One Day

I have to admit straight away that I loved David Nicholls book ‘One Day’ and so can’t review its film adaptation from an unbiased view. However, due to the number of commuters I have seen read it, as well as the fact it sold over 83,050 books in the UK in just one week, I feel I am talking to a large proportion of potential movie-goers. In all honesty I was expecting ‘One Day’ to fall into the age old trap of losing its magic when transferred to the big screen, much like ‘Time Traveller’s Wife’ did, but I was still disappointed at how it turned out considering David Nicholls himself helped adapt the script.

‘One Day’ has the unique premise of following two characters, Dexter (Jim Sturgess) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) over twenty years, but only focusing on one specific day, July 15^th, also know as St. Swithin’s Day. We are shown a patchwork of both their lives as they intersect one another with enjoyable references to age defining fashions and technology. Due to this premise ‘One Day’ only has two central characters and with such a concept it is vitally important to get the perfect cast. In this aspect it unfortunately missed the mark, in one case at least. It is true that there are peripheral characters that appear in both Emma and Dexter’s lives that have been perfectly cast (Patricia Clarkson and Rafe Spall come to mind), but either Emma or Dexter are in every scene it is so important to choose the right people and the suits at Film Four sadly didn’t.

I feel bad for jumping on the ‘Anne Hathaway is too pretty’ bandwagon since she has played a plain Jane before very successfully in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’ and could have altered the role a bit to make it her own. Unfortunately in the end Hathaway tried her best to bring to life the Emma readers knew, but it lacked the magic of Nicholls’ original writing. Her accent was all over the place ranging from cut glass clear to strongly northern and never quite settling down. She also lacked the contrasting mixture of high ambitions and strong cynicism that made Emma’s thoughts a delight to plunder and allowed Emma to pull off her sharp wit. Because of this many of her put downs and observations fell flat as often as they soured leaving Emma less of the independent, strong female character and more pedestrian.

Where Anne Hathaway failed to lift Emma off the page, Jim Sturgess was great at breathing life into Dexter. Somewhat of an unknown actor, which may be the reason Anne Hathaway needed to be brought in, Sturgess appears to be an actor who avoids the limelight. After being in films such ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ and ‘21’ Sturgess will go back into the shadows, which couldn’t be further away from Dexter who clings on to the spot light for a little bit too long. Although it seems Dexter is a far cry away from his on-screen character, Sturgess easily pulls off his arrogance and playboy charm while his character goes through the biggest ups and downs of the film. Both Sturgess and Hathaway are overall very likable and manage to  show clearly the when their characters say one thing, but mean another, but something about them ultimately feels about one dimensional and so you invest little in their trials and successes.

The final person requiring a mention was not in front of the camera, but behind it. David Nicholls both wrote the book and adapted the screenplay and he likely felt the pressure so maybe the mistakes he made are understandable. To his credit he did make some good calls and kept in many of the funnier lines from the book, which went some way in catching some of its original charm- for example Emma’s put down ‘What rhymes with Dexter…Prick. It’s a half rhyme’.  He also sensibly removes some of the less important or less loved characters in order to try and cut down the 448-page book into about two hours. However, his reduction of the book lost a lot more than just a few characters, it also removed a lot of the subtlety that added details and depths to both Dexter and Emma and to their relationship. A lot of the days felt a little too short and seemed only to be included because they helped follow the premise of one day over twenty years. It seems Nicholls was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. By taking too much out he lost some of the charm, but also by trying to make the film faithfully follow the book it became a half arsed project. Ultimately the book could possibly be called unfilmable, at least using present methods, because without the added insight into both Emma’s and Dexter’s minds their relationship with each other and the audience lacks the involving quality it does in the book.

In the end I have to admit that I am biased since I read the book before I saw the film. My sometimes contributor, Will Tooke has not read the book and said he enjoyed the film, so maybe he is a better judge.  However, in my opinion, if you have read the book then maybe not bother with the film as you will be disappointed and if you are tempted to watch the film then buy the book instead.

Degree-3rd

The film simply doesn’t live up to what the book

created and this is truly a real shame.

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

The American

George Clooney is one of the most recognisable faces in American cinema, with good reason; as director Anton Corbijn has said ‘he can say a lot without a script’ so it comes as no surprise that he was the first choice to play the only American character in this European style film ‘The American’.  It is a shame that Clooney’s magic touch, which has gained many award nominations in the past (Michael Clayton, Up In The Air), cannot give more ‘je ne sais quoi’ to this beautiful, but empty film.

The story is very basic with Clooney playing an unnamed gun mechanic who customises weapons for assassins until he is forced to hide after he becomes a target. He stays in Castel De Monte, working away on another assignment, whilst avoiding the locals, all except the prostitute Clara (Violante Placido); he first visits her out of loneliness, but then falls in love with her.  With such a basic plotline you hope that there are some extra story arcs, but this is not the case; the pace of the film drags out everything mentioned to happen over 103 minutes. When something unexpected does happen, Corbijin handles it with quick, precise expertise, which is a nice change from other Hollywood films where the guns battles and chase scenes last over 20 minutