and Other Drugs as much as you want to know what happens next, there is a reason fairytales end with "and they lived happily ever after", because the truth is you don't need to know. Neither Last Night or Love and Other Drugs could possibly have a 'happily ever after' in the true fairytale sense of an easy life with no worries, but a director is wise to cut the film off at a certain point so the audience can create their own ending.
The acting I felt was superb, and it is nice to hear Knightley and Worthington's own accents. Set in New York it is entirely feasible for an English woman and Australian man to be living and working in the city, especially when one is a writer. It is also believable that a Parisian in the form of Guillaume Canet would be in town, as a writer himself, and come to see his former love once more.
I am slightly in love with monsieur Canet, he is a jewel in French acting and directing, and his partner is Marion Cotillard who I think is probably one of the most beautiful people ever and a fantastic actress. A very talented pair. Canet's weight in French cinema is such that I knew his role at least would not be generic or the film flimsy. His and Knightley's relationship is kind of beautiful, and I found myself entirely torn about what I wanted to happen. They have passion and friendship for each other, and I smiled when they smiled.
Worthington and Mendes relationship provoked the opposite reaction in me. I was willing the husband to not become a cliche and hating Mendes for being provocative. Entirely irrational, why should I support the wife and her indiscretion and not the husband? Neither have been honest with each other, or to themselves, and you feel certain situations would not come up had they just communicated with one another. Had Jo told Michael about Alex and her time with him in Paris perhaps she would have held on less to her feelings for the Frenchman, and had Michael been open with Jo about the attractiveness of his co-worker she would have been prepared at the party and he could have dealt with his feelings instead of bottling them.
It is a well written and carefully directed film, a true drama. I think it is quite hard to find good drama not on stage, where you can become swept up in the emotion without feeling like it is being thrown at you. And that was how I felt while watchin Last Night, I became engrossed, all of my senses focused on the screen. It could make a good play.
It isn't a film I would watch again, but I enjoyed it, as much as you can enjoy seeing lives fray in front of you. The performances were all believable, and the stories too, because people lie, they conceal their pasts, and nobody is entirely honest with anybody, except perhaps their psychiatrists. It is a cautionary tale, be honest with yourself and your partner, or there will be consequences you may not want to deal with.
Wednesday 30 November 2011
Management: a quirky motel romance
I have been waiting almost ten years now for a film to match the quality of The Good Girl for Jennifer Aniston. Yes she is the sweetheart of the romantic comedy (being fast approached by Katherine Heigl) and arguably the most successful of the 'Friends' cast, but for me her best perfomance to date is as downtrodden Justine who has a misguided affair with a tortured Jake Gyllenhaal in The Good Girl. If you've not seen it then I highly recommend it, if only to see a different side of Aniston and the chemistry I said was lacking in my review of Water For Elephants (there is a similar age gap between the protagonists).
So Management has satisfied this need to see Aniston in another quiet unassuming role, and she benefits again from a great co-star in the form of Steve Zahn. Actually to be fair to Zahn this is his movie, Aniston is the co-star. It follows Zahn as Mike, son of a Motel owners Trish and Jerry, who works for them as Night Manager and lives on site. He sees Sue (Aniston) check in, and takes a liking, deciding to pursue her with cheap wine courtesy of 'management'. Mike in turn intrigues Sue, who is passing through buying art for her company, and so she decides to have her way so to speak, not knowing what kind of reaction it sparks in Mike.
Now this isn't a scary stalker movie, but Mike does buy a one way ticket to where Sue lives, having fallen in love with her almost at first sight. This is where I see the true strengths of Aniston's acting as she copes with such an enthusiastic admirer without resorting to over the top gestures or facial expressions, its a quiet dignity and pragmatism that comes across from her character, which is what Sue is meant to represent in contrast to Mike's boyish charm.
Of course the relationship continues as it began, completely unconventional. Until he goes to find her once more after a long period of no contact and finds she has moved in with an ex boyfriend (played by Woody Harrelson) across the country, so naturally he pursues her once more!
Mike's pursuit of Sue is sweet and slightly crazy, she has tried not to get his hopes up at various points but obviously cannot help but be charmed by him. Ultimately though there is heartbreak on both sides, as Sue finally breaks his spirit Mike realises he has to grow up, and Sue also realises she has never taken any time for herself in her life. It has a very sweet ending, and though the plot is not itself entirely believable the ending is a show of strength of character. Though I am Atheist the ending brought back memories of a Catholic childhood and the story of Mary and Joseph, how one man stepped up to help a pregnant girl even though the child was not his. Though me saying this gives away the end I hope it does not prevent anybody watching it, some stories are woven so well they are worth watching despite knowing how it ends.
Both Zahn and Aniston are understated in their performances but entirely believable, especially Mike's relationship with his mother. Their support cast are tremendous, I rarely find fault with Woody Harrelsons performances, and Margo Martindale (Mike's Mother) I have loved ever since hearing her Southern twang speaking French in Paris Je T'aime.
First time director Stephen Belber does a good job, he also wrote the script, and though the film took a few twists and turns I did not expect it never compromised on the integrity of the characters or changed tone.
I am not honestly sure what I expected from this film except for it to be quirky, and I was rewarded handsomely in this respect. It has attributes of The Good Girl, Garden State and Junebug, with its own stalker type element. I thoroughly enjoyed this film, but have to say if you disliked any of the three movies I have just listed I don't think this is the film for you and perhaps you should stick to the more conventional Aniston rom-com.
So Management has satisfied this need to see Aniston in another quiet unassuming role, and she benefits again from a great co-star in the form of Steve Zahn. Actually to be fair to Zahn this is his movie, Aniston is the co-star. It follows Zahn as Mike, son of a Motel owners Trish and Jerry, who works for them as Night Manager and lives on site. He sees Sue (Aniston) check in, and takes a liking, deciding to pursue her with cheap wine courtesy of 'management'. Mike in turn intrigues Sue, who is passing through buying art for her company, and so she decides to have her way so to speak, not knowing what kind of reaction it sparks in Mike.
Now this isn't a scary stalker movie, but Mike does buy a one way ticket to where Sue lives, having fallen in love with her almost at first sight. This is where I see the true strengths of Aniston's acting as she copes with such an enthusiastic admirer without resorting to over the top gestures or facial expressions, its a quiet dignity and pragmatism that comes across from her character, which is what Sue is meant to represent in contrast to Mike's boyish charm.
Of course the relationship continues as it began, completely unconventional. Until he goes to find her once more after a long period of no contact and finds she has moved in with an ex boyfriend (played by Woody Harrelson) across the country, so naturally he pursues her once more!
Mike's pursuit of Sue is sweet and slightly crazy, she has tried not to get his hopes up at various points but obviously cannot help but be charmed by him. Ultimately though there is heartbreak on both sides, as Sue finally breaks his spirit Mike realises he has to grow up, and Sue also realises she has never taken any time for herself in her life. It has a very sweet ending, and though the plot is not itself entirely believable the ending is a show of strength of character. Though I am Atheist the ending brought back memories of a Catholic childhood and the story of Mary and Joseph, how one man stepped up to help a pregnant girl even though the child was not his. Though me saying this gives away the end I hope it does not prevent anybody watching it, some stories are woven so well they are worth watching despite knowing how it ends.
Both Zahn and Aniston are understated in their performances but entirely believable, especially Mike's relationship with his mother. Their support cast are tremendous, I rarely find fault with Woody Harrelsons performances, and Margo Martindale (Mike's Mother) I have loved ever since hearing her Southern twang speaking French in Paris Je T'aime.
First time director Stephen Belber does a good job, he also wrote the script, and though the film took a few twists and turns I did not expect it never compromised on the integrity of the characters or changed tone.
I am not honestly sure what I expected from this film except for it to be quirky, and I was rewarded handsomely in this respect. It has attributes of The Good Girl, Garden State and Junebug, with its own stalker type element. I thoroughly enjoyed this film, but have to say if you disliked any of the three movies I have just listed I don't think this is the film for you and perhaps you should stick to the more conventional Aniston rom-com.
Friends With Benefits: a film I should have hated
Ok so considering how I kind of went to town on the car crash that was No Strings Attached it was odd of me to even contemplate watching Friends With Benefits. Yet I did, and I liked it.
A brief rundown of the plot then is required. Jamie and Daryl become friends after she headhunts him to move from L.A to New York for the artistic director job at GQ magazine. They have both failed miserably at relationships previously, so after watching Jamie's favourite Rom-Com Daryl suggests they become 'friends with benefits'. It then goes through the motions of happy sex times, back to 'just friends', odd 'are they falling for each other?' moment, bad break up, and ultimately the Happy Ending.
This film stars Mila Kunis (who has worked with both NSA stars Portman and Kutcher) as Jamie and Justin Timberlake as Daryl, who I have to say does rather well. Now this may be because I have not seen the Social Network (I know shock horror), but I don't have much in Timberlakes acting past to compare to except for Bad Teacher and Alpha Dog. Everybody tells me and the films reviewers also that this and Bad Teacher were such steps backward for Timberlake after the Social Network, but I think these were opportunities for him to try out characters and his comedic talents. Kunis by far and away is the star of the film, but Timberlake manages to hold his own which I think is due to a confident director and a decent script.
Said director is a man called Will Gluck who directed the fantastic Easy A starring Emma Stone. Again a gripe of the proper critic is that Gluck has done so much better before, but though I agree Easy A is far superior it also had the benefit of being based on a piece of classic literature. Gluck and several writers have worked with a generic formula and tried to put a bit of pizazz into it, mainly through a great accompanying soundtrack and some fantastically choreographed flash mob dancers.
Another reason why I think I prefer FWB to NSA is that it IS formulaic, the girl is the romantic who wants the fairytale ending, the boy wants sex. Yes they are both damaged in some way, yes their families compete in the crazy stakes (one glue induced the other altzheimers so legitimately 'crazy'), but these are what you look for and feel almost comforted that its going the way you expect. No Strings Attached tried to do something different with the formula (girl was emotionally unavailable and the boy was soppy) and fell on its face.
Support cast are also key to a rom-coms success, and Will Gluck has the fortune to be able to use Patricia Clarkson as Kunis' nutty mother who cannot seem to remember who the father of her child is. Woody Harrelson does a fine job as Timberlakes gay Sports editor at GQ magazine, Jenna Elfman (Dharma & Greg) is her usual charming self as Timberlakes sister, and their father is played with no fear by Richard Jenkins (
Six Feet Under). You are not overwhelmed by supporting cast, they all have clearly defined roles and stick to them, including a possible Prince Charming and a very brief cameo by Masi Oka (Heroes).
As with No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits is a film largely about sex, so there is a lot of it. If you tend to shy away from films with gratuitous sex then please, don't watch either film. It is fairly explicit but tastefully done, you don't see much of the front of either actor, pretty much it is what you would expect from a film with this title.
Kunis and Timberlake have great chemistry, without it the film would have never worked, nor do I think Gluck would have made it with these two. It is funny, sweet, a little heartbreaking, exceptionally predictable and formulaic, but ultimately enjoyable. It doesn't matter how many romantic comedies are made, if they don't make you feel you wasted your time watching them they can be as predictable as the weather.
A brief rundown of the plot then is required. Jamie and Daryl become friends after she headhunts him to move from L.A to New York for the artistic director job at GQ magazine. They have both failed miserably at relationships previously, so after watching Jamie's favourite Rom-Com Daryl suggests they become 'friends with benefits'. It then goes through the motions of happy sex times, back to 'just friends', odd 'are they falling for each other?' moment, bad break up, and ultimately the Happy Ending.
This film stars Mila Kunis (who has worked with both NSA stars Portman and Kutcher) as Jamie and Justin Timberlake as Daryl, who I have to say does rather well. Now this may be because I have not seen the Social Network (I know shock horror), but I don't have much in Timberlakes acting past to compare to except for Bad Teacher and Alpha Dog. Everybody tells me and the films reviewers also that this and Bad Teacher were such steps backward for Timberlake after the Social Network, but I think these were opportunities for him to try out characters and his comedic talents. Kunis by far and away is the star of the film, but Timberlake manages to hold his own which I think is due to a confident director and a decent script.
Said director is a man called Will Gluck who directed the fantastic Easy A starring Emma Stone. Again a gripe of the proper critic is that Gluck has done so much better before, but though I agree Easy A is far superior it also had the benefit of being based on a piece of classic literature. Gluck and several writers have worked with a generic formula and tried to put a bit of pizazz into it, mainly through a great accompanying soundtrack and some fantastically choreographed flash mob dancers.
Another reason why I think I prefer FWB to NSA is that it IS formulaic, the girl is the romantic who wants the fairytale ending, the boy wants sex. Yes they are both damaged in some way, yes their families compete in the crazy stakes (one glue induced the other altzheimers so legitimately 'crazy'), but these are what you look for and feel almost comforted that its going the way you expect. No Strings Attached tried to do something different with the formula (girl was emotionally unavailable and the boy was soppy) and fell on its face.
Support cast are also key to a rom-coms success, and Will Gluck has the fortune to be able to use Patricia Clarkson as Kunis' nutty mother who cannot seem to remember who the father of her child is. Woody Harrelson does a fine job as Timberlakes gay Sports editor at GQ magazine, Jenna Elfman (Dharma & Greg) is her usual charming self as Timberlakes sister, and their father is played with no fear by Richard Jenkins (
Six Feet Under). You are not overwhelmed by supporting cast, they all have clearly defined roles and stick to them, including a possible Prince Charming and a very brief cameo by Masi Oka (Heroes).
As with No Strings Attached, Friends With Benefits is a film largely about sex, so there is a lot of it. If you tend to shy away from films with gratuitous sex then please, don't watch either film. It is fairly explicit but tastefully done, you don't see much of the front of either actor, pretty much it is what you would expect from a film with this title.
Kunis and Timberlake have great chemistry, without it the film would have never worked, nor do I think Gluck would have made it with these two. It is funny, sweet, a little heartbreaking, exceptionally predictable and formulaic, but ultimately enjoyable. It doesn't matter how many romantic comedies are made, if they don't make you feel you wasted your time watching them they can be as predictable as the weather.
Monday 14 November 2011
The Help: a great way to put yourself off chocolate
I have been looking forward to seeing this film since I read the book earlier this year. First I have to say is if you intend to see the film I highly recommend reading the book first, not because you need to for understanding the story but purely because the book is fantastic.
The film certainly does the book credit, Tate Taylor (who also directs) is a relative newcomer to the writer/director gig having only two previous credits (Pretty Ugly People and Chicken Party), but he adapted the novel well with few embellishments and tweaks to the storyline. This is entirely understandable, those who have read the book know there are over 400 pages to contend with, so some cutting was required to make it 146 minutes. Now you may think this in itself is far too long for a film about maids in Jackson Mississippi during the early Sixties, but you honestly don't feel the time passing. If you are like me when a film is over long and it drags, your bum becomes numb and your mind wanders. My attention was never drawn away from the screen.
A quick overview of the plot for those who have not had the chance to read The Help yet. It focuses on the lives of three women: two maids Aibileen and Minny, and one white woman Miss Skeeter.
Miss Skeeter has returned home from college to find her own maid Constantine gone, her friends married and blooming with children, her mother ill but desperate for her daughter to find a man, and her own views desperately different to those around her. Aibileen has raised white children for years while her own son went to college and then tragically died before he could make something of his education. And finally Minny is a loud-mouthed mother of many with a husband who beats her and an axe to grind with her former employers. She is also the reason I will be quite suspect of anybody giving me chocolate pie.
Miss Skeeter gains employment as a columnist for household cleaning, of course being white and privileged she has no idea how to answer the queries coming in so obtains the advice of her friend's maid Aibileen. During their discourses Skeeter realises the maids are being treated appallingly, especially with the introduction by her friend Hilly (played magnificently by Bryce Dallas Howard, Ron's daughter) of the health initiative to give all 'coloureds' their own bathroom so they don't pass on their diseases to the whites. It is obviously a highly intolerable time, one that I can't imagine living in and I thank the gods I have grown up largely unaware of racism in my own community.
And so Skeeter decides to write a book from the perspective of the help, to show the unfair treatment these women have received when they effectively raise the children of the rich and apparently useless.
The casting of this film is perfect. Emma Stone (Easy A, Zombieland) captures the essence (if not the height) of Skeeter as a keen writer appalled by the injustices toward the black women she sees; Viola Davis (Eat Pray Love) is exactly how I imagined Aibileen, a calm and loving figure but has a wealth of strength in her convictions; and Octavia Spencer (The Nines) is vivacious and has enormous strength of character but also displays her vulnerability in a touching scene between maid and employer after her latest bout of domestic abuse.
The supporting cast too are excellent and proof of the formidable talent among women both young and 'old' in Hollywood. Allison Janney (West Wing, Juno) is one my favourite actresses and is quite fantastic as Skeeter's 'dying' mother who interchanges her wigs but never her determination for Skeeter to get a man and forget about her former maid. It is hard to imagine that even as recently as the sixties it was still the main focus of a young woman to get a man and settle down and have babies, whereas now you are more likely to find someone like Skeeter who wants to have a career. Yet it has to be pointed out our Miss Skeeter is supposed to be a very tall gangly girl with crazy frizzy hair who does not fit the social norms of looks, so perhaps this is more likely to be the reason she pursues her education rather than focus on boys.
Bryce Dallas Howard is also on top form as the manipulative Hilly Holbrook, the Queen Bee of her clique who has put her mother in a home and ensures newcomer Celia (Jessica Chastain, Tree of Life) is shunned by the populous of women because she is 'white trash', but really because she married Hilly's former beau Johnny.
The relationships of these women are fascinating to read about and to watch, it is shame that more of the interactions between the men and women could not have more screen time as they are an important part of the book. Here I am referring to the romance of Skeeter and Stuart, a young southern gentleman who makes a less than perfect first impression on Skeeter. In the book there is an entire story of Stuart's previous relationship, his family and the differences between wealthy families in the South who have political power and those who do not. The revelations after the release of the book are entirely different from book to film, but both convey the same message and both are powerful in their respective mediums. I won't spoil this (as I won't spoil the relationship between Minny and why you may be put off chocolate forever) but I will say I felt just the same from book to film and there was welling of the eyes involved both times!
I was highly impressed with the film, being such a fan of the book I could have been bitterly disappointed had the story been played with too much or the characters been miscast. It has succeeded on both counts, the high calibre of acting along with a great script ensured this film was one of the most successful of the year.
I still strongly recommend reading the book but if you have no time or intention to do so this is a stand alone film, a great introduction to part of the civil rights process in the USA, and simply a genuinely good couple of hours of entertainment with a little education on racism thrown in.
The film certainly does the book credit, Tate Taylor (who also directs) is a relative newcomer to the writer/director gig having only two previous credits (Pretty Ugly People and Chicken Party), but he adapted the novel well with few embellishments and tweaks to the storyline. This is entirely understandable, those who have read the book know there are over 400 pages to contend with, so some cutting was required to make it 146 minutes. Now you may think this in itself is far too long for a film about maids in Jackson Mississippi during the early Sixties, but you honestly don't feel the time passing. If you are like me when a film is over long and it drags, your bum becomes numb and your mind wanders. My attention was never drawn away from the screen.
A quick overview of the plot for those who have not had the chance to read The Help yet. It focuses on the lives of three women: two maids Aibileen and Minny, and one white woman Miss Skeeter.
Miss Skeeter has returned home from college to find her own maid Constantine gone, her friends married and blooming with children, her mother ill but desperate for her daughter to find a man, and her own views desperately different to those around her. Aibileen has raised white children for years while her own son went to college and then tragically died before he could make something of his education. And finally Minny is a loud-mouthed mother of many with a husband who beats her and an axe to grind with her former employers. She is also the reason I will be quite suspect of anybody giving me chocolate pie.
Miss Skeeter gains employment as a columnist for household cleaning, of course being white and privileged she has no idea how to answer the queries coming in so obtains the advice of her friend's maid Aibileen. During their discourses Skeeter realises the maids are being treated appallingly, especially with the introduction by her friend Hilly (played magnificently by Bryce Dallas Howard, Ron's daughter) of the health initiative to give all 'coloureds' their own bathroom so they don't pass on their diseases to the whites. It is obviously a highly intolerable time, one that I can't imagine living in and I thank the gods I have grown up largely unaware of racism in my own community.
And so Skeeter decides to write a book from the perspective of the help, to show the unfair treatment these women have received when they effectively raise the children of the rich and apparently useless.
The casting of this film is perfect. Emma Stone (Easy A, Zombieland) captures the essence (if not the height) of Skeeter as a keen writer appalled by the injustices toward the black women she sees; Viola Davis (Eat Pray Love) is exactly how I imagined Aibileen, a calm and loving figure but has a wealth of strength in her convictions; and Octavia Spencer (The Nines) is vivacious and has enormous strength of character but also displays her vulnerability in a touching scene between maid and employer after her latest bout of domestic abuse.
The supporting cast too are excellent and proof of the formidable talent among women both young and 'old' in Hollywood. Allison Janney (West Wing, Juno) is one my favourite actresses and is quite fantastic as Skeeter's 'dying' mother who interchanges her wigs but never her determination for Skeeter to get a man and forget about her former maid. It is hard to imagine that even as recently as the sixties it was still the main focus of a young woman to get a man and settle down and have babies, whereas now you are more likely to find someone like Skeeter who wants to have a career. Yet it has to be pointed out our Miss Skeeter is supposed to be a very tall gangly girl with crazy frizzy hair who does not fit the social norms of looks, so perhaps this is more likely to be the reason she pursues her education rather than focus on boys.
Bryce Dallas Howard is also on top form as the manipulative Hilly Holbrook, the Queen Bee of her clique who has put her mother in a home and ensures newcomer Celia (Jessica Chastain, Tree of Life) is shunned by the populous of women because she is 'white trash', but really because she married Hilly's former beau Johnny.
The relationships of these women are fascinating to read about and to watch, it is shame that more of the interactions between the men and women could not have more screen time as they are an important part of the book. Here I am referring to the romance of Skeeter and Stuart, a young southern gentleman who makes a less than perfect first impression on Skeeter. In the book there is an entire story of Stuart's previous relationship, his family and the differences between wealthy families in the South who have political power and those who do not. The revelations after the release of the book are entirely different from book to film, but both convey the same message and both are powerful in their respective mediums. I won't spoil this (as I won't spoil the relationship between Minny and why you may be put off chocolate forever) but I will say I felt just the same from book to film and there was welling of the eyes involved both times!
I was highly impressed with the film, being such a fan of the book I could have been bitterly disappointed had the story been played with too much or the characters been miscast. It has succeeded on both counts, the high calibre of acting along with a great script ensured this film was one of the most successful of the year.
I still strongly recommend reading the book but if you have no time or intention to do so this is a stand alone film, a great introduction to part of the civil rights process in the USA, and simply a genuinely good couple of hours of entertainment with a little education on racism thrown in.
Monday 10 October 2011
Greek: Or why I wish I'd gone to a College in the USA
There is something about the United States education system that fascinates me. I love the high school structure, with their lockers and hierarchies, which leads me to watch and love such movies as Easy A or Clueless, or become glued to my TV when One Tree Hill or The O.C were on. I was always jealous of these schools and these kids, getting such a different educational experience than I ever would in the UK. And this jealousy grew up as I did and into becoming envious of the College experience.
Now every Alumni will talk of how University was 'the best days of their lives', but while you are living it of course you don't have that rosy glow yet. I know from personal experience that I did not have the best three years of my life, yes I had fun and I grew up, but I did not take everything from it I should have. Unlike one of the main characters of my latest TV obsession, Greek.
Greek is based on the fraternity and sorority houses in fictional College Cyprus Rhodes University, named after two (mostly) Greek islands, in Ohio. Rusty Cartwright is a freshman eager to lose the shackles of his image as a nerd (being a polymer science major) by rushing a fraternity. His sister Casey is also in attendance at CRU but is a junior (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) who is not so keen to have said nerdy little brother in her playground. Casey is dating Omega Chi superstar Evan Chambers (wealthy family, kind of a dick) but there is also in the picture Cappie, president of the Kappa Tau's and also Casey's ex.
So Rusty is offered bids to pledge by both Cappie and Evan, the KT's want him because he cannot tolerate his alcohol and spit out a shot of tequila all over a girl, Evan wants him because he is Casey's little brother and this way will ensure Rusty does not tell big sis of her boyfriends indiscretion (hooking up with a pledge from her own sorority the ZBZ's).
Naturally Rusty chooses loyalty to his sister over potential brothers, and becomes a KT because they seem to embody more of what brotherhood and fraternal loyalty is all about, plus host the best parties on campus.
There are eight main characters, Rusty, Casey, her friend and sorority sister Ashleigh, Cappie, Rusty's roommate Dale, Evan, his new pledge (and Rusty's new gay friend) Calvin, and finally Rebecca, the girl who sleeps with Evan but is Casey's 'little sister'. There are also the 'actives' of the houses (Beaver is my personal favourite from Kappa Tau) and president of ZBZ Frannie whose motives and actions are often questionable.
So there are quite a few personalities to take on board, but they all have such different facets to them you are interested when each of their stories gets told. Of course the fun loving KT's are designed to be the best loved house on Greek row, how could you not with their slacker but good hearted ways and Scott Michael Foster's Cappie leading the way, guiding Rusty through college life.
Though I know the ZBZ's would never be the kind of house I could ever live in they are a good example of politics in the Greek system, with irresponsible leadership and faithless pledges (in the form of Frannie and Rebecca) the scheming and backstabbing are typical of what I'd expect of such a looks-concious house and a political party.
We follow these characters through four seasons of embarrassment, studying, failing, debt, coming out, breaking up, unfaithfulness, and true love. I became quite obsessed with this show, you can connect to all the characters at some point, understanding their motives even when the actions are idiotic or repugnant. As with One Tree Hill or The O.C you have your centre couple, in OTH it was Peyton and Lucas, The O.C had Ryan and Marissa, and Greek had Casey and Cappie. As with Big and Carrie their timings never seem quite right, but you root for them all the same and pray they work out okay. And again in a similar vein to Sex & The City we find out Cappie's real name in the final episode, one of the final mysteries unveiled and clearly signalling the end. At least with Greek I know they won't spin off into terrible movies unlike SATC.
Ashleigh and Calvin are great fun, free spirited and wonderfully faithful friends, great support for both Casey and Rusty but also allowed their own dilemmas. Ashleigh is so nice she gets trampled on, and Calvin has to deal with being gay in a very masculine and conservative fraternity.
Evan and Rebecca are your typical baddies but actually goodies in this series, they both are ambitious and uncaring at times, but Rebecca's Ice Queen act does melt some, especially around Cappie, and the family pressures on Evan go some way to explain why he sabotages his relationships, not only with Casey and Frannie but with Cappie too. A particular favourite scene of mine is in season three, they attend a fairytale ball and Casey and Cappie are the Prince and Princess, while Evan and Rebecca are the big bad wolf and the Evil Queen.
Dale, Rusty's roommate goes through many changes during his time in Greek, from purely scientific but fiercely religious (his band is called Darwin Lied) and completely anti the Greek system to wanting to become part of the very system he fought in only three years. He is everything that Rusty has wanted to leave behind, but is such a stalwart friend even with the bright lights of the KT's cannot tear this friendship apart. Though they do go through many battles, both personal and professional. What Rusty and Dale learn is a tolerance of each others interests, but though they differ to the extreme on a few points it does not mean they cannot be friends. This is what I found about University, you may not have the same interests as your flatmates but it doesn't stop you keeping them as friends, friendship is just as much about effort to stay in touch as it is what you have in common.
Rusty himself is the main focus, though everyone else gets more or less equal screen time Rusty is the catalyst who brings the groups together. And he is also the main source of cringe worthy humour, he takes such big risks that you both applaud and laugh and cry all at the same time. There is something in Rusty I wish I had when I was at Uni, and that is the courage to fall on your face and get back up again, and probably break your nose again the next time.
This show is funny, sad, intelligent, and surprising. It is well cast, and a star was definitely born in Scott Michael Foster who plays Cappie. I loved it. And I love the Beav, the Kappa Tau who seems like a gentle giant a touch soft in the head, but is often wise and logical as well as being gorgeous. Watch this show just to get to All About Beav in Season Four, if you enjoy American teen drama you won't be disappointed.
Go on. Take a risk.
Now every Alumni will talk of how University was 'the best days of their lives', but while you are living it of course you don't have that rosy glow yet. I know from personal experience that I did not have the best three years of my life, yes I had fun and I grew up, but I did not take everything from it I should have. Unlike one of the main characters of my latest TV obsession, Greek.
Greek is based on the fraternity and sorority houses in fictional College Cyprus Rhodes University, named after two (mostly) Greek islands, in Ohio. Rusty Cartwright is a freshman eager to lose the shackles of his image as a nerd (being a polymer science major) by rushing a fraternity. His sister Casey is also in attendance at CRU but is a junior (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) who is not so keen to have said nerdy little brother in her playground. Casey is dating Omega Chi superstar Evan Chambers (wealthy family, kind of a dick) but there is also in the picture Cappie, president of the Kappa Tau's and also Casey's ex.
So Rusty is offered bids to pledge by both Cappie and Evan, the KT's want him because he cannot tolerate his alcohol and spit out a shot of tequila all over a girl, Evan wants him because he is Casey's little brother and this way will ensure Rusty does not tell big sis of her boyfriends indiscretion (hooking up with a pledge from her own sorority the ZBZ's).
Naturally Rusty chooses loyalty to his sister over potential brothers, and becomes a KT because they seem to embody more of what brotherhood and fraternal loyalty is all about, plus host the best parties on campus.
There are eight main characters, Rusty, Casey, her friend and sorority sister Ashleigh, Cappie, Rusty's roommate Dale, Evan, his new pledge (and Rusty's new gay friend) Calvin, and finally Rebecca, the girl who sleeps with Evan but is Casey's 'little sister'. There are also the 'actives' of the houses (Beaver is my personal favourite from Kappa Tau) and president of ZBZ Frannie whose motives and actions are often questionable.
So there are quite a few personalities to take on board, but they all have such different facets to them you are interested when each of their stories gets told. Of course the fun loving KT's are designed to be the best loved house on Greek row, how could you not with their slacker but good hearted ways and Scott Michael Foster's Cappie leading the way, guiding Rusty through college life.
Though I know the ZBZ's would never be the kind of house I could ever live in they are a good example of politics in the Greek system, with irresponsible leadership and faithless pledges (in the form of Frannie and Rebecca) the scheming and backstabbing are typical of what I'd expect of such a looks-concious house and a political party.
We follow these characters through four seasons of embarrassment, studying, failing, debt, coming out, breaking up, unfaithfulness, and true love. I became quite obsessed with this show, you can connect to all the characters at some point, understanding their motives even when the actions are idiotic or repugnant. As with One Tree Hill or The O.C you have your centre couple, in OTH it was Peyton and Lucas, The O.C had Ryan and Marissa, and Greek had Casey and Cappie. As with Big and Carrie their timings never seem quite right, but you root for them all the same and pray they work out okay. And again in a similar vein to Sex & The City we find out Cappie's real name in the final episode, one of the final mysteries unveiled and clearly signalling the end. At least with Greek I know they won't spin off into terrible movies unlike SATC.
Ashleigh and Calvin are great fun, free spirited and wonderfully faithful friends, great support for both Casey and Rusty but also allowed their own dilemmas. Ashleigh is so nice she gets trampled on, and Calvin has to deal with being gay in a very masculine and conservative fraternity.
Evan and Rebecca are your typical baddies but actually goodies in this series, they both are ambitious and uncaring at times, but Rebecca's Ice Queen act does melt some, especially around Cappie, and the family pressures on Evan go some way to explain why he sabotages his relationships, not only with Casey and Frannie but with Cappie too. A particular favourite scene of mine is in season three, they attend a fairytale ball and Casey and Cappie are the Prince and Princess, while Evan and Rebecca are the big bad wolf and the Evil Queen.
Dale, Rusty's roommate goes through many changes during his time in Greek, from purely scientific but fiercely religious (his band is called Darwin Lied) and completely anti the Greek system to wanting to become part of the very system he fought in only three years. He is everything that Rusty has wanted to leave behind, but is such a stalwart friend even with the bright lights of the KT's cannot tear this friendship apart. Though they do go through many battles, both personal and professional. What Rusty and Dale learn is a tolerance of each others interests, but though they differ to the extreme on a few points it does not mean they cannot be friends. This is what I found about University, you may not have the same interests as your flatmates but it doesn't stop you keeping them as friends, friendship is just as much about effort to stay in touch as it is what you have in common.
Rusty himself is the main focus, though everyone else gets more or less equal screen time Rusty is the catalyst who brings the groups together. And he is also the main source of cringe worthy humour, he takes such big risks that you both applaud and laugh and cry all at the same time. There is something in Rusty I wish I had when I was at Uni, and that is the courage to fall on your face and get back up again, and probably break your nose again the next time.
This show is funny, sad, intelligent, and surprising. It is well cast, and a star was definitely born in Scott Michael Foster who plays Cappie. I loved it. And I love the Beav, the Kappa Tau who seems like a gentle giant a touch soft in the head, but is often wise and logical as well as being gorgeous. Watch this show just to get to All About Beav in Season Four, if you enjoy American teen drama you won't be disappointed.
Go on. Take a risk.
Wednesday 21 September 2011
Water For Elephants: aka Watch For Elephant
Like many animal centred films before it - Andre, Flipper - Water For Elephants suffers from the beast upstaging the actors. I love IMDB's profile page for Tai who plays Rosie in this film, simply 'Trivia: is an elephant.' But she is more than just an elephant, Tai is probably one of the finest actors in this movie, she is an engaging presence on screen and you find yourself wishing there were more elephant-centric scenes. This is also due to the lacklustre feel to the rest of the movie, Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon are clearly more taken with Rosie than they are with each other.
To explain: Water For Elephants is based on the best selling novel by Sara Gruen, concerning a veterinary student of Polish descent who abandons his degree after a family tragedy, only to come across a travelling circus and join them as resident vet and later bull-man to Rosie the elephant. Mixed into this story is the erratic and dangerous Ring Master August and his beautiful performer wife Marlena, whom Jacob the vet falls for.
It is set in the early 1930's, yet the film begins in the present day at a modern circus where an aged Jacob waiting for his son to arrive tells his story to a worker, who wants to know about the great disaster of 1931 when the Benzini Brothers circus was destroyed.
The film follows through the plot with suitable period grace and charm, the nastier side of circus life coming to the fore in appropriate places teaching Jacob that running away with the circus is not a fairytale. He is obviously a kind hearted soul, and his skills as a vet place him well within the circus elite. However he has to contend with the vicious August, who is played with much gusto by Oscar winner Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds), to whom animals are things for making money from and to be dominated not cared for or respected. Apart from Rosie Waltz is perhaps the most engaging character on screen, his mood swings would create whiplash for those around him and yet he has a beautiful wife who seems to love him.
Of course this is not a film purely about elephants or the trials of running away with the circus, with the screenplay by Richard LaGravenese (Bridges of Madison County, PS I Love You) there is no doubt going to be a heart breaking love triangle...or maybe not. As stated before the film for the most part is lacklustre, Witherspoon and Pattinson have zero chemistry, a lot of me wants to say perhaps it is an age thing, that a younger woman should have been cast as Witherspoon presents too much of a grounded character to even think about running off with the vet. However age was certainly not an issue between Jennifer Aniston and Jake Gyllenhaal in The Good Girl, who have a greater age difference than Pattinson and Witherspoon. Maybe then it is what the the film is trying to present, we have no idea how old Marlena is, just that she was seventeen when she met August and married him to escape her life of poverty and care homes. Perhaps then the lack of chemistry is because the actors have not been able to define a more specific relationship, is it wrong for this young man in his early twenties to be after an older woman, or is she supposed to be of similar age, and yet clearly not?
There may just be an utter lack of chemistry between the two, which is a shame because had they had any kind of sexual tension I'm sure the screen would have lit up and the critics raved. As it is the love triangle plods through, with Jacob loving from afar, Marlena denying her feelings and August watching like a demented hawk. Pattinson does well, he is not an incredible actor by any feat of imagination but he isn't awful to watch, his interaction with Rosie is natural and the relationship mutually beneficial. Witherspoon, she has made some bad choices over the years (Four Christmases, How Do You Know) but is never horrific as an actress, this role has let her down somewhat, but also it feels as though she is going through the motions, her true potential was realised in Rendition and Walk The Line. But again she is clearly taken with Rosie, and the final snapshots of her life are more easy and natural than most of her screen time.
The ending feels a little rushed, I have not read the novel but it seems from the synopsis that it takes longer than the film does to end, and though the film was quite slow in pace I feel a little extra build up would have benefited the final scenes. What makes a difference between this film and the scriptwriters previous is that there is a relatively happy ending, however like a lot of American literature and film making you wish for someone to have the guts to create a little tragedy.
What made this film worth watching was Tai the elephant, she is magnificent and certainly steals the show from the Oscar winners and tweenage Idols. The story is not unlikeable but the lead romantic performances let it down so badly you just don't believe in them or their passion. A very disappointing film.
To explain: Water For Elephants is based on the best selling novel by Sara Gruen, concerning a veterinary student of Polish descent who abandons his degree after a family tragedy, only to come across a travelling circus and join them as resident vet and later bull-man to Rosie the elephant. Mixed into this story is the erratic and dangerous Ring Master August and his beautiful performer wife Marlena, whom Jacob the vet falls for.
It is set in the early 1930's, yet the film begins in the present day at a modern circus where an aged Jacob waiting for his son to arrive tells his story to a worker, who wants to know about the great disaster of 1931 when the Benzini Brothers circus was destroyed.
The film follows through the plot with suitable period grace and charm, the nastier side of circus life coming to the fore in appropriate places teaching Jacob that running away with the circus is not a fairytale. He is obviously a kind hearted soul, and his skills as a vet place him well within the circus elite. However he has to contend with the vicious August, who is played with much gusto by Oscar winner Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds), to whom animals are things for making money from and to be dominated not cared for or respected. Apart from Rosie Waltz is perhaps the most engaging character on screen, his mood swings would create whiplash for those around him and yet he has a beautiful wife who seems to love him.
Of course this is not a film purely about elephants or the trials of running away with the circus, with the screenplay by Richard LaGravenese (Bridges of Madison County, PS I Love You) there is no doubt going to be a heart breaking love triangle...or maybe not. As stated before the film for the most part is lacklustre, Witherspoon and Pattinson have zero chemistry, a lot of me wants to say perhaps it is an age thing, that a younger woman should have been cast as Witherspoon presents too much of a grounded character to even think about running off with the vet. However age was certainly not an issue between Jennifer Aniston and Jake Gyllenhaal in The Good Girl, who have a greater age difference than Pattinson and Witherspoon. Maybe then it is what the the film is trying to present, we have no idea how old Marlena is, just that she was seventeen when she met August and married him to escape her life of poverty and care homes. Perhaps then the lack of chemistry is because the actors have not been able to define a more specific relationship, is it wrong for this young man in his early twenties to be after an older woman, or is she supposed to be of similar age, and yet clearly not?
There may just be an utter lack of chemistry between the two, which is a shame because had they had any kind of sexual tension I'm sure the screen would have lit up and the critics raved. As it is the love triangle plods through, with Jacob loving from afar, Marlena denying her feelings and August watching like a demented hawk. Pattinson does well, he is not an incredible actor by any feat of imagination but he isn't awful to watch, his interaction with Rosie is natural and the relationship mutually beneficial. Witherspoon, she has made some bad choices over the years (Four Christmases, How Do You Know) but is never horrific as an actress, this role has let her down somewhat, but also it feels as though she is going through the motions, her true potential was realised in Rendition and Walk The Line. But again she is clearly taken with Rosie, and the final snapshots of her life are more easy and natural than most of her screen time.
The ending feels a little rushed, I have not read the novel but it seems from the synopsis that it takes longer than the film does to end, and though the film was quite slow in pace I feel a little extra build up would have benefited the final scenes. What makes a difference between this film and the scriptwriters previous is that there is a relatively happy ending, however like a lot of American literature and film making you wish for someone to have the guts to create a little tragedy.
What made this film worth watching was Tai the elephant, she is magnificent and certainly steals the show from the Oscar winners and tweenage Idols. The story is not unlikeable but the lead romantic performances let it down so badly you just don't believe in them or their passion. A very disappointing film.
Monday 19 September 2011
The Losers: well it doesn't win any prizes with me
The Losers is an action film based on the comic book series of the same name concerning a group of soldiers trying to find the man who tried to kill them in Bolivia, which resulted in their identities being marked as deceased and their reputations destroyed.
I hadn't heard many great reviews for this film but I thought I have to give it a try, after all it stars Chris Evans (Captain America) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Supernatural, Grey's Anatomy), both of whom I have had massive crushes on at some point in their careers.
Now its not as though I regret watching this film, I wasn't doing much else with my afternoon, but equally it would not have been a tragedy if I had never seen it.
Okay so I will start with some positives, the action, when you have it, is done well, the effects are pretty decent and it feels like the fights are done is a more realistic time frame than many action movies would have us believe. I enjoyed the fight between Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Zoe Saldana, especially as they both stretched beforehand rather than just launch into fisticuffs.
I also have no bad words about the actual acting, its hammy in places, quite a few in fact, but that is due to the story and the script - there is only so much an actor can do but if the words coming out of their mouths reek of bacon its a lost cause before they can try.
And this is where I will start my critique, the script writers have been previously responsible for the American High School Football centric series Friday Night Lights, the original comic 'The Losers', and surprisingly the 2007 film Zodiac. With the plethora of comic book movies out there you can understand the pressure to make something new, but the mix of sentiment and action does not blend well, and the characters are not adapted to the world of movies, they are generic and predictable. You have the mouthy computer wiz who is also fairly rubbish when it comes to the ladies (played by Evans), the icy second in command who is constantly on edge, the foreign sniper who does not talk much but has a soft side, the laid back driving/flying expert who keeps a lucky charm on him (a nodding dashboard dog), and finally we have Jeffrey Dean Morgan's character Colonel Clay again a typical leader, slightly roguish but determined and a good leader.
All the actors play their parts well, but they are the typical comic book soldiers, nothing especially brilliant or unique about them.
The prerequisite female presence is in the form of Zoe Saldana (Avatar, Star Trek XI), a volatile and wealthy woman bent on finding and killing Max, the mysterious super villain responsible for the death of her father and destroying The Loser's lives. Zoe is well equipped to handle the action as well as being a seductress, but again her character is so two dimensional you already know why she is so interested in the Losers almost before she arrives on screen.
Despite all this there is one character who out does all the rest on predictability and sheer annoyance factor, and that is Max the so called super villain. Imagine all the cartoon villains you watched as a kid, give them extra fire power and some swear words and you have Max. Unlike most actors given such a role, here I think of Jack Nicholson's Joker, Jason Patric (My Sister's Keeper, Speed 2) has no fun playing the villain, or at least if he is enjoying himself it is not evident on screen. Even his sidekick is neither terrified or in awe of him, and is frankly rather dull. Max is so over the top, but he is not scary, and somebody who can decide to have a person thrown off the top of a building by a nod should at least thrill the audience, and I remained pretty calm.
What really lets the film down is the direction, there are many movies that have predictable characters and plot lines but still remain watchable (Die Hard 2 suffers from bad scripting but still holds together). Sylvain White (Stomp The Yard) is the man in charge here, and he has interlaced the action and banter with oddly shot sex scenes that are not explicit but almost too intimate for this kind of film, yes sex sells but sometimes sexual tension can be enough to keep an audience engaged. The plot is allowed to trudge its way through the motions, from the brutal beginning of mass child murder, which is not as sad as it should be, to the finale showdown between the Losers, a former friend, and super villain Max. The story is not confusing or too intelligent for the viewer, it is predictable at every twist and turn, the budget was obviously not small but White appears to have only been able to make the action effective with it, the rest suffers from a lack of artistry by the director.
Unfortunately this movie plays out like a poorly written comic book, the action scenes are fun but not enough to save the hammy script, and despite a stellar cast (Idris Elba of The Wire and Luther plays the angry second in command) they too cannot save this film from being yet another action movie with no clout.
I hadn't heard many great reviews for this film but I thought I have to give it a try, after all it stars Chris Evans (Captain America) and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Supernatural, Grey's Anatomy), both of whom I have had massive crushes on at some point in their careers.
Now its not as though I regret watching this film, I wasn't doing much else with my afternoon, but equally it would not have been a tragedy if I had never seen it.
Okay so I will start with some positives, the action, when you have it, is done well, the effects are pretty decent and it feels like the fights are done is a more realistic time frame than many action movies would have us believe. I enjoyed the fight between Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Zoe Saldana, especially as they both stretched beforehand rather than just launch into fisticuffs.
I also have no bad words about the actual acting, its hammy in places, quite a few in fact, but that is due to the story and the script - there is only so much an actor can do but if the words coming out of their mouths reek of bacon its a lost cause before they can try.
And this is where I will start my critique, the script writers have been previously responsible for the American High School Football centric series Friday Night Lights, the original comic 'The Losers', and surprisingly the 2007 film Zodiac. With the plethora of comic book movies out there you can understand the pressure to make something new, but the mix of sentiment and action does not blend well, and the characters are not adapted to the world of movies, they are generic and predictable. You have the mouthy computer wiz who is also fairly rubbish when it comes to the ladies (played by Evans), the icy second in command who is constantly on edge, the foreign sniper who does not talk much but has a soft side, the laid back driving/flying expert who keeps a lucky charm on him (a nodding dashboard dog), and finally we have Jeffrey Dean Morgan's character Colonel Clay again a typical leader, slightly roguish but determined and a good leader.
All the actors play their parts well, but they are the typical comic book soldiers, nothing especially brilliant or unique about them.
The prerequisite female presence is in the form of Zoe Saldana (Avatar, Star Trek XI), a volatile and wealthy woman bent on finding and killing Max, the mysterious super villain responsible for the death of her father and destroying The Loser's lives. Zoe is well equipped to handle the action as well as being a seductress, but again her character is so two dimensional you already know why she is so interested in the Losers almost before she arrives on screen.
Despite all this there is one character who out does all the rest on predictability and sheer annoyance factor, and that is Max the so called super villain. Imagine all the cartoon villains you watched as a kid, give them extra fire power and some swear words and you have Max. Unlike most actors given such a role, here I think of Jack Nicholson's Joker, Jason Patric (My Sister's Keeper, Speed 2) has no fun playing the villain, or at least if he is enjoying himself it is not evident on screen. Even his sidekick is neither terrified or in awe of him, and is frankly rather dull. Max is so over the top, but he is not scary, and somebody who can decide to have a person thrown off the top of a building by a nod should at least thrill the audience, and I remained pretty calm.
What really lets the film down is the direction, there are many movies that have predictable characters and plot lines but still remain watchable (Die Hard 2 suffers from bad scripting but still holds together). Sylvain White (Stomp The Yard) is the man in charge here, and he has interlaced the action and banter with oddly shot sex scenes that are not explicit but almost too intimate for this kind of film, yes sex sells but sometimes sexual tension can be enough to keep an audience engaged. The plot is allowed to trudge its way through the motions, from the brutal beginning of mass child murder, which is not as sad as it should be, to the finale showdown between the Losers, a former friend, and super villain Max. The story is not confusing or too intelligent for the viewer, it is predictable at every twist and turn, the budget was obviously not small but White appears to have only been able to make the action effective with it, the rest suffers from a lack of artistry by the director.
Unfortunately this movie plays out like a poorly written comic book, the action scenes are fun but not enough to save the hammy script, and despite a stellar cast (Idris Elba of The Wire and Luther plays the angry second in command) they too cannot save this film from being yet another action movie with no clout.
Thursday 15 September 2011
A Little Bit Of Heaven: good for both a laugh and a cry
If you had asked me yesterday morning before I watched this film and the previous review, Bad Teacher, which one I would enjoy the most I would have said without hesitation Bad Teacher. As you can tell much to my surprise I actually preferred A Little Bit of Heaven, maybe it was the mood I was in or because the story is morally superior to a teacher wanting a boob job, but I laughed out loud more times than I expected.
The story here is Kate Hudson plays Marley, a happy go lucky individual not interested in relationships, just living life to what she believes is the fullest. Then after a trip to the doctor to work out why she is run down and losing weight finds out she has terminal colon cancer. It is quite brave to use this cancer as its not the normal 'chick cancer', it is an aggressive and particularly hard to catch cancer too as it is nothing you can check for lumps for, and they have Kate take the mickey out of herself for getting 'ass cancer'.
She has an outer body experience while having an endoscopy involving Whoopi Goldberg, I quite enjoyed this as its always fun to see Whoopi, and Marley's reaction to seeing her is incredibly real also as though she is meeting her for the first time. From this meeting Marley is told she is dying and is granted three wishes, one to fly, second to win a million dollars, but she cannot come up with a third and so is sent back to consciousness to work it out.
What anybody could guess from the first five minutes of this movie is that her third wish is to fall in love, that actually she wants everything she felt was mundane and not in her game plan such as the house the kids the husband. And so we have Julian, Marley's doctor and the man to bring her love before she leaves this mortal coil. I love Gael Garcia Bernal who plays Doctor Julian Goldstein (a Jewish Mexican), and before watching this film I felt he was becoming trapped in this world of Romantic Comedies having previously starred in Letters to Juliet with Amanda Seyfried. Now however I think his decision to do this film was right, he is dorky and cute, but also serious, and it opens up more roles for him in the mainstream American market. But if you want to see him at his best watch the Motorcycle Diaries.
Back to the film, the relationships between Marley and her friends are funny, sweet, and poignant, especially the pregnant friend not quite being able to deal with awaiting the birth of her second child while her best friend is dying. Lucy Punch plays Marley's artistic best friend Sarah, and she is the most robust of the friendship group when it comes to dealing with the cancer, until the very end of course, the kind of friend I'd hope to be.
To complete Marley's support group we have her parents, her Mother who comes to live with her played by the wonderful Kathy Bates, and her emotionally constipated Father Treat Williams.
This movie ticks along nicely, it has the obvious emotional ups and downs, but it doesn't try to do anything differently, except perhaps having Whoopi Goldberg as a godlike mentor for Marley, and that was why it was enjoyable. No miracle cures are discovered, Marley finds love before the end, her friends don't all cope so well with her illness, and even Peter Dinklage makes an appearance as a dwarf escort. I laughed, I cried, and what was important I think was that I didn't expect too much from the movie, and it did not expect too much from me.
A film to watch if you are in the mood for a weepy, but often laugh out loud funny, couple of hours.
The story here is Kate Hudson plays Marley, a happy go lucky individual not interested in relationships, just living life to what she believes is the fullest. Then after a trip to the doctor to work out why she is run down and losing weight finds out she has terminal colon cancer. It is quite brave to use this cancer as its not the normal 'chick cancer', it is an aggressive and particularly hard to catch cancer too as it is nothing you can check for lumps for, and they have Kate take the mickey out of herself for getting 'ass cancer'.
She has an outer body experience while having an endoscopy involving Whoopi Goldberg, I quite enjoyed this as its always fun to see Whoopi, and Marley's reaction to seeing her is incredibly real also as though she is meeting her for the first time. From this meeting Marley is told she is dying and is granted three wishes, one to fly, second to win a million dollars, but she cannot come up with a third and so is sent back to consciousness to work it out.
What anybody could guess from the first five minutes of this movie is that her third wish is to fall in love, that actually she wants everything she felt was mundane and not in her game plan such as the house the kids the husband. And so we have Julian, Marley's doctor and the man to bring her love before she leaves this mortal coil. I love Gael Garcia Bernal who plays Doctor Julian Goldstein (a Jewish Mexican), and before watching this film I felt he was becoming trapped in this world of Romantic Comedies having previously starred in Letters to Juliet with Amanda Seyfried. Now however I think his decision to do this film was right, he is dorky and cute, but also serious, and it opens up more roles for him in the mainstream American market. But if you want to see him at his best watch the Motorcycle Diaries.
Back to the film, the relationships between Marley and her friends are funny, sweet, and poignant, especially the pregnant friend not quite being able to deal with awaiting the birth of her second child while her best friend is dying. Lucy Punch plays Marley's artistic best friend Sarah, and she is the most robust of the friendship group when it comes to dealing with the cancer, until the very end of course, the kind of friend I'd hope to be.
To complete Marley's support group we have her parents, her Mother who comes to live with her played by the wonderful Kathy Bates, and her emotionally constipated Father Treat Williams.
This movie ticks along nicely, it has the obvious emotional ups and downs, but it doesn't try to do anything differently, except perhaps having Whoopi Goldberg as a godlike mentor for Marley, and that was why it was enjoyable. No miracle cures are discovered, Marley finds love before the end, her friends don't all cope so well with her illness, and even Peter Dinklage makes an appearance as a dwarf escort. I laughed, I cried, and what was important I think was that I didn't expect too much from the movie, and it did not expect too much from me.
A film to watch if you are in the mood for a weepy, but often laugh out loud funny, couple of hours.
Bad Teacher: Rubbish Film
Alright its not THAT bad, but its bad enough.
So we have Cameron Diaz, along with Sandra Bullock and Drew Barrymore, is a Queen of the Romantic Comedy movie, which is probably why she chose to do a film where she is not the struggling heroine, in fact the audience are expected to want her to fail. Where you have a film you are not supposed to like the lead character (or at least their actions) there has to be somebody else to root for, this can be the person out to bring them down, here played by Brit Lucy Punch, or more likely the love interest who is being pushed to the side, the saving grace that is Jason Segel. Genuinely if Jason was not in this film I would have been sorely tempted to turn it off, he provides most of the laugh out loud moments and engages well with Cameron in a fight for best facial expressions.
Cameron is playing a deeply unlikeable character, she is a woman who has spent her life looking for a rich man to keep her, and when she is caught out by said rich man's mother and has to return to her teaching job proves to be such an awful educator she makes the children watch movies every class. That is until she realises she needs ten thousand dollars to get a boob job so she can attract a particularly stupid kind of rich mate, then we see her use and abuse the kids in her class to earn said cash.
Firstly its confusing that such a lack lustre educator got through a college degree and training, but we aren't supposed to think too much about those details, in fact without the highly sexualised content (dry humping for a considerable amount of time) this film could have easily been targeted at the tweenager generation rather than the older teen/young adult. Then you wonder how such a woman with obvious intelligence (she gets the job as teacher and when it becomes a financial incentive to educate the kids expects a much higher level than their age/education provides), could want anything as banal as a life lived off her husband.
Timberlake as her potential love interest plays his role well, he is tedious and soppy, but also another possibly more terrible human being than Cameron's character as he is pro the boob job, then also cheats on his equally soppy, but ruthless) teacher girlfriend played by Lucy Punch with Cameron. Jason Segel is one of the few anti-breast implants, which I loved him for, but is also down to earth and funny as he makes fun of Timberlake and Punch, or even Diaz in his pursuit of her.
So what I liked about this film other than Segel was that Diaz's character does not change a whole lot from start to finish, rather her values adapt better to the environment she has found herself in but her integral character does not distort to become a 'better' person at the finish.
Lessons are learnt and events are tied up, there are a few laughs along the way but overall this film is not great, Cameron and Jason are coasting in these roles, Lucy Punch does very well as the annoying co-worker out to prove what a poor educator Diaz really is, and Timberlake is frankly irritating as the substitute who never seems to leave the school.
If you are a fan of Cameron Diaz or Jason Segel give the film a chance, they are funny and engaging, however do not be surprised if you find yourself bored by the rest or wanting to throw something at Justin Timberlake while he simpers or sings in the most god awful rhymes.
So we have Cameron Diaz, along with Sandra Bullock and Drew Barrymore, is a Queen of the Romantic Comedy movie, which is probably why she chose to do a film where she is not the struggling heroine, in fact the audience are expected to want her to fail. Where you have a film you are not supposed to like the lead character (or at least their actions) there has to be somebody else to root for, this can be the person out to bring them down, here played by Brit Lucy Punch, or more likely the love interest who is being pushed to the side, the saving grace that is Jason Segel. Genuinely if Jason was not in this film I would have been sorely tempted to turn it off, he provides most of the laugh out loud moments and engages well with Cameron in a fight for best facial expressions.
Cameron is playing a deeply unlikeable character, she is a woman who has spent her life looking for a rich man to keep her, and when she is caught out by said rich man's mother and has to return to her teaching job proves to be such an awful educator she makes the children watch movies every class. That is until she realises she needs ten thousand dollars to get a boob job so she can attract a particularly stupid kind of rich mate, then we see her use and abuse the kids in her class to earn said cash.
Firstly its confusing that such a lack lustre educator got through a college degree and training, but we aren't supposed to think too much about those details, in fact without the highly sexualised content (dry humping for a considerable amount of time) this film could have easily been targeted at the tweenager generation rather than the older teen/young adult. Then you wonder how such a woman with obvious intelligence (she gets the job as teacher and when it becomes a financial incentive to educate the kids expects a much higher level than their age/education provides), could want anything as banal as a life lived off her husband.
Timberlake as her potential love interest plays his role well, he is tedious and soppy, but also another possibly more terrible human being than Cameron's character as he is pro the boob job, then also cheats on his equally soppy, but ruthless) teacher girlfriend played by Lucy Punch with Cameron. Jason Segel is one of the few anti-breast implants, which I loved him for, but is also down to earth and funny as he makes fun of Timberlake and Punch, or even Diaz in his pursuit of her.
So what I liked about this film other than Segel was that Diaz's character does not change a whole lot from start to finish, rather her values adapt better to the environment she has found herself in but her integral character does not distort to become a 'better' person at the finish.
Lessons are learnt and events are tied up, there are a few laughs along the way but overall this film is not great, Cameron and Jason are coasting in these roles, Lucy Punch does very well as the annoying co-worker out to prove what a poor educator Diaz really is, and Timberlake is frankly irritating as the substitute who never seems to leave the school.
If you are a fan of Cameron Diaz or Jason Segel give the film a chance, they are funny and engaging, however do not be surprised if you find yourself bored by the rest or wanting to throw something at Justin Timberlake while he simpers or sings in the most god awful rhymes.
Red Riding Hood: Who's attracted to the Big Bad Wolf?
The latest offering from Catherine Hardwicke, who began the Twilight Saga two years ago with an intense and oddly lit film, travels much the same path as the Vampiric love story, only this time she gets to play with wolves.
Here Hardwicke has adapted the classic fairy tale of Red Riding Hood, except Red is now a young woman called Valerie in the bloom of youth and sexuality. The setting is a North American village in the depths of winter, at an unknown time or area, but with the mountain ranges Hardwicke loves so much it is probably somewhere close to Canada. All this is besides the point as the target audience, lovers of the supernatural and teenagers, don't much care for specifics.
The scenery is beautiful in this film, but overused, too many sweeping shots of mountain ranges and you start to become a little bored by the snow, yes, we get it, the village is remote and somewhere in the snow covered forests. It is all meant to build up the tension of this small village being targeted by the big bad wolf, they are alone in their fear until the village priest brings in the enigmatic Gary Oldman and his foreign soldiers (rather like the cheap stunt of using Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood as the wise foreign warrior Hardwicke uses black actors to portray mysterious fighting men who know all about the mythology of the wolf).
The music too is used to pump up the atmosphere, however it is far too similar to Twilight, as is the lighting, in that you feel like you are watching the same movie. Even the 'dangerous' love interest of Peter (possibly a sly reference to Peter and the wolf) has the distinctive Rob Pattinson sweep to his hair. Luckily Amanda Seyfried is a more engaging actress than her contemporary Kristen Stewart so you are at least engaged with her own story. Casting in this film is of rather a high calibre, alongside Oldman we have Julie Christie playing Grandma and Hardwicke favourite Billy Burke as Valerie's father. Peter is played by newcomer Shiloh Fernandez and his rival, wealthy iron worker and Valerie's betrothed Henry, by Max Irons, Jeremy's son.
Both young men do well in their respective roles, however they are not challenging, as said Peter's haircut is similar to Edward Cullen's but this is not the only attribute the two share, both are dark and possibly dangerous, are generally hated by everybody else except the girl, and the girl is entirely unable to love anybody else except them. Max Irons plays the typical boy who loves the girl but will never get her, because there is a dark brooding handsome young man who is just far more interesting.
By far my favourite character is the Grandma, Julie Christie is a fabulous actress and she brings a whole new dimension to the role, you never quite know whether to trust her or not, what her intentions for Valerie are. This is a testament to the abilities of Seyfried as well, you see the film through her eyes so the mistrust of the Grandma comes from Valerie's own misgivings of her eccentric Grandmother living alone on the outskirts of the forest. Gary Oldman too does well as the Wolf Hunter coming in to rid the village of their pest, but this role is such a weak one you wonder how large the pay-check was to entice him to star here.
Billy Burke has a better role here than the disgruntled father he plays in the Twilight Saga (saying that he is the best piece of casting those films have made) and gets to play a more twisted role, and really excelling as the woodsman harbouring the darkest of secrets.
The film attempts to fool the viewer with a series of red herrings, and to be honest I was kept guessing until the end, only one person I was certain would be nothing to do with the wolf and even then I was proved wrong at the finish.
However this is not to say the twists in who or who is not the wolf makes this film entirely engaging, it does not. The atmosphere and environment is all trying too hard to make you feel scared of the big bad wolf, the sexual tension between Valerie and Peter is incredibly fraught and angst-y as though a teenager in the throes of first love has written the script, and it simply is not original enough to be more than okay.
The saving grace of the film is the acting, nobody is lacking in the talent department, and they do their best with the script and story.
It is not that bad of a film, however Hardwicke has lost the light touch she displayed when making Lords of Dogtown or Thirteen, where the scripting and direction feels less restricted and the actors given more reign to play with. After the success of Twilight of course it was tempting to make similar style movie, her budget was bigger so could invest in the special effects (which aren't too bad) and the cast list, however with success comes complacency and rather than push boundaries Red Riding Hood stays within the tweenager supernatural arena, with a little sexual content and some violence, but these are becoming so accepted within movies to find a film that does not rely on sex to sell is the one that is refreshing and more likely to succeed in today's crowded supernatural marketplace.
Here Hardwicke has adapted the classic fairy tale of Red Riding Hood, except Red is now a young woman called Valerie in the bloom of youth and sexuality. The setting is a North American village in the depths of winter, at an unknown time or area, but with the mountain ranges Hardwicke loves so much it is probably somewhere close to Canada. All this is besides the point as the target audience, lovers of the supernatural and teenagers, don't much care for specifics.
The scenery is beautiful in this film, but overused, too many sweeping shots of mountain ranges and you start to become a little bored by the snow, yes, we get it, the village is remote and somewhere in the snow covered forests. It is all meant to build up the tension of this small village being targeted by the big bad wolf, they are alone in their fear until the village priest brings in the enigmatic Gary Oldman and his foreign soldiers (rather like the cheap stunt of using Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood as the wise foreign warrior Hardwicke uses black actors to portray mysterious fighting men who know all about the mythology of the wolf).
The music too is used to pump up the atmosphere, however it is far too similar to Twilight, as is the lighting, in that you feel like you are watching the same movie. Even the 'dangerous' love interest of Peter (possibly a sly reference to Peter and the wolf) has the distinctive Rob Pattinson sweep to his hair. Luckily Amanda Seyfried is a more engaging actress than her contemporary Kristen Stewart so you are at least engaged with her own story. Casting in this film is of rather a high calibre, alongside Oldman we have Julie Christie playing Grandma and Hardwicke favourite Billy Burke as Valerie's father. Peter is played by newcomer Shiloh Fernandez and his rival, wealthy iron worker and Valerie's betrothed Henry, by Max Irons, Jeremy's son.
Both young men do well in their respective roles, however they are not challenging, as said Peter's haircut is similar to Edward Cullen's but this is not the only attribute the two share, both are dark and possibly dangerous, are generally hated by everybody else except the girl, and the girl is entirely unable to love anybody else except them. Max Irons plays the typical boy who loves the girl but will never get her, because there is a dark brooding handsome young man who is just far more interesting.
By far my favourite character is the Grandma, Julie Christie is a fabulous actress and she brings a whole new dimension to the role, you never quite know whether to trust her or not, what her intentions for Valerie are. This is a testament to the abilities of Seyfried as well, you see the film through her eyes so the mistrust of the Grandma comes from Valerie's own misgivings of her eccentric Grandmother living alone on the outskirts of the forest. Gary Oldman too does well as the Wolf Hunter coming in to rid the village of their pest, but this role is such a weak one you wonder how large the pay-check was to entice him to star here.
Billy Burke has a better role here than the disgruntled father he plays in the Twilight Saga (saying that he is the best piece of casting those films have made) and gets to play a more twisted role, and really excelling as the woodsman harbouring the darkest of secrets.
The film attempts to fool the viewer with a series of red herrings, and to be honest I was kept guessing until the end, only one person I was certain would be nothing to do with the wolf and even then I was proved wrong at the finish.
However this is not to say the twists in who or who is not the wolf makes this film entirely engaging, it does not. The atmosphere and environment is all trying too hard to make you feel scared of the big bad wolf, the sexual tension between Valerie and Peter is incredibly fraught and angst-y as though a teenager in the throes of first love has written the script, and it simply is not original enough to be more than okay.
The saving grace of the film is the acting, nobody is lacking in the talent department, and they do their best with the script and story.
It is not that bad of a film, however Hardwicke has lost the light touch she displayed when making Lords of Dogtown or Thirteen, where the scripting and direction feels less restricted and the actors given more reign to play with. After the success of Twilight of course it was tempting to make similar style movie, her budget was bigger so could invest in the special effects (which aren't too bad) and the cast list, however with success comes complacency and rather than push boundaries Red Riding Hood stays within the tweenager supernatural arena, with a little sexual content and some violence, but these are becoming so accepted within movies to find a film that does not rely on sex to sell is the one that is refreshing and more likely to succeed in today's crowded supernatural marketplace.
Wednesday 31 August 2011
Jane Eyre: A Tale Of Two Adaptations
I would like to think I am a bit of an expert when it comes to Jane Eyre, as would my sister, one of the things we have in common is that one of our favourite books is Charlotte Brontë's classic tale of the young governess who falls for her stoic employer.
Now there have been a total of ten (yes ten) adaptations of this novel since 1934, most famous of which is probably the 1944 version starring Orson Welles who put in a powerful and erratic performance as Rochester. This is going to be a review of the latest film version with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, using the TV serial from 2006 starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens as the comparative piece.
This years film begins unusually for Jane Eyre in the middle of the story, we see Jane distraught, wandering the moors, eventually being picked up by Jamie Bell and taken into his home. In previous versions the early story of Jane has been left out completely, focusing on the Rochester part, but this film like the mini series of 2006 goes back to Jane's childhood, how she came to be so even tempered and to have the demeanour and feeling that unimportant is just her place in the world. For Mia's Jane her story is told through a series of flashbacks as she sits in St John's (Bell) kitchen with his sisters. For those who know the tale of Miss Eyre this is not too much of a problem, it does not affect the main plot its just told in a slightly different order. You can understand why the film is beginning in the midst of Jane's spiral of depression, its exciting for the newcomer to find out what has brought her to this point. In the mini series we began at the beginning so to speak, and for a four hour serial this is possible because you can be detailed in the retelling, and in fact the series is highly successful in this regard as it leaves hardly any detail out.
What I missed in the film was a few crucial details, part of the novel and the series I loved was the revelation that Jane has family after all, she belongs to another group of people. They leave this out of the film, substituting it for Jane creating the same family with money, which is sad, but perhaps done so to avoid the 'ick' factor when it comes to St John asking Jane to accompany him to foreign parts as his wife, when in actual fact from the novel we know them to be related by blood.
However the film does get the most crucial part right, and that is the casting of Jane and Rochester. If ever a novel was dependant on characterisation it is in Jane Eyre, you have to become absorbed in the protagonist and the object of their affection otherwise the plot is pointless. Many books, and a great deal more movies, suffer from all action no character, I believe the power behind Stephanie Meyer's Twilight Saga is not the fact it concerns a Vampire romance but because you are seeing through the eyes of the girl falling in love with the dangerous man, remarkably similar to Jane Eyre's tale, though of course Rochester is no bloodsucker.
Mia Wasikowska (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) is physically the ideal Jane, she is tiny in proportions and has quite a plain sort of face, obviously they made her look washed out but she does not have striking features to distract the viewer or to make Fassbender (X-Men: First Class) stop in his tracks because of her beauty. For an Australian Mia does an impressive job with the accent, she slips slightly from being Northern to standard BBC English but with her mix of locations in her lifetime its something the audience can accept. She also embodies the innocence and the frail nature of Jane, who ahs struggled her entire life but thinks nothing of it, has happiness snatched from her but remains true to her own standards. I call Jane frail but she is not, physically yes but mentally she has had strength since childhood, strength to forgive those who have wronged her, but also the power to leave a situation she does not agree with when she could quite easily stay and be happy.
Fassbender too embodies Rochester's power, he has strength in physical terms but comparatively with regards to Jane he is incredibly weak. There is a point in the story where the audience realises it is not Rochester who has the power in this relationship but Jane. Unlike Toby Stephens' portrayal of the tortured Master there is no humour to him, and it is a failing due to time constraint that we cannot empathise more with his own past mistakes and understand why such a creature as Jane could possibly tempt him while beauty and wealth seek his attention. The bond between Rochester and his ward Adele is also neglected, whereas in the series time is devoted to showing the three of them spending time together, the film concentrates on Adele as a nuisance and to only concentrating on the conversations between Jane and Edward.
Fassbender is frightening when angry and convincing when announcing his feelings for Jane, he does very well, and it is a shame he could not be a more teasing version of Rochester as Toby Stephens was able to be in the series.
Another character who is portrayed well is the deeply religious and inscrutable St John Rivers, the clergyman who takes Jane in from the cold after she escapes Thornfield and her beloved Edward. Jamie Bell is a fine actor who seems to pick the wrong films, hats off to anybody who liked Jumper, but here his abilities are not overcast by a poor plot or fellow cast members and so we see a man finally where for so many years we have only seen Billy Elliot. Brontë describes St John as being like a Greek statue, godlike in appearance but cold and aloof like stone. Meyers in the Twilight Saga describes her own Edward as looking like a Greek god, so you wonder whether Brontë is responsible for a little more than just Edward Rochester fans, the twentieth century Vampire does appear to resemble both clergyman and rich gentleman, with a little of the supernatural thrown in.
Bell is a very good St John, his purpose and religious nature are presented well and no audience member could fail in their realisation that although Jane is unwilling he wants to be more than a brother to her.
This is a good film, and fans of the novel will not be disappointed, however neither will they be overwhelmed with love for it. In 2006 the partnership of Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens was magical, she was strong and he was slightly scary, but both passionate and perfect as Jane and Rochester. The story was well thought out and they had four hours to clearly build and explain the story of Jane Eyre. Cary Fukunaga had just under two hours and luckily the sacrifices are not dramatic enough to affect the nature of the story, the morals are intact and the cast are ideal.
Though not perfect, I hope this film brings Charlotte Brontë a new legion of readers, and a new generation of women will see what it is to be lowly but strong in this world.
Now there have been a total of ten (yes ten) adaptations of this novel since 1934, most famous of which is probably the 1944 version starring Orson Welles who put in a powerful and erratic performance as Rochester. This is going to be a review of the latest film version with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender, using the TV serial from 2006 starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens as the comparative piece.
This years film begins unusually for Jane Eyre in the middle of the story, we see Jane distraught, wandering the moors, eventually being picked up by Jamie Bell and taken into his home. In previous versions the early story of Jane has been left out completely, focusing on the Rochester part, but this film like the mini series of 2006 goes back to Jane's childhood, how she came to be so even tempered and to have the demeanour and feeling that unimportant is just her place in the world. For Mia's Jane her story is told through a series of flashbacks as she sits in St John's (Bell) kitchen with his sisters. For those who know the tale of Miss Eyre this is not too much of a problem, it does not affect the main plot its just told in a slightly different order. You can understand why the film is beginning in the midst of Jane's spiral of depression, its exciting for the newcomer to find out what has brought her to this point. In the mini series we began at the beginning so to speak, and for a four hour serial this is possible because you can be detailed in the retelling, and in fact the series is highly successful in this regard as it leaves hardly any detail out.
What I missed in the film was a few crucial details, part of the novel and the series I loved was the revelation that Jane has family after all, she belongs to another group of people. They leave this out of the film, substituting it for Jane creating the same family with money, which is sad, but perhaps done so to avoid the 'ick' factor when it comes to St John asking Jane to accompany him to foreign parts as his wife, when in actual fact from the novel we know them to be related by blood.
However the film does get the most crucial part right, and that is the casting of Jane and Rochester. If ever a novel was dependant on characterisation it is in Jane Eyre, you have to become absorbed in the protagonist and the object of their affection otherwise the plot is pointless. Many books, and a great deal more movies, suffer from all action no character, I believe the power behind Stephanie Meyer's Twilight Saga is not the fact it concerns a Vampire romance but because you are seeing through the eyes of the girl falling in love with the dangerous man, remarkably similar to Jane Eyre's tale, though of course Rochester is no bloodsucker.
Mia Wasikowska (Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) is physically the ideal Jane, she is tiny in proportions and has quite a plain sort of face, obviously they made her look washed out but she does not have striking features to distract the viewer or to make Fassbender (X-Men: First Class) stop in his tracks because of her beauty. For an Australian Mia does an impressive job with the accent, she slips slightly from being Northern to standard BBC English but with her mix of locations in her lifetime its something the audience can accept. She also embodies the innocence and the frail nature of Jane, who ahs struggled her entire life but thinks nothing of it, has happiness snatched from her but remains true to her own standards. I call Jane frail but she is not, physically yes but mentally she has had strength since childhood, strength to forgive those who have wronged her, but also the power to leave a situation she does not agree with when she could quite easily stay and be happy.
Fassbender too embodies Rochester's power, he has strength in physical terms but comparatively with regards to Jane he is incredibly weak. There is a point in the story where the audience realises it is not Rochester who has the power in this relationship but Jane. Unlike Toby Stephens' portrayal of the tortured Master there is no humour to him, and it is a failing due to time constraint that we cannot empathise more with his own past mistakes and understand why such a creature as Jane could possibly tempt him while beauty and wealth seek his attention. The bond between Rochester and his ward Adele is also neglected, whereas in the series time is devoted to showing the three of them spending time together, the film concentrates on Adele as a nuisance and to only concentrating on the conversations between Jane and Edward.
Fassbender is frightening when angry and convincing when announcing his feelings for Jane, he does very well, and it is a shame he could not be a more teasing version of Rochester as Toby Stephens was able to be in the series.
Another character who is portrayed well is the deeply religious and inscrutable St John Rivers, the clergyman who takes Jane in from the cold after she escapes Thornfield and her beloved Edward. Jamie Bell is a fine actor who seems to pick the wrong films, hats off to anybody who liked Jumper, but here his abilities are not overcast by a poor plot or fellow cast members and so we see a man finally where for so many years we have only seen Billy Elliot. Brontë describes St John as being like a Greek statue, godlike in appearance but cold and aloof like stone. Meyers in the Twilight Saga describes her own Edward as looking like a Greek god, so you wonder whether Brontë is responsible for a little more than just Edward Rochester fans, the twentieth century Vampire does appear to resemble both clergyman and rich gentleman, with a little of the supernatural thrown in.
Bell is a very good St John, his purpose and religious nature are presented well and no audience member could fail in their realisation that although Jane is unwilling he wants to be more than a brother to her.
This is a good film, and fans of the novel will not be disappointed, however neither will they be overwhelmed with love for it. In 2006 the partnership of Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens was magical, she was strong and he was slightly scary, but both passionate and perfect as Jane and Rochester. The story was well thought out and they had four hours to clearly build and explain the story of Jane Eyre. Cary Fukunaga had just under two hours and luckily the sacrifices are not dramatic enough to affect the nature of the story, the morals are intact and the cast are ideal.
Though not perfect, I hope this film brings Charlotte Brontë a new legion of readers, and a new generation of women will see what it is to be lowly but strong in this world.
Saturday 27 August 2011
POTC On Stranger Tides: Yup definitely strange
You have to wonder what possessed Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush to agree to make yet another Pirates of the Caribbean movie, I am one of the few who genuinely enjoyed the last two movies and that was because I have a love for mythology and the weird. They say in interviews its because the plots are still fun, but honestly I believe that fat paycheck and the opportunity to wear lots of eye make up probably makes up eighty percent of the decision making process.
As to my own opinion of the supposed fun plot line? It is not that much fun. If this had been the only Pirates movie made, then yes, tons of fun, you have Blackbeard, the Spanish Navy, and the British Navy all on the hunt for the Fountain of Youth using Jack Sparrow in one form or another in their efforts. There is magic and mermaids, swashbuckling and sword fighting aplenty, a romance, and even a monkey.
However this is the fourth in the series, a standalone in that it does not encompass the stories or characters of the trilogy, excepting Sparrow, Gibbs, and Barbossa, but nevertheless using the music and plot features of the previous three movies. This is very annoying.
To explain, the film might as well have been the very first in the series, there is Jack looking for his ship, an astounding and theatrical escape from many of the Kings finest, a sword fight across wooden beams, and eventually a chase across the Caribbean with the pirates in the lead and the British Navy not far behind. Very formulaic by this point, and unfortunately set to exactly the same musical score as Curse of the Black Pearl, supremely irritating.
There is a redeeming feature that made it almost worth sitting through over two hours of pirate action, and that is the involvement of the Mermaids. The action scenes with the attack and the subsequent romance between the mermaid and missionary are both benefited by the improvements in special effects and my own soft side, can't resist a love story. The young Brit playing Phillip the Missionary is a fine actor by the name of Sam Claflin who has starred in both Any Human Heart and Pillars of the Earth with Captain America's Hayley Atwell. He is a better actor than Orlando Bloom but the story of the man and the mermaid is secondary to the plot, whereas Bloom and Knightley's love affair fueled the progress of the story of the Trilogy.
They attempt in this film to have another love story, and that is between Depp and Cruz. It is mildly amusing the idea that he seduced her years ago in a Convent where she was about to take her orders, but the idea Jack Sparrow is in love? No thank-you. Cruz is a good actress but knowing a lot of her screen time is actually performed by body doubles due to pregnancy makes for distracted viewing as I attempted to discern between actress and doppelganger. The ending was typical Jack, and back to the spirit of the series rather than just copying previous scripts, and I am pleased to say I enjoyed it.
Regrettably I also was happy at the end because it was the end, my 140 minutes endurance test over, and a feeling of relief that I did not spend any money only time on this film.
I can't criticise the acting in this film, in fact there are a couple of well placed cameos from acting royalty, but this film is not a triumph of the Disney franchise. Curse of the Black Pearl was such a hit with young and old alike because it embodied the old pirate movies of the days of Errol Flynn, the spirit of adventure and old fashioned comedy and romance so lacking in films of recent times. Now, as companies do when they have a success, the Pirates franchise has been sucked dry, the spirit has waned and audiences lacklustre in their opinions. Yes it attracts stars but I have to say even my beloved Johnny Depp was beginning to grate on me.
You can have too much of a good thing, and many fans would say the first film is enough. I disagree and say the trilogy was worth it, but a fourth and even a rumoured fifth pirate movie? Too much.
If you feel like watching a re-hashed Curse of the Black Pearl with Blackbeard the most notorious of pirates and some murderous mermaids watch this film. If you aren't fussed either way, stay clear, it will only annoy you.
As to my own opinion of the supposed fun plot line? It is not that much fun. If this had been the only Pirates movie made, then yes, tons of fun, you have Blackbeard, the Spanish Navy, and the British Navy all on the hunt for the Fountain of Youth using Jack Sparrow in one form or another in their efforts. There is magic and mermaids, swashbuckling and sword fighting aplenty, a romance, and even a monkey.
However this is the fourth in the series, a standalone in that it does not encompass the stories or characters of the trilogy, excepting Sparrow, Gibbs, and Barbossa, but nevertheless using the music and plot features of the previous three movies. This is very annoying.
To explain, the film might as well have been the very first in the series, there is Jack looking for his ship, an astounding and theatrical escape from many of the Kings finest, a sword fight across wooden beams, and eventually a chase across the Caribbean with the pirates in the lead and the British Navy not far behind. Very formulaic by this point, and unfortunately set to exactly the same musical score as Curse of the Black Pearl, supremely irritating.
There is a redeeming feature that made it almost worth sitting through over two hours of pirate action, and that is the involvement of the Mermaids. The action scenes with the attack and the subsequent romance between the mermaid and missionary are both benefited by the improvements in special effects and my own soft side, can't resist a love story. The young Brit playing Phillip the Missionary is a fine actor by the name of Sam Claflin who has starred in both Any Human Heart and Pillars of the Earth with Captain America's Hayley Atwell. He is a better actor than Orlando Bloom but the story of the man and the mermaid is secondary to the plot, whereas Bloom and Knightley's love affair fueled the progress of the story of the Trilogy.
They attempt in this film to have another love story, and that is between Depp and Cruz. It is mildly amusing the idea that he seduced her years ago in a Convent where she was about to take her orders, but the idea Jack Sparrow is in love? No thank-you. Cruz is a good actress but knowing a lot of her screen time is actually performed by body doubles due to pregnancy makes for distracted viewing as I attempted to discern between actress and doppelganger. The ending was typical Jack, and back to the spirit of the series rather than just copying previous scripts, and I am pleased to say I enjoyed it.
Regrettably I also was happy at the end because it was the end, my 140 minutes endurance test over, and a feeling of relief that I did not spend any money only time on this film.
I can't criticise the acting in this film, in fact there are a couple of well placed cameos from acting royalty, but this film is not a triumph of the Disney franchise. Curse of the Black Pearl was such a hit with young and old alike because it embodied the old pirate movies of the days of Errol Flynn, the spirit of adventure and old fashioned comedy and romance so lacking in films of recent times. Now, as companies do when they have a success, the Pirates franchise has been sucked dry, the spirit has waned and audiences lacklustre in their opinions. Yes it attracts stars but I have to say even my beloved Johnny Depp was beginning to grate on me.
You can have too much of a good thing, and many fans would say the first film is enough. I disagree and say the trilogy was worth it, but a fourth and even a rumoured fifth pirate movie? Too much.
If you feel like watching a re-hashed Curse of the Black Pearl with Blackbeard the most notorious of pirates and some murderous mermaids watch this film. If you aren't fussed either way, stay clear, it will only annoy you.
Monday 22 August 2011
Black Swan: It's Ballet with a rather violent twist
I am finally getting around to seeing all the films I wanted to when they came out at the cinema, but not being a proper bona fide film reviewer I have to wait till there are several I want to see and go on a Blockbuster binge.
Now comes the turn of Black Swan to go under my rather rose tinted microscope, I was itching to see this and then it won a whole bunch of awards, many friends saw it and had mixed reviews (one friend is a prude though so her negativity was to be expected), so last night when I put the DVD in the player I had lowered my expectations.
The film is centred around ballerina Nina Sayers who has been with her present company for many years but relegated to the sidelines as the prima-ballerina Beth (played with acidity by Winona Ryder) took centre stage in all productions. Now with the 'retirement' of Beth the director Thomas (Vincent Cassel) has decided to strip down the most famous of all ballets Swan Lake and cast a new lead, eventually casting innocent Nina who is perfect for the fragile white swan but in her efforts to encapsulate the black swan and achieve perfection begins to lose her mind. Nina is faced with an overprotective mother, competitive fellow dancers, an egotistical director, and a new dancer who appears to embody the black swan played by Mila Kunis. As she struggles to achieve perfection Nina begins self-harming, seeing her image in the people around her, and to have wild hallucinations, culminating in a violent ending where you the audience are not sure what is truth or delusion any longer.
As with The King's Speech I believe the Oscars and BAFTA's got it spot on with their awards, Natalie Portman thoroughly deserves her Best Actress credit as it was a performance that involved not only being sweet innocent and fragile, but also violent, passionate, strung out on drugs, and of course a convincing a ballerina. I have heard ballerina's saying how they could tell which was Natalie and which was a real ballerina but I honestly could not, and any thoughts I had of trying to distinguish were lost in my captivation of the plot and with her acting. Natalie became Nina, and it is hard to not wonder if any true ballerina's have witnessed or suffered their own breakdown from the pressures of the business.
Mila Kunis did incredibly well as Lily, Nina's rival but also an attempted friend, she is an outsider coming in from the West Coast and enchanting Thomas the director with her natural way of dancing as opposed to Nina's precise and correct form. Kunis is of course known for That 70's Show and being the voice of Meg Griffin, this is the first time I have seen her in a serious and dramatic role where she can show her own abilities alongside Portman in the dancing arena. Both ladies have been heard to say it was so great to finish Black Swan purely so they could eat again, physically I winced as the rib cages showed through the skin, especially during one scene of physiotherapy for Nina.
Their director Thomas is played with aplomb by Cassel (Eastern Promises) as he struggles with turning Nina into his idea of a perfect dancer, but also displaying the arrogance and artistic temperament shown in many documentaries of any dance company. You cannot hate Thomas, and he isn't designed to be hated, in fact nobody is the 'enemy', but he isn't a likeable man as he uses sex to improve Nina's performance of the black swan. Thomas does provide the wisest advice to Nina though, saying that the only person in her way is herself.
And this is what the film is truly all about, that nothing is actually in Nina's way except her own boundaries she has imposed. Slowly, through the breaking down of her mentality, she removes some of these boundaries as when she throws out the soft toys that cover every inch of her too pink room, forcing maturity upon herself and removing her reliance on her overbearing mother who has kept Nina in cotton wool.
Darren Aronofsky is not a man who takes the easy route in film-making, his previous works include the horrific but beautiful Requiem For a Dream, 2008's critically acclaimed The Wrestler, and the utterly bizarre and confusing The Fountain which nevertheless made me weep like a child.
Black Swan is a more violent film than I was expecting, the graphic visuals are convincing, the scenes where Nina becomes the black swan made me grab a cushion, but it fits with Aronofsky's previous works. He is a director that does not deviate from his message to bring a happy Hollywood ending, and although the film may seem to be a crazy ride it is held together with firm hands guiding it through the tumultuous moods and spiralling of Nina's mind being unwound.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, and though my face was probably a mask of horror at many points with the cushion close by just in case the visuals became a little too convincing, it is a beautifully made film with a convincing cast. The plot itself is convincing as there cannot be any profession out there, especially in the business of show, that a person has not become so overwhelmed that they have broken down in their efforts to achieve perfection. I can understand why the ballet world were, and still are, unconvinced by this film as to them it probably shows a negative side to their beautiful façade, however knowing the hard work it takes to become a ballerina would I hope make audiences want to see a real production of Swan Lake.
The film has only one negative for me and that is it does take for granted the audience's prior knowledge of the ballet world, the plot of swan lake is revealed almost halfway through and this has such a bearing on the unravelling of Nina that you feel a short synopsis of the ballet would have been helpful to those going in blind so to speak. Luckily I have seen the ballet, and I love going to see any production because ballerina's are the most beautiful kinds of athletes, who wants to see an overpaid fop nudge a football on a patch of grass when you can see a woman perform thirty two pirouettes without stopping and then carry on dancing with her partner?
I recommend this film to those open to seeing a girl come apart at the seams, a world of competition and beauty, and Portman in one of her greatest performances to date.
Sunday 21 August 2011
Source Code: Spoilers cos I can't review this without them
Please Please PLEASE do not read this review unless you have already seen Source Code, do not plan on ever seeing it, or are quite happy to have the end completely ruined before watching.
I'm serious.
OK I think I can get on with the review now.
Source Code is proving a dilemma, just minutes after watching it I'm writing this review because I know if I leave it until the morning the feelings it has provoked won't be so acute. In explanation those feelings are annoyance, exasperation, and not a little disappointment. And it was all going so well...
As you should know having seen the film Source Code is a computer/intelligence system that enables access to a persons last eight minutes of memories, however to use these effectively the person taking over these memories have to be a human computer, and to be that they need to be dead or dying themselves. So here we introduce Jake Gyllenhaal's character Captain Colter Stevens, a helicopter pilot whose last memories are of serving in Afghanistan, service that is later revealed to have killed him in body but not in mind...if that makes a lick of sense. His brain has been hooked up to the Source Code system and is being used to take the place of a History Teacher called Sean Fentress whose companion on a doomed train heading to Chicago is Michelle Monaghan, a fellow teacher called Christina.
The film begins well, Jake is just as confused as the rest of us as to what Source Code is, how he can be on a train that is exploding one minute and back to eight minutes previously as though somebody keeps hitting the reset button. Michelle is charming as she tries to cope with her companions erratic behaviour as he punches strangers, searches their bags, and effectively becomes a racial profiler at one point chasing an Arabic looking man convinced he is the perpetrator of the soon to be exploding bomb. Michelle Monaghan is a very good actress, always sidelined she never fails to shine, see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for perhaps her best performance to date. In fact just watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang as it's a great movie.
What I loved was that the action did not overwhelm the plot, yes the train exploded several times but this was almost skipped over as though it was inconsequential to the bigger picture, and to the people in charge of the Source Code experiment it was. These hundreds of people did not matter, it was the later bomb they were trying to prevent. I have to be honest I did see the guy coming off the train who 'accidentally' leaves his wallet behind and think 'bet its him', but this did not matter as it was Jake you focused on, feeling so bad when he messed up and looked like a thug or a racist to Christina.
I also enjoyed the relationship that slowly developed between Goodwin, played by Vera Farmiga (Up In The Air), who you see on a computer monitor talking to Jake but never see what she sees until almost the very end when it is revealed she is reading what his thoughts are projecting like a paraplegic who cannot communicate except through specialised computer programmes.
Jake realising he is dead after researching himself while in the Source Code program is a turning point for the character and for the movie, there is no longer any hope that he and Christina could be together or that she can be saved, and so Jake just wants to work to find the bomber and create the best ending he can for the train. The idea of the terrorist being a local who is disenchanted with life and wanting to incite revolution is horribly close to reality at this present time; Norway now faces the prosecution of their own home grown terrorist who tried to achieve exactly the same ideas as this character had through a bomb and mass murder. Unfortunately real life has made this film that much more poignant and relevant despite its fantastical premise.
Now the fantastical element is intriguing, already we have seen programmes play with the idea that our final thoughts are not severed simply by the stopping of our hearts. Doctor Who was quite effective in its fourth series of the tenth doctor (David Tennant) in the use of a computer chip that records the brain waves in a space suit and so even after death the memory persists for a short time. I was told when I was young when stating that decapitation would be the best way to depart this mortal coil that our bodies are not dissimilar to chickens and even after severance the synapses keep sparking. So as you can tell I was not immediately poo-pooing the idea that a persons memory could linger, thus this film made some sort of sense despite its blown up proportions. This is probably thanks to the direction of Duncan Jones (son of David Bowie and director of Moon), it is understated and concentrates heavily on the relationships forming between our hero and the two women on opposite sides of reality.
I came to the point where Jake had saved the day; the authorities had caught the terrorist about to blow up Chicago in real time and our hero is back in the Source Code courtesy of Goodwin, feeling content and happily surprised that this Hollywood blockbuster was going to end on a relatively realistic note, no cheesy Happy Endings thank god! And then disaster, Goodwin does not turn Jake's life support off from his mangled body (well, torso and head), he continues on after creating such a happy end for the train passengers in the body of this History teacher. It is so sad that they did not have the guts to end this film like it should have, you cannot put through the entire film the message that this is NOT time-travel, we are not saving these hundred people we are preventing disaster for thousands. It was a gutsy non Hollywood message, but then Jake survives confusingly in the body of this teacher, who is now going to have his own fairytale ending with Monaghan? It begs many questions, one of which is what happened to the original occupier of this body? another is does this new reality run parallel to the original we have just spent eighty minutes watching, or has it taken over?
Lets just say I'm frustrated by the ending, as I am with many American creations, because they don't have the balls to create tragedy. Yes it would have been so sad that this train of people died, that Jake and Michelle never got the chance to know each other in reality, but it also would have been an exceptional showcase of human nature. Goodwin showed she would not let another human being suffer and not be allowed the basic right to die when our bodies have failed us, Christina showed compassion and understanding in the most extreme circumstances toward a friend, and Sean/Colter showed determination in the face of adversity, for even though he believed they were all dead anyway he wanted this train of disgruntled passengers to be allowed a happy end.
That's how Source Code should have ended.
I hope you did enjoy the film, and of course if you have a different take or understanding of the ending feel free to post your comments, but I am so disappointed by the end that the four stars that were glittering in my minds eye through ninety percent of this film have dropped by a star, because despite the ending the rest of the film is well cast, directed with assurance, and really rather good.
I'm serious.
OK I think I can get on with the review now.
Source Code is proving a dilemma, just minutes after watching it I'm writing this review because I know if I leave it until the morning the feelings it has provoked won't be so acute. In explanation those feelings are annoyance, exasperation, and not a little disappointment. And it was all going so well...
As you should know having seen the film Source Code is a computer/intelligence system that enables access to a persons last eight minutes of memories, however to use these effectively the person taking over these memories have to be a human computer, and to be that they need to be dead or dying themselves. So here we introduce Jake Gyllenhaal's character Captain Colter Stevens, a helicopter pilot whose last memories are of serving in Afghanistan, service that is later revealed to have killed him in body but not in mind...if that makes a lick of sense. His brain has been hooked up to the Source Code system and is being used to take the place of a History Teacher called Sean Fentress whose companion on a doomed train heading to Chicago is Michelle Monaghan, a fellow teacher called Christina.
The film begins well, Jake is just as confused as the rest of us as to what Source Code is, how he can be on a train that is exploding one minute and back to eight minutes previously as though somebody keeps hitting the reset button. Michelle is charming as she tries to cope with her companions erratic behaviour as he punches strangers, searches their bags, and effectively becomes a racial profiler at one point chasing an Arabic looking man convinced he is the perpetrator of the soon to be exploding bomb. Michelle Monaghan is a very good actress, always sidelined she never fails to shine, see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for perhaps her best performance to date. In fact just watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang as it's a great movie.
What I loved was that the action did not overwhelm the plot, yes the train exploded several times but this was almost skipped over as though it was inconsequential to the bigger picture, and to the people in charge of the Source Code experiment it was. These hundreds of people did not matter, it was the later bomb they were trying to prevent. I have to be honest I did see the guy coming off the train who 'accidentally' leaves his wallet behind and think 'bet its him', but this did not matter as it was Jake you focused on, feeling so bad when he messed up and looked like a thug or a racist to Christina.
I also enjoyed the relationship that slowly developed between Goodwin, played by Vera Farmiga (Up In The Air), who you see on a computer monitor talking to Jake but never see what she sees until almost the very end when it is revealed she is reading what his thoughts are projecting like a paraplegic who cannot communicate except through specialised computer programmes.
Jake realising he is dead after researching himself while in the Source Code program is a turning point for the character and for the movie, there is no longer any hope that he and Christina could be together or that she can be saved, and so Jake just wants to work to find the bomber and create the best ending he can for the train. The idea of the terrorist being a local who is disenchanted with life and wanting to incite revolution is horribly close to reality at this present time; Norway now faces the prosecution of their own home grown terrorist who tried to achieve exactly the same ideas as this character had through a bomb and mass murder. Unfortunately real life has made this film that much more poignant and relevant despite its fantastical premise.
Now the fantastical element is intriguing, already we have seen programmes play with the idea that our final thoughts are not severed simply by the stopping of our hearts. Doctor Who was quite effective in its fourth series of the tenth doctor (David Tennant) in the use of a computer chip that records the brain waves in a space suit and so even after death the memory persists for a short time. I was told when I was young when stating that decapitation would be the best way to depart this mortal coil that our bodies are not dissimilar to chickens and even after severance the synapses keep sparking. So as you can tell I was not immediately poo-pooing the idea that a persons memory could linger, thus this film made some sort of sense despite its blown up proportions. This is probably thanks to the direction of Duncan Jones (son of David Bowie and director of Moon), it is understated and concentrates heavily on the relationships forming between our hero and the two women on opposite sides of reality.
I came to the point where Jake had saved the day; the authorities had caught the terrorist about to blow up Chicago in real time and our hero is back in the Source Code courtesy of Goodwin, feeling content and happily surprised that this Hollywood blockbuster was going to end on a relatively realistic note, no cheesy Happy Endings thank god! And then disaster, Goodwin does not turn Jake's life support off from his mangled body (well, torso and head), he continues on after creating such a happy end for the train passengers in the body of this History teacher. It is so sad that they did not have the guts to end this film like it should have, you cannot put through the entire film the message that this is NOT time-travel, we are not saving these hundred people we are preventing disaster for thousands. It was a gutsy non Hollywood message, but then Jake survives confusingly in the body of this teacher, who is now going to have his own fairytale ending with Monaghan? It begs many questions, one of which is what happened to the original occupier of this body? another is does this new reality run parallel to the original we have just spent eighty minutes watching, or has it taken over?
Lets just say I'm frustrated by the ending, as I am with many American creations, because they don't have the balls to create tragedy. Yes it would have been so sad that this train of people died, that Jake and Michelle never got the chance to know each other in reality, but it also would have been an exceptional showcase of human nature. Goodwin showed she would not let another human being suffer and not be allowed the basic right to die when our bodies have failed us, Christina showed compassion and understanding in the most extreme circumstances toward a friend, and Sean/Colter showed determination in the face of adversity, for even though he believed they were all dead anyway he wanted this train of disgruntled passengers to be allowed a happy end.
That's how Source Code should have ended.
I hope you did enjoy the film, and of course if you have a different take or understanding of the ending feel free to post your comments, but I am so disappointed by the end that the four stars that were glittering in my minds eye through ninety percent of this film have dropped by a star, because despite the ending the rest of the film is well cast, directed with assurance, and really rather good.
Monday 15 August 2011
Captain America: Oh Captain My Captain!
I have been in Marvel Heaven this year, first Thor, then X-Men: First Class, now Captain America.
All three have been, in my opinion, rather marvellous (excuse the pun) and ideally cast and directed. At the helm of Captain America is the steady hand of Joe Johnston, the man responsible for the classics Honey I Shrunk The Kids and Jumanji, and more recently Benicio Del Toro's Wolfman (I have not seen it but Empire gives it 2* which isn't encouraging). With his last film getting such a poor reception it is good to see Johnston back on form, perhaps the more family friendly movie is really his genre, Jumanji remains one of my favourite all time movies and Captain America will definitely be sitting on my shelf at some point.
Intriguingly for the Marvel world Steve Rogers (our intrepid Captain) is played by the gorgeous Chris Evans, who fans of the genre would recognise as Johnny Storm of the Fantastic Four double released a few years ago. Now Fantastic Four were okay movies, not the greatest but then Marvel had less control back then, and in fact the best piece of casting and performance came from Mr Evans himself who was a cocky good looking action man. There is a marked difference between Johnny Storm and Captain America and it is a testament to Chris that you won't ever get the two mixed up, he has grown into a fine actor, personally I have had belief in his acting abilities (and maybe a minor crush too) since I saw Cellular about six years ago, then he proved his worth in 2007 in Danny Boyle's space odditiy Sunshine.
Captain America follows the tale of Steve Rogers, a skinny but eager young man who hates bullies but has not physique or health to stand up to them for long. It is 1942 and he has tried five times to join the army and the fight against Hitler, on his last attempt he catches the eye of a German scientist called Erskine 9Stanely Tucci) who has a top secret 'super soldier' mission that Rogers is perfect for, and Erskine takes him under his wing. However once he becomes Captain America tragedy strikes and the plan is abandoned in favour for Rogers to sell bonds to aid the war effort, staying safe way behind the front line, a propaganda machine. This all changes when he is informed his best friend Bucky has been taken by the Nazis, prompting Captain America to take his true form at last and become the man he always wanted to be.
For the casting of Captain America I heartily approve of Chris Evans, from the skinny (wonders of technology folks) lad desperate to join up and stop the bullies in Europe, to the beefcake storming Hugo Weaving's Nazi stronghold single handedly and saving hundreds of men. Steve Rogers embodied the all American spirit, the arrogance of the States that any individual could go in and beat up Hitler, but also the can-do spirit of a nation.
This film, as all the latest Marvels, have attracted a high calibre of actor, and here we have Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, and Hugo Weaving. Jones and Tucci are the good guys, an army Colonel and a scientist, Weaving is a Nazi super-villain by the name of Johann Schmidt, aka Red Skull.
Jones is of course a believable and funny Colonel, he can do funny and also be taken dead seriously so he is the perfect choice. Tucci has wit and charm as always, he is one of my favourite actors because of his versatility, and you really believe in the relationship between this German scientist and his skinny good hearted protégé.
Weaving is on fine form as an obsessed power hungry Nazi who was Erskine's first attempt with his super-hero serum, and the results show that Schmidt was not the ideal candidate because as Erskine puts it "good becomes great, bad becomes worse". Obviously the side effects affected Schmidt on a cellular level as his face it transpires is not his true appearance.
It will not be surprising to those who read this blog that I loved this film, it is well cast (with a minor glitch in Cooper's American accent) with a plot to really get behind, defeating the Nazi psycho bent on destroying the world world and bringing it under his dominion with weaponry from another realm. The relationships are well represented with the bonds of friendship, paternal love, and fledgling romance amidst the guns and fire power.
I do not know if this beats Thor, because I adored that film, but both this year have competed in beefcake lead, talented and high class casting, and a focus on either the historical or mythological to pique my interest. This will only be decided once the DVD's come through I fear, but rest assured both are going on my shelf, along with X-Men: First Class, and I will remain giddy and excited until the release of the Avengers next year.
Keep it up Marvel, you beat DC hands down.
All three have been, in my opinion, rather marvellous (excuse the pun) and ideally cast and directed. At the helm of Captain America is the steady hand of Joe Johnston, the man responsible for the classics Honey I Shrunk The Kids and Jumanji, and more recently Benicio Del Toro's Wolfman (I have not seen it but Empire gives it 2* which isn't encouraging). With his last film getting such a poor reception it is good to see Johnston back on form, perhaps the more family friendly movie is really his genre, Jumanji remains one of my favourite all time movies and Captain America will definitely be sitting on my shelf at some point.
Intriguingly for the Marvel world Steve Rogers (our intrepid Captain) is played by the gorgeous Chris Evans, who fans of the genre would recognise as Johnny Storm of the Fantastic Four double released a few years ago. Now Fantastic Four were okay movies, not the greatest but then Marvel had less control back then, and in fact the best piece of casting and performance came from Mr Evans himself who was a cocky good looking action man. There is a marked difference between Johnny Storm and Captain America and it is a testament to Chris that you won't ever get the two mixed up, he has grown into a fine actor, personally I have had belief in his acting abilities (and maybe a minor crush too) since I saw Cellular about six years ago, then he proved his worth in 2007 in Danny Boyle's space odditiy Sunshine.
Captain America follows the tale of Steve Rogers, a skinny but eager young man who hates bullies but has not physique or health to stand up to them for long. It is 1942 and he has tried five times to join the army and the fight against Hitler, on his last attempt he catches the eye of a German scientist called Erskine 9Stanely Tucci) who has a top secret 'super soldier' mission that Rogers is perfect for, and Erskine takes him under his wing. However once he becomes Captain America tragedy strikes and the plan is abandoned in favour for Rogers to sell bonds to aid the war effort, staying safe way behind the front line, a propaganda machine. This all changes when he is informed his best friend Bucky has been taken by the Nazis, prompting Captain America to take his true form at last and become the man he always wanted to be.
For the casting of Captain America I heartily approve of Chris Evans, from the skinny (wonders of technology folks) lad desperate to join up and stop the bullies in Europe, to the beefcake storming Hugo Weaving's Nazi stronghold single handedly and saving hundreds of men. Steve Rogers embodied the all American spirit, the arrogance of the States that any individual could go in and beat up Hitler, but also the can-do spirit of a nation.
This film, as all the latest Marvels, have attracted a high calibre of actor, and here we have Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, and Hugo Weaving. Jones and Tucci are the good guys, an army Colonel and a scientist, Weaving is a Nazi super-villain by the name of Johann Schmidt, aka Red Skull.
Jones is of course a believable and funny Colonel, he can do funny and also be taken dead seriously so he is the perfect choice. Tucci has wit and charm as always, he is one of my favourite actors because of his versatility, and you really believe in the relationship between this German scientist and his skinny good hearted protégé.
Weaving is on fine form as an obsessed power hungry Nazi who was Erskine's first attempt with his super-hero serum, and the results show that Schmidt was not the ideal candidate because as Erskine puts it "good becomes great, bad becomes worse". Obviously the side effects affected Schmidt on a cellular level as his face it transpires is not his true appearance.
The supporting cast are rather good too, Weaving has a side kick in the form of snivelling scientist Zola played by Toby Jones (the voice of Dobby the Elf!), and the Captain has a band of tough nuts played by Band of Brothers survivor Neal McDonough (with a bowler hat), Gossip Girl actor Sebastian Stan, and Britain's own JJ Field (Shadow in the North/Ruby in the Smoke) to name but a few. There is also the pre-requisite love interest in the form of another British actor Hayley Atwell who plays Peggy, a British Agent working with the American army.
In the majority of cases, women in Marvel outputs are some form of damsel in distress, with one or two exceptions it is only in the X-Men they given any power or abilities, and that is because genetic mutation cannot be gender specific.
What I do like about the love interests are that they, although lowly non-super humans, do possess something the hero does not. Jane's intellect surpasses Thor's and she teaches him humility and the importance of family, The Hulk's Betty is a fellow scientist who was the only one who could bring out his humanity even while huge and green, and now Steve Rogers has Peggy who will teach him how to dance. Makes me smile. Each hero learns something from their gal and this shows the difference in our expectations of these movies. Fifty years ago there would have been less teaching more swooning, but today we know women can be just as tough as the men.
What I do like about the love interests are that they, although lowly non-super humans, do possess something the hero does not. Jane's intellect surpasses Thor's and she teaches him humility and the importance of family, The Hulk's Betty is a fellow scientist who was the only one who could bring out his humanity even while huge and green, and now Steve Rogers has Peggy who will teach him how to dance. Makes me smile. Each hero learns something from their gal and this shows the difference in our expectations of these movies. Fifty years ago there would have been less teaching more swooning, but today we know women can be just as tough as the men.
Atwell proves this, and she is a terrific actress (see Channel 4's Any Human Heart or Pillars of the Earth mini-series) getting to kick some butt whilst falling for our hero, refreshingly even before he becomes Mr Beefcake. Atwell handles the soppy stuff without bawling into the camera and is always impeccably made up even while using machine guns or flying in the middle of an air raid, this is done I think to show the British stiff upper lip and professionalism a woman had to show if they were to be anything other than a secretary or nurse in the military. I do not know if the original comics had a Peggy for Steve, but it works well in this movie. I think the love interests are also important to the film studios who firmly believe girls and women would not want to see a comic book film if there were no romance, however Peggy's presence allows the whole audience to see another side to Steve Rogers and how his previous stunted stature held him back not only in going to war but also in everyday life.
A man who has had no trouble with the ladies, the looks or the professional career is Howard Stark, played here with a dubious accent by the charming Dominic Cooper (History Boys, Mamma Mia!). He is the genius behind Captain America's iconic shield and also, Marvel fans will know, father of Tony Stark (aka Iron Man). This film provides a little insight into the Stark showmanship, but while Cooper comes into New York to dazzle the crowds with his floating car surrounded by gorgeous women, when it comes to real work he is a consummate professional rather like his son. Cooper plays Stark well, he has a natural charisma that exudes in his performance, the only criticism I have is the accent, but after all the terrible American to English accents there have been over the years Cooper's does not seem so bad.
From sources I have gathered that the story in this film is not dissimilar to the original outings of Captain America, which is reassuring in itself as there is nothing worse than somebody completely re-writing history to suit a budget or executive. I very much enjoyed the plot, the history of the war is very important and I hope that the younger audiences will be taught a little about propaganda and the ways they convinced young men to fight for their country. There is an equal balance between talking and action, it has been the most successful of all the Marvel beginner tales so far in this respect. The special effects are on top form, the Red Skull uses a mysterious blue light energy, supposedly a source straight from Odin and the gods, to fuel super weapons that obliterate the recipient. These weapons also have a familiar sound to those who have seen Iron Man too many times like myself. The references to the gods and Asgard are intriguing, the energy source answers questions in Iron Man but also raises new ones of how it came to Earth, which will hopefully be answered in either the upcoming Avengers movie or the next Thor.
The movie ends in typical fashion, with SHIELD and Nick Fury, how or when I will not reveal but it is both moving and exciting.
I do not know if this beats Thor, because I adored that film, but both this year have competed in beefcake lead, talented and high class casting, and a focus on either the historical or mythological to pique my interest. This will only be decided once the DVD's come through I fear, but rest assured both are going on my shelf, along with X-Men: First Class, and I will remain giddy and excited until the release of the Avengers next year.
Keep it up Marvel, you beat DC hands down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)