I have been debating with myself all day whether or not to write a totally spoiler free review, one with some spoilers at the end, or one that screams THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS AIN'T IT COOL?!
Ahem.
I have decided on trying spoiler-free, but if it gets too much I’ll add a short note at the end.
Those familiar with the world of Marvel, of Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Avengers Assemble should, by rights, love this movie as much as my Mother and I did. In fact, to quote Mum, this was “the best one” of all the Iron Man movies.
If you are not familiar with Marvel but are intrigued at the effect it is having on popular culture and the movie industry, I’d say Iron Man is a great starting point. My personal favourite Avenger is Thor but Mum, well she loves Tony Stark.
*my mother is also the coolest human being on the planet, just so you know*
This third instalment of the Iron Man franchise is epic, but like The Avengers doesn’t lose the humanity of the characters. It also gets a new director in the form of Shane Black who brings his talent from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang to incorporate the darkness that Tony is going through with the action scenes that are a prerequisite of a comic book adaptation.
Tony Stark is not coping well after New York, being part of the Avengers and very almost dying to save the World from the aliens. Essentially Stark has PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and HUGE kudos need to be thrown at both Black and Downey Jr for the serious and shocking ways that his condition is portrayed. On top of this a new villain in the form of 'The Mandarin’ has come from nowhere and is killing people with an unknown power source.
This is all you need to know plot wise because this film is full of twists and turns that I wasn’t expecting, and I sincerely hope no one spoils it for your own viewing and you are as surprised, shocked, devastated and elated as I was.
I’m going to just throw some praise the actors way before the director and the special effects team.
Robert Downey Jr remains one of my favourite people on the planet, he IS Tony Stark. He is arrogant, charming, intelligent, and vulnerable. This is something I have really connected with in Iron Man, that Stark is allowed to be human and show weakness. There are some extraordinary scenes in this film with Downey Jr and a kid where he just loses it, exactly how someone suffering with PTSD can lose themselves to their panic and anxiety. I was just so impressed with Downey Jr’s performance.
Gwyneth Paltrow is amazing as Pepper Potts, and the characterisation of Pepper throughout all four movies has shown her not to be the damsel in distress (actually none of the Marvel universe or DC women are D.I.D), culminating here in Iron Man Three where she gets to show what she is really made of. But then she is still vulnerable, because most importantly she is as human as Tony.
Rebecca Hall and Guy Pearce were fine additions to the film, which is all I can say without ruining the plot. Ben Kingsley was fantastic though, truly he must have had a riot in his role.
The best thing about the casts of these movies, which I think I probably mention every time I review these films, is how seriously they take their roles. You can tell if an actor isn’t quite taking the movie as the best thing they have ever been cast in, and luckily there have been no lazy actors cast yet. Except perhaps the final instalment of Spiderman, no one was taking that film seriously, not even the director.
To the levels of action and special effects. Frigging awesome. Like Avengers Assemble the film has balanced the need for dialogue and serious story with blinding action scenes. I cannot watch 3D movies but I still felt thrilled watching it in 2D. What you have seen in the trailer is nothing compared to what you’ll see on the big screen, its a final battle to be proud of.
Black does a phenomenal job with this film. Seriously, he and Joss Whedon and Christopher Nolan and Bryan Singer need to get together for drinks and just toast to each others’ ability to blend the dark with the light, and balance the complex worlds they have been in charge of.
The inclusion of techniques from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, the narrative and the move back in time to 1999 to begin the story, are well thought out and played, right up until the snippet at the end of the credits. Oh yeah, there is an extra scene, and I loved it.
I would watch this film again tomorrow, which is why it gets five stars from me.
Monday 29 April 2013
Friday 26 April 2013
ParaNorman ☆☆☆☆½
This is the first time in a looooong time that I’ve watched an
animation not done by Disney and said ‘that was excellent’. And this was
excellent. Truly.
The story follows Norman Babcock, an eleven year old living in a small town in Massachusetts who has an unusual gift. Norman can see and converse with ghosts. His family and the whole town know this, or at least they know that Norman ‘believes’ he can see them. And for this Norman is bullied, ignored, shouted at, and generally mistreated. Its actually very sad and any kid who has ever been bullied will identify with Norman.
However Norman’s ‘gift’ means one important thing – he has a Destiny. This destiny is relayed to him by a crazy old guy called Pendergast who can also see ghosts, so unsurprisingly Norman is reticent to fulfil said destiny which is to go to the grave of a witch who cursed the townsfolk who sent her to her death 300 years ago, and read a book on the anniversary of her death.
But of course things aren’t going to go smoothly for Norman and he and his new friend Neil, his sister, Neil’s brother, and bully Alvin have to battle zombies and crazy and murderous townsfolk before the night is done.
So I’m going to review this with the voice cast going first, the story second, and then the animation to round it off, so here goes with the voice cast.
Genuinely talented bunch of voices in here. You have Kodi Smit-McPhee (Let Me In, The Road) as Norman, whose youthful tones are not lost but serve to really power the animation, his voice really brings Norman to life. Anna Kendrick (Pitch Perfect, Up In The Air) finds her inner cheerleader as Norman’s older sister, fawning over Neil’s older brother, and trying to work out her little brother. The older brother is played by Casey Affleck, which I didn’t pick up at all, probably because I wasn’t expecting a 30 something year old to be voicing a teenage beefcake.
Jeff Garlin who voiced Norman’s father is no stranger to voice work, having been part of Pixar’s Cars and Wall-E, and I love how exasperated he can make his voice sound in such a quiet way. Leslie Mann who is more famous for being in anything her husband makes (she is the wife of Judd Apatow who made Knocked Up etc), was again unrecognisable, but that may have been because I was more fascinated with how the mother was animated than her tone of voice.
Rounding out the cast are the voices of Pendergast (John Goodman), zombie leader (Bernard Hill), Alvin the Bully (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and finally little Neil who is voiced by a young actor I do not know of called Tucker Albrizzi.
This actually moves me on nicely to reviewing the story, because Neil was definitely my favourite character. He was this chubby kid who is also picked on, but for a plethora of reasons that he outlines to Norman without a trace of anger or resentment, just a calm acceptance of his fate. I just wanted to squeeze his animated chubbiness, especially when he shows up to Norman’s house wearing a hockey mask and is just stood there, like a mini Michael Myers. Which is EXACTLY the creators intention.
This wasn’t an animation that dumbed down any dialogue or lessened the scariness to benefit the smallest people. If I had been seven years old, or even eleven, I would have been terrified. Actually if I had been in a cinema on my own I probably would have been scared, watching something on your laptop in the daylight does take away the atmosphere.
The speech was fabulous, intelligent and funny, whilst also kind of breaking your heart at times. Norman’s facial expressions were beautiful, he does this tiny smile that real people do when they have been complimented but have never let themselves believe anything about them is good.
The animation overall was stunning. I love stop-motion and this really captured the heart and soul of the story and characters. It allowed the animators to create extreme looking persons to reflect their characteristics, or just to put a huge bum on a cheerleader. Visually arresting I guess you could say, especially the final big sequence.
I’ve read reviews that say this is good but not as good as Coraline, but then again these films are exploring two different kinds of dark, but both are scary. The difference is ParaNorman goes for the funny too, and I enjoyed the humour being put out there because its there to stop the kids freaking out. It is childish humour, and you know we all like to see the bully hide behind the kid he’s been picking on sometimes, its poetic justice and quite funny.
Of course the thing to always remember about my reviews is this is just my own humble opinion. Raising expectations never does anyone any good, so don’t take my word that this is funny, scary and beautifully animated, go watch it and decide for yourself.
The story follows Norman Babcock, an eleven year old living in a small town in Massachusetts who has an unusual gift. Norman can see and converse with ghosts. His family and the whole town know this, or at least they know that Norman ‘believes’ he can see them. And for this Norman is bullied, ignored, shouted at, and generally mistreated. Its actually very sad and any kid who has ever been bullied will identify with Norman.
However Norman’s ‘gift’ means one important thing – he has a Destiny. This destiny is relayed to him by a crazy old guy called Pendergast who can also see ghosts, so unsurprisingly Norman is reticent to fulfil said destiny which is to go to the grave of a witch who cursed the townsfolk who sent her to her death 300 years ago, and read a book on the anniversary of her death.
But of course things aren’t going to go smoothly for Norman and he and his new friend Neil, his sister, Neil’s brother, and bully Alvin have to battle zombies and crazy and murderous townsfolk before the night is done.
So I’m going to review this with the voice cast going first, the story second, and then the animation to round it off, so here goes with the voice cast.
Genuinely talented bunch of voices in here. You have Kodi Smit-McPhee (Let Me In, The Road) as Norman, whose youthful tones are not lost but serve to really power the animation, his voice really brings Norman to life. Anna Kendrick (Pitch Perfect, Up In The Air) finds her inner cheerleader as Norman’s older sister, fawning over Neil’s older brother, and trying to work out her little brother. The older brother is played by Casey Affleck, which I didn’t pick up at all, probably because I wasn’t expecting a 30 something year old to be voicing a teenage beefcake.
Jeff Garlin who voiced Norman’s father is no stranger to voice work, having been part of Pixar’s Cars and Wall-E, and I love how exasperated he can make his voice sound in such a quiet way. Leslie Mann who is more famous for being in anything her husband makes (she is the wife of Judd Apatow who made Knocked Up etc), was again unrecognisable, but that may have been because I was more fascinated with how the mother was animated than her tone of voice.
Rounding out the cast are the voices of Pendergast (John Goodman), zombie leader (Bernard Hill), Alvin the Bully (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and finally little Neil who is voiced by a young actor I do not know of called Tucker Albrizzi.
This actually moves me on nicely to reviewing the story, because Neil was definitely my favourite character. He was this chubby kid who is also picked on, but for a plethora of reasons that he outlines to Norman without a trace of anger or resentment, just a calm acceptance of his fate. I just wanted to squeeze his animated chubbiness, especially when he shows up to Norman’s house wearing a hockey mask and is just stood there, like a mini Michael Myers. Which is EXACTLY the creators intention.
This wasn’t an animation that dumbed down any dialogue or lessened the scariness to benefit the smallest people. If I had been seven years old, or even eleven, I would have been terrified. Actually if I had been in a cinema on my own I probably would have been scared, watching something on your laptop in the daylight does take away the atmosphere.
The speech was fabulous, intelligent and funny, whilst also kind of breaking your heart at times. Norman’s facial expressions were beautiful, he does this tiny smile that real people do when they have been complimented but have never let themselves believe anything about them is good.
The animation overall was stunning. I love stop-motion and this really captured the heart and soul of the story and characters. It allowed the animators to create extreme looking persons to reflect their characteristics, or just to put a huge bum on a cheerleader. Visually arresting I guess you could say, especially the final big sequence.
I’ve read reviews that say this is good but not as good as Coraline, but then again these films are exploring two different kinds of dark, but both are scary. The difference is ParaNorman goes for the funny too, and I enjoyed the humour being put out there because its there to stop the kids freaking out. It is childish humour, and you know we all like to see the bully hide behind the kid he’s been picking on sometimes, its poetic justice and quite funny.
Of course the thing to always remember about my reviews is this is just my own humble opinion. Raising expectations never does anyone any good, so don’t take my word that this is funny, scary and beautifully animated, go watch it and decide for yourself.
Wednesday 17 April 2013
The Perks of Being a Wallflower ☆☆☆☆½
He wrote the book. He wrote the screenplay. He even directed the movie.
Stephen Chbosky is a talented guy.
First thing I'd like to say about this is that it is extraordinarily hard to review because the author did all the important stuff, he would even have had a say in the casting. So I cannot make comparisons to the book (which of course I reviewed on my other blog) because any differences were totally done to make it translatable to screen which the director handled amazingly...this is gonna be a gushing review.
SO the plot. We focus on Charlie, played by Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson, 3:10 to Yuma), a young man who has had a difficult time in life and is somewhere on the autistic scale. This is reflected in his behaviour and extreme social awkwardness. We meet him on his first day of high school and the film charts his life throughout that first year, where he makes friends and discovers hidden talents, screws things up in spectacular fashion, but then makes his way to recovering what has been lost.
The people in Charlie's life include his mother and father, Dylan McDermott (American Horror Story) and Kate Walsh (Private Practice), whose small amount of screen time was just brilliant. I didn't even recognise Kate Walsh at first.
There is also Candace, Charlie's sister, played by The Vampire Diarie's Nina Dobrev who also impressed me. Mostly I think because I have become incredibly annoyed by TVD and her character, so it was good to see her playing a human in a human world. Her boyfriend, Ponytail Derek, was a lot different to how I had imagined him in the book, mostly because I don't remember the ponytail...however this is Chbosky's show
so it must have been what he intended, so I went with it.
Charlie has an older brother who pops up at Christmas, time restrictions meant leaving out the deeper worries and wishes of Charlie to be in more contact with his big brother, but I was quite touched by their scenes together.
Charlie's first friend, his teacher Mr Anderson, was almost exactly as I imagined him from the book - I just didn't realise I had been imagining Paul Rudd. Its good to see him in a serious role for once, where he gets to play the mentor and person pivotal to Charlie 'participating'.
Now to the people you've seen in all the trailers, Miss Emma Watson as Sam, Ezra Miller (We Need to Talk About Kevin) as Patrick and of course Logan Lerman as Charlie. All three were perfect. Perfect. I know this only my humble opinion but genuinely, the way that Sam was written in this film meant that any expectation I had from the book was broken down and rebuilt in the form of Emma Watson. I'd love it if any North Americans out there could tell me if her accent was really bad, but to me it sounded fine. Akin to Dakota Fanning's British accent I think Watson was doing the generic American twang that to a local would sound a bit odd, but it worked for me.
Ezra Miller was Fab-U-LOUS! His Patrick was just, well read the book you'll understand it was just so very Patrick. And he and Watson worked well together and completely pulled off their step-sibling relationship. There is all sorts of seriousness happening with Patrick, his sexuality, relationships and some violence. And it was all brought to the screen magnificently.
The most important character though is of course Charlie and I'll admit I had reservations when seeing Lerman on the trailer. But, the kid can ACT. He was funny without meaning to be, engaging, heartbreaking, and ultimately utterly believable as Charlie, this kid I fell in love with only a couple of months ago. So if you've seen, say, The Three Musketeers, please don't judge Lerman on that, judge him on this film.
What I was concerned about was that I wouldn't react the same way watching the film as I had whilst reading the book. But I did. I was forcing myself to watch the screen when a truly embarrassing to the core and heartbreaking at the same time moment happened, the same as I had forced myself to read on. I was in pieces in an important 10 minute period toward the end of the film, and I think the amount of tears was equal to those that flooded my kitchen table when reading the same scenes.
If all authors had the talent that Chbosky has, then maybe I wouldn't get so mad at book adaptations. Because how can you argue with something that has clearly had the same level of attention and passion put in to it as the original source? Yes there are some minor changes but these are not deal breakers to the enjoyment of the film.
I hope those who have seen the film are encouraged to go on and read the book, because the story achieves so much more in terms of really getting to know the characters. However because of the superior quality of this film and the depth it manages to reach, I won't be too unhappy if you only spend an hour and a half with this amazing boy and his world.
Stephen Chbosky is a talented guy.
First thing I'd like to say about this is that it is extraordinarily hard to review because the author did all the important stuff, he would even have had a say in the casting. So I cannot make comparisons to the book (which of course I reviewed on my other blog) because any differences were totally done to make it translatable to screen which the director handled amazingly...this is gonna be a gushing review.
SO the plot. We focus on Charlie, played by Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson, 3:10 to Yuma), a young man who has had a difficult time in life and is somewhere on the autistic scale. This is reflected in his behaviour and extreme social awkwardness. We meet him on his first day of high school and the film charts his life throughout that first year, where he makes friends and discovers hidden talents, screws things up in spectacular fashion, but then makes his way to recovering what has been lost.
The people in Charlie's life include his mother and father, Dylan McDermott (American Horror Story) and Kate Walsh (Private Practice), whose small amount of screen time was just brilliant. I didn't even recognise Kate Walsh at first.
There is also Candace, Charlie's sister, played by The Vampire Diarie's Nina Dobrev who also impressed me. Mostly I think because I have become incredibly annoyed by TVD and her character, so it was good to see her playing a human in a human world. Her boyfriend, Ponytail Derek, was a lot different to how I had imagined him in the book, mostly because I don't remember the ponytail...however this is Chbosky's show
so it must have been what he intended, so I went with it.
Charlie has an older brother who pops up at Christmas, time restrictions meant leaving out the deeper worries and wishes of Charlie to be in more contact with his big brother, but I was quite touched by their scenes together.
Charlie's first friend, his teacher Mr Anderson, was almost exactly as I imagined him from the book - I just didn't realise I had been imagining Paul Rudd. Its good to see him in a serious role for once, where he gets to play the mentor and person pivotal to Charlie 'participating'.
Now to the people you've seen in all the trailers, Miss Emma Watson as Sam, Ezra Miller (We Need to Talk About Kevin) as Patrick and of course Logan Lerman as Charlie. All three were perfect. Perfect. I know this only my humble opinion but genuinely, the way that Sam was written in this film meant that any expectation I had from the book was broken down and rebuilt in the form of Emma Watson. I'd love it if any North Americans out there could tell me if her accent was really bad, but to me it sounded fine. Akin to Dakota Fanning's British accent I think Watson was doing the generic American twang that to a local would sound a bit odd, but it worked for me.
Ezra Miller was Fab-U-LOUS! His Patrick was just, well read the book you'll understand it was just so very Patrick. And he and Watson worked well together and completely pulled off their step-sibling relationship. There is all sorts of seriousness happening with Patrick, his sexuality, relationships and some violence. And it was all brought to the screen magnificently.
The most important character though is of course Charlie and I'll admit I had reservations when seeing Lerman on the trailer. But, the kid can ACT. He was funny without meaning to be, engaging, heartbreaking, and ultimately utterly believable as Charlie, this kid I fell in love with only a couple of months ago. So if you've seen, say, The Three Musketeers, please don't judge Lerman on that, judge him on this film.
What I was concerned about was that I wouldn't react the same way watching the film as I had whilst reading the book. But I did. I was forcing myself to watch the screen when a truly embarrassing to the core and heartbreaking at the same time moment happened, the same as I had forced myself to read on. I was in pieces in an important 10 minute period toward the end of the film, and I think the amount of tears was equal to those that flooded my kitchen table when reading the same scenes.
If all authors had the talent that Chbosky has, then maybe I wouldn't get so mad at book adaptations. Because how can you argue with something that has clearly had the same level of attention and passion put in to it as the original source? Yes there are some minor changes but these are not deal breakers to the enjoyment of the film.
I hope those who have seen the film are encouraged to go on and read the book, because the story achieves so much more in terms of really getting to know the characters. However because of the superior quality of this film and the depth it manages to reach, I won't be too unhappy if you only spend an hour and a half with this amazing boy and his world.
Tuesday 16 April 2013
Now Is Good ☆☆☆½
I think I might be a sucker for a film about a dying girl, these are
the ones I’ve wept through prior to this Dakota Fanning movie:
Along with My Sister’s Keeper, Now Is Good is a film that made me feel faint because of the hospital/brutal reality of the illness. Luckily I was watching NIG at home so could pause to put my head between my knees (genuinely I get quite ill, seeing me give blood is probably hilarious). During MSK I was in the cinema and missed about 4 minutes of the hospital scenes because I felt so awful and had to hide my head somewhere near the floor.
However, aside from feeling poorly, Now is Good made me an emotional wreck. Paddy Considine broke my heart as the Dad, simply called ‘Father’ in the cast list, and just thinking about one particular scene is making my eyes well-up once more. Then again he is a phenomenal actor and now director who is pretty good at tugging on your heart-strings (watch Dead Mans Shoes or Tyrannosaur). But he also could produce some comic relief as the disapproving Dad of the boy next door.
Olivia Williams as Mum was something of a shock, the Mother who couldn’t handle her childs illness and had no idea about hospital appointments, treatments, and avoided as much as she could. She also had extraordinary hair – bottle blonde with some fabulous roots, a clear indication of her frame of mind and where her real worries lie, not with her appearance but with her child.
Onto the dying girl herself, Miss Dakota Fanning as Tessa Scott, the girl who has decided to stop chemotherapy after leukemia returned after a four-year battle. Fanning was demonstrating her ability to do an English accent…and you know it wasn’t terrible. Perhaps a little too posh and clipped sometimes, a lot of ‘yes’ when a more relaxed ‘yeah’ would have been a natural response, but overall if I didn’t know she was from the USA I reckon I could have been convinced. Fanning is a pretty good actress and she dies quite well, I think she must have been channelling her inner Brit to be so deadpan about the whole thing, even her eyes were unforgiving about sentiment.
Jeremy Irvine is the required boy next door, but this one isn’t the jock who needs to be taught a lesson in humanity (A walk to remember) or a strange young man who gate crashes funerals (Restless), Irvine’s Adam has lost his father the year before and has been something of a recluse ever since. Despite the reservations he has he goes for it, cos hey Tessa is a pretty inspirational person. Irvine puts in a much better performance than War Horse…that may be unfair as I have no idea what his War Horse character is supposed to be like but I found him a tad unbearable all the same. So he proved to me he is a decent actor, and he meshed with Dakota quite well.
I really loved Tessa’s little brother, played by Edgar Canham who only has this film to his name. Basically Cal is the kid who makes ‘inappropriate’ comments such as ‘when Tessa is dead can we go on holiday?’ which make Tessa smile because he is the one person who truly accepts what is happening, likely because he doesn’t comprehend the effect it will really have on him and his life.
Kaya Scodelario, of Skins fame, plays the best friend who is helping Tessa tick things off her list, and their friendship was easy and believable.
This is a really good version of the dying girl movie. Restless is my absolute favourite because of the originality of the characters, but this is definitely very good and that comes from a strong cast and an equally strong script and direction. Ol Parker the director and writer keeps a firm hold and does not lose any focus, but also manages to balance the light with the dark very much as he did with The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.
However if, like me, you are a bit of a weepy person, your tear ducts might get some serious exercise. Like I said above, Paddy Considine broke my heart, I challenge him not to break yours.
- A Walk to Remember (with Mandy Moore dying)
- Love Story (1970s original weepy)
- Restless (an amazing and original story with Mia Wasikowska)
- My Sister’s Keeper (though not really a love story it ticks most of the boxes)
Along with My Sister’s Keeper, Now Is Good is a film that made me feel faint because of the hospital/brutal reality of the illness. Luckily I was watching NIG at home so could pause to put my head between my knees (genuinely I get quite ill, seeing me give blood is probably hilarious). During MSK I was in the cinema and missed about 4 minutes of the hospital scenes because I felt so awful and had to hide my head somewhere near the floor.
However, aside from feeling poorly, Now is Good made me an emotional wreck. Paddy Considine broke my heart as the Dad, simply called ‘Father’ in the cast list, and just thinking about one particular scene is making my eyes well-up once more. Then again he is a phenomenal actor and now director who is pretty good at tugging on your heart-strings (watch Dead Mans Shoes or Tyrannosaur). But he also could produce some comic relief as the disapproving Dad of the boy next door.
Olivia Williams as Mum was something of a shock, the Mother who couldn’t handle her childs illness and had no idea about hospital appointments, treatments, and avoided as much as she could. She also had extraordinary hair – bottle blonde with some fabulous roots, a clear indication of her frame of mind and where her real worries lie, not with her appearance but with her child.
Onto the dying girl herself, Miss Dakota Fanning as Tessa Scott, the girl who has decided to stop chemotherapy after leukemia returned after a four-year battle. Fanning was demonstrating her ability to do an English accent…and you know it wasn’t terrible. Perhaps a little too posh and clipped sometimes, a lot of ‘yes’ when a more relaxed ‘yeah’ would have been a natural response, but overall if I didn’t know she was from the USA I reckon I could have been convinced. Fanning is a pretty good actress and she dies quite well, I think she must have been channelling her inner Brit to be so deadpan about the whole thing, even her eyes were unforgiving about sentiment.
Jeremy Irvine is the required boy next door, but this one isn’t the jock who needs to be taught a lesson in humanity (A walk to remember) or a strange young man who gate crashes funerals (Restless), Irvine’s Adam has lost his father the year before and has been something of a recluse ever since. Despite the reservations he has he goes for it, cos hey Tessa is a pretty inspirational person. Irvine puts in a much better performance than War Horse…that may be unfair as I have no idea what his War Horse character is supposed to be like but I found him a tad unbearable all the same. So he proved to me he is a decent actor, and he meshed with Dakota quite well.
I really loved Tessa’s little brother, played by Edgar Canham who only has this film to his name. Basically Cal is the kid who makes ‘inappropriate’ comments such as ‘when Tessa is dead can we go on holiday?’ which make Tessa smile because he is the one person who truly accepts what is happening, likely because he doesn’t comprehend the effect it will really have on him and his life.
Kaya Scodelario, of Skins fame, plays the best friend who is helping Tessa tick things off her list, and their friendship was easy and believable.
This is a really good version of the dying girl movie. Restless is my absolute favourite because of the originality of the characters, but this is definitely very good and that comes from a strong cast and an equally strong script and direction. Ol Parker the director and writer keeps a firm hold and does not lose any focus, but also manages to balance the light with the dark very much as he did with The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.
However if, like me, you are a bit of a weepy person, your tear ducts might get some serious exercise. Like I said above, Paddy Considine broke my heart, I challenge him not to break yours.
Saturday 13 April 2013
Labyrinth
The feeling I am currently experiencing is this awful mix of rage and
disappointment - pretty much how I feel whenever I think seriously
about politics and the general state of the world.
This feeling is also the reason I will not be reading George R R Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series which has been adapted into HBO's Game of Thrones. Why? Because I don't want to be annoyed at characterisation, messing with plot or subplot, and, especially, the casting of my favourite characters.
Labyrinth has fulfilled on all three points, I am incredibly annoyed. The book isn't even the best novel in the world but the mini-series has messed with fundamental points that gradually build throughout the just over three hours...its irritating is all.
What is also irritating is that I cannot tell you what has been changed without spoiling either the book or the series. But I will do my best to review the adaptation, though it is probably going to assume prior knowledge at some points - but don't despair if you want to read my review of the book please click here.
Labyrinth is an epic tale of love and treachery that spans across eight hundred years, set in both the 13th and 21st centuries. It focuses on the lives of nobility in Carcassonne in 1209 during the Crusade against the Cathars and this historical events influence on the modern period. Most importantly it concerns the quest for the mysterious 'Grail', or everlasting life.
The 21st century aspect to the story focuses on an Englishwoman who has come to Carcassonne in 2012 to recieve an inheritance from an unknown relative. This is all told a LOT better in the book, namely because the TV producers/writers/editors mashed in the inheritance by showing Alice to be forgetful, and also completely changed how two fo the main characters met, Alice and Will, which I thought was quite lovely.
In 1209 we have Alaïs du Mas, the daughter of the advisor to the Viscount of Carcassonne. She is married to Guilhem, a chevalier, and is a generally well loved human being. Except she has a cheating husband, whose chosen beau is her vindictive sister Oriane. Each has a part to play in the quest for the Grail, some in the role of protector while others are seeking to gain everlasting life for their own.
The casting of the 13th century characters was actually okay, I put most of the blame on the poor writing and rushed method that what fell out of their mouths was trite and mundane. I really enjoyed watching Draco Malfoy, sorry Tom Felton, play the good guy as Viscount Trencavel, a man who wants to keep his city fair and free for all inhabitants no matter their religious choices. Katie McGrath just seemed to channel Morgana in her portrayal of Oriane, a scheming and evil woman who will stop at nothing in her quest for the Grail. Lady Sybil, okay Jessica Brown Findlay, was...well her portrayal of Alaïs was pretty similar to Sybil. Strong and family driven, but always so breathy.
Now Emun Elliot, the man I blame for me even reading Labyrinth, was a bit disappointing - but again I blame the writing. As Guilhem he had to be a conflicted bastard who really loves his wife but is weak willed, and he mostly managed it. He has a very pretty face so that saved a lot of his performance.
What I cannot forgive in the historical section of this adaptation is the casting of a 23 year old in the role of an 11 year old....BOYS CHANGE LOTS. I don't know if it was just to save casting a grown up for when Sahje got older, no one seemed to get much older despite the book requiring about a 15 year lapse in time. Matthew Beard is a good actor but he seemed pushed into being a teenager and then a grown man...it really didn't work. I loved little Sahje in the book and was looking forward to seeing a mischevious young actor getting to run around and admire Alaïs.
In 2012 we have Alice Tanner, a woman who has come from England to recieve an inheritance but takes some time out to help her friend at an archaeological dig. What Alice cannot know is her discovery at this dig will trigger the past to come back to life through modern events through a strange cult and the continuing quest for the Grail.
In terms of the 21st century casting...again I can't complain about the acting too bitterly, the problem is mostly with the writing. Alice Tanner is our heroine and Vanessa Kirby does a good job portraying her, not quite what I imagined but also not too annoying. I disliked what the writers did with the character, they made her into this slightly pathetic creature when she really isn't.
John Hurt was good but he lacked the surrounding characters, evidently trimmed from the programme to save on time and money, to bounce off of and be able to slowly reveal his true identity.
Who I loved in the modern time zone was Sebastian Stan....maybe that comes down to me loving him anyway but still, he does the best job out of everyone no matter what his Marvel connections are. He portrays Will, an American who is stuck in this complex world of hidden religion and missing Grails because of his relationship with a slightly psychotic Frenchwoman...don't ask its something I can't explain properly without spoiling everything.
As you may have noticed so far I have a huge dislike of the writing of this show. It was far too syrupy and overly dramatic, I often wanted to slap their faces with fish. I saw an interview with Kate Mosse who said she chose television to adapt it because of seeing Pillars of the Earth, a program that had many episodes and is an equally fat book. And yet Labyrinth got only two...very odd and annoying. I feel strongly that had they had the time (say six hours) they could have improved so much.
I will end this poorly executed review on a positive note however. The method of swapping time lines was incredibly well done. The streams were cleverly combined using landscapes or visions that Alice has, and you never felt jolted from one era to the next. If only the rest of the program had been so well executed I would have been absorbed rather than frustrated for the three and a bit hours I spent watching the damn thing.
This feeling is also the reason I will not be reading George R R Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series which has been adapted into HBO's Game of Thrones. Why? Because I don't want to be annoyed at characterisation, messing with plot or subplot, and, especially, the casting of my favourite characters.
Labyrinth has fulfilled on all three points, I am incredibly annoyed. The book isn't even the best novel in the world but the mini-series has messed with fundamental points that gradually build throughout the just over three hours...its irritating is all.
What is also irritating is that I cannot tell you what has been changed without spoiling either the book or the series. But I will do my best to review the adaptation, though it is probably going to assume prior knowledge at some points - but don't despair if you want to read my review of the book please click here.
Labyrinth is an epic tale of love and treachery that spans across eight hundred years, set in both the 13th and 21st centuries. It focuses on the lives of nobility in Carcassonne in 1209 during the Crusade against the Cathars and this historical events influence on the modern period. Most importantly it concerns the quest for the mysterious 'Grail', or everlasting life.
The 21st century aspect to the story focuses on an Englishwoman who has come to Carcassonne in 2012 to recieve an inheritance from an unknown relative. This is all told a LOT better in the book, namely because the TV producers/writers/editors mashed in the inheritance by showing Alice to be forgetful, and also completely changed how two fo the main characters met, Alice and Will, which I thought was quite lovely.
In 1209 we have Alaïs du Mas, the daughter of the advisor to the Viscount of Carcassonne. She is married to Guilhem, a chevalier, and is a generally well loved human being. Except she has a cheating husband, whose chosen beau is her vindictive sister Oriane. Each has a part to play in the quest for the Grail, some in the role of protector while others are seeking to gain everlasting life for their own.
The casting of the 13th century characters was actually okay, I put most of the blame on the poor writing and rushed method that what fell out of their mouths was trite and mundane. I really enjoyed watching Draco Malfoy, sorry Tom Felton, play the good guy as Viscount Trencavel, a man who wants to keep his city fair and free for all inhabitants no matter their religious choices. Katie McGrath just seemed to channel Morgana in her portrayal of Oriane, a scheming and evil woman who will stop at nothing in her quest for the Grail. Lady Sybil, okay Jessica Brown Findlay, was...well her portrayal of Alaïs was pretty similar to Sybil. Strong and family driven, but always so breathy.
Now Emun Elliot, the man I blame for me even reading Labyrinth, was a bit disappointing - but again I blame the writing. As Guilhem he had to be a conflicted bastard who really loves his wife but is weak willed, and he mostly managed it. He has a very pretty face so that saved a lot of his performance.
What I cannot forgive in the historical section of this adaptation is the casting of a 23 year old in the role of an 11 year old....BOYS CHANGE LOTS. I don't know if it was just to save casting a grown up for when Sahje got older, no one seemed to get much older despite the book requiring about a 15 year lapse in time. Matthew Beard is a good actor but he seemed pushed into being a teenager and then a grown man...it really didn't work. I loved little Sahje in the book and was looking forward to seeing a mischevious young actor getting to run around and admire Alaïs.
In 2012 we have Alice Tanner, a woman who has come from England to recieve an inheritance but takes some time out to help her friend at an archaeological dig. What Alice cannot know is her discovery at this dig will trigger the past to come back to life through modern events through a strange cult and the continuing quest for the Grail.
In terms of the 21st century casting...again I can't complain about the acting too bitterly, the problem is mostly with the writing. Alice Tanner is our heroine and Vanessa Kirby does a good job portraying her, not quite what I imagined but also not too annoying. I disliked what the writers did with the character, they made her into this slightly pathetic creature when she really isn't.
John Hurt was good but he lacked the surrounding characters, evidently trimmed from the programme to save on time and money, to bounce off of and be able to slowly reveal his true identity.
Who I loved in the modern time zone was Sebastian Stan....maybe that comes down to me loving him anyway but still, he does the best job out of everyone no matter what his Marvel connections are. He portrays Will, an American who is stuck in this complex world of hidden religion and missing Grails because of his relationship with a slightly psychotic Frenchwoman...don't ask its something I can't explain properly without spoiling everything.
As you may have noticed so far I have a huge dislike of the writing of this show. It was far too syrupy and overly dramatic, I often wanted to slap their faces with fish. I saw an interview with Kate Mosse who said she chose television to adapt it because of seeing Pillars of the Earth, a program that had many episodes and is an equally fat book. And yet Labyrinth got only two...very odd and annoying. I feel strongly that had they had the time (say six hours) they could have improved so much.
I will end this poorly executed review on a positive note however. The method of swapping time lines was incredibly well done. The streams were cleverly combined using landscapes or visions that Alice has, and you never felt jolted from one era to the next. If only the rest of the program had been so well executed I would have been absorbed rather than frustrated for the three and a bit hours I spent watching the damn thing.
Sunday 7 April 2013
Singin' In The Rain: a theatre review!
I'm taking liberties with my blogs today, posting a review in Tumblr of Singin' In The Rain instead of a jazzy picture or gif with OMG I WANT TO SEE THIS AGAIN! And you, my fellow blogspot and Google plus people, and my Wordpress followers, will see a review of a theatre production because I want to gush about the magic of the stage.
Who you can see above is Adam Cooper, tap dancer and ballet star famous for his role as the Swan in Matthew Bourne's revolutionary Swan Lake from the mid-nineties (you can also spot him playing older Billy Elliot in the 2000 film). He was fantastic as Don, the role that I thought no one else but Gene Kelly could schmooze his way through, but boy does Mr Cooper ooze charm and easy grace. I was ready to leap on stage to snog him myself.
What I love about the theatre is that it is innovative and always wanting to make it worth your while to be there, films are often lazy but theatre companies cannot afford to be so because they need bums on seats. So what happens here is IT RAINED ON STAGE. No joke, there was water all over that specially created stage which meant the people in the first few rows of the stalls were in the ‘splash zone’ and you could tell the dancers took some pleasure from kicking the water out.
As well as the amazing set which could hold water, the rest of the props and the set design was brilliant. The Palace Theatre was without a curtain so nothing was hidden from the audience which I particularly love as behind the scenes tasks are often intriguing, plus all the stage hands were dressed in 1920s appropriate garb so it kept the spirit alive even while watching them mop the stage or dismantle lamposts.
What I found quite unusual (or maybe it was because I was closer to the stage than I usually am) was that the Chorus had a lot to do, dipping into speaking parts, taking three or four different roles each, and having to do all the dances. I know this is normal but it was the fact that the Chorus was actually quite small in number - maybe a dozen of them? Regardless I was hugely impressed with them and intensely jealous of their dancing skill.
The main roles of Don, Kathy and Cosmo were all splendid - Don especially. But Jennifer Ellison (from Brookside) as Lina Lamont absolutely stole every scene she's in (she's the one who 'Can't Stand Him!'). It must take so much skill for someone who is six months pregnant and a pretty fantastic singer to sing off-key and in such a high pitched voice.
The whole production was simply fantastic, the costumes, cast, styling...I beamed the whole way through. As I often do when watching the 1952 movie in fact.
So, apologies for the digression from film and TV. It won't happen often as I cannot afford to go to London very often, but be warned, I have tickets for Viva Forever in May so there is gonna be some gushing about the Spice Girls sooner than you'd all like!
What I love about the theatre is that it is innovative and always wanting to make it worth your while to be there, films are often lazy but theatre companies cannot afford to be so because they need bums on seats. So what happens here is IT RAINED ON STAGE. No joke, there was water all over that specially created stage which meant the people in the first few rows of the stalls were in the ‘splash zone’ and you could tell the dancers took some pleasure from kicking the water out.
As well as the amazing set which could hold water, the rest of the props and the set design was brilliant. The Palace Theatre was without a curtain so nothing was hidden from the audience which I particularly love as behind the scenes tasks are often intriguing, plus all the stage hands were dressed in 1920s appropriate garb so it kept the spirit alive even while watching them mop the stage or dismantle lamposts.
What I found quite unusual (or maybe it was because I was closer to the stage than I usually am) was that the Chorus had a lot to do, dipping into speaking parts, taking three or four different roles each, and having to do all the dances. I know this is normal but it was the fact that the Chorus was actually quite small in number - maybe a dozen of them? Regardless I was hugely impressed with them and intensely jealous of their dancing skill.
The main roles of Don, Kathy and Cosmo were all splendid - Don especially. But Jennifer Ellison (from Brookside) as Lina Lamont absolutely stole every scene she's in (she's the one who 'Can't Stand Him!'). It must take so much skill for someone who is six months pregnant and a pretty fantastic singer to sing off-key and in such a high pitched voice.
The whole production was simply fantastic, the costumes, cast, styling...I beamed the whole way through. As I often do when watching the 1952 movie in fact.
So, apologies for the digression from film and TV. It won't happen often as I cannot afford to go to London very often, but be warned, I have tickets for Viva Forever in May so there is gonna be some gushing about the Spice Girls sooner than you'd all like!
Friday 5 April 2013
The Host ☆☆☆
I was determined not to see this movie if I had to pay for it, so adamant that I firmly believed it would be a few years until I actually watched it. However I have a supremely kind sister who paid for me to go see it, which is why I am able to give my verdict about 3 years earlier than I expected.
And you know what? It wasn't that bad.
Don't get me wrong my expectations were below sea level prior to viewing, with the exception that I hoped Saoirse Ronan would be at least the best thing in it as I happen to believe she is a fine actress (if you've not seen Hanna or Atonement you really must). And Ronan was one of the best things by far.
To catch up those unfamiliar with the story, this is the adaptation of Stephanie Meyers abortive attempt at science fiction. Why so harsh? Because it was a rehash of invasion of the body snatchers with a love triangle and hardly any horror. I am fed up of Love Triangles, and Meyer cannot write science fiction.
You have these parasitic 'souls' who attach themselves to the dominant life form on a planet and seek to co-exist within their bodies and minds. However humans are more resistant and have to be forced out leaving the 'soul' to live in harmony with it's brethren, who have made Earth peaceful, harmonious and a really quite boring planet.
After a few years a new soul called 'Wanderer' arrives and is given the host body of Melanie Stryder, one of the last humans still resisting being taken over. However Melanie resists and instead reveals to Wanderer what their invasion has meant for the humans. Cue a love triangle between Melanie's true love and the guy who loves the alien, some impressive action sequences (very few but still good), and, as is expected from a Meyer movie, a neat happy ending.
If this had only been a film and not a book, I think I might have liked it more. But the stigma of bad writing is such that I cannot forgive the painful cheesy romantic moments because they are the fault of Meyer. There are a few of these, but luckily what out weighs them is the really great relationship formed on screen between Wanderer (or Wanda) and Mel's uncle Jeb played by William Hurt (Incredible Hulk, Into The Wild). Saoirse did the split personality very well and was how I imagined Wanda/Melanie to be. Hurt was easy going and laid back, very easy to watch in fact rather like Charlie in the Twilight movies.
The boys, Jared and Ian, were slightly less comfortable to watch, but I'll put that down to the cheesy moments they were made to be part of. Max Irons (Red Riding Hood) and Jake Abel (Percy Jackson) were pretty good and lived up to my own impression of the territorial boys in love with one of the two personalities in Melanie's body. They were also not hard to look at either.
I thought Diane Kruger did a great job as Seeker, a soul whose skill is in finding people, and her obsession with Melanie was well played out.
The artistry of the film, in the sets, costumes and general look, is also to be praised. The white and silver of the alien invaders contrasted with the earthy colours of the resisting humans, making them seem more enemy-like. The caves where the humans are in hiding were quite stunning and almost exactly as described in the book, these caves were definitely the most fascinating aspect of the original tale.
Overall this is worth a watch, especially if someone else is paying. There are tedious moments that make you want to skip through the scene, but there is also some surprising violence that was much needed and made you wake up a bit.
If what you loved about Twilight was the romance and love triangle issues, you'll definitely love The Host. If like me you have become bitter and critical then I say if you have the opportunity to see this movie take it, if only to see some beautiful caves and Saoirse Ronan showing yet again that she really can act, even when the script sometimes makes you want to gag.
And you know what? It wasn't that bad.
Don't get me wrong my expectations were below sea level prior to viewing, with the exception that I hoped Saoirse Ronan would be at least the best thing in it as I happen to believe she is a fine actress (if you've not seen Hanna or Atonement you really must). And Ronan was one of the best things by far.
To catch up those unfamiliar with the story, this is the adaptation of Stephanie Meyers abortive attempt at science fiction. Why so harsh? Because it was a rehash of invasion of the body snatchers with a love triangle and hardly any horror. I am fed up of Love Triangles, and Meyer cannot write science fiction.
You have these parasitic 'souls' who attach themselves to the dominant life form on a planet and seek to co-exist within their bodies and minds. However humans are more resistant and have to be forced out leaving the 'soul' to live in harmony with it's brethren, who have made Earth peaceful, harmonious and a really quite boring planet.
After a few years a new soul called 'Wanderer' arrives and is given the host body of Melanie Stryder, one of the last humans still resisting being taken over. However Melanie resists and instead reveals to Wanderer what their invasion has meant for the humans. Cue a love triangle between Melanie's true love and the guy who loves the alien, some impressive action sequences (very few but still good), and, as is expected from a Meyer movie, a neat happy ending.
If this had only been a film and not a book, I think I might have liked it more. But the stigma of bad writing is such that I cannot forgive the painful cheesy romantic moments because they are the fault of Meyer. There are a few of these, but luckily what out weighs them is the really great relationship formed on screen between Wanderer (or Wanda) and Mel's uncle Jeb played by William Hurt (Incredible Hulk, Into The Wild). Saoirse did the split personality very well and was how I imagined Wanda/Melanie to be. Hurt was easy going and laid back, very easy to watch in fact rather like Charlie in the Twilight movies.
The boys, Jared and Ian, were slightly less comfortable to watch, but I'll put that down to the cheesy moments they were made to be part of. Max Irons (Red Riding Hood) and Jake Abel (Percy Jackson) were pretty good and lived up to my own impression of the territorial boys in love with one of the two personalities in Melanie's body. They were also not hard to look at either.
I thought Diane Kruger did a great job as Seeker, a soul whose skill is in finding people, and her obsession with Melanie was well played out.
The artistry of the film, in the sets, costumes and general look, is also to be praised. The white and silver of the alien invaders contrasted with the earthy colours of the resisting humans, making them seem more enemy-like. The caves where the humans are in hiding were quite stunning and almost exactly as described in the book, these caves were definitely the most fascinating aspect of the original tale.
Overall this is worth a watch, especially if someone else is paying. There are tedious moments that make you want to skip through the scene, but there is also some surprising violence that was much needed and made you wake up a bit.
If what you loved about Twilight was the romance and love triangle issues, you'll definitely love The Host. If like me you have become bitter and critical then I say if you have the opportunity to see this movie take it, if only to see some beautiful caves and Saoirse Ronan showing yet again that she really can act, even when the script sometimes makes you want to gag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)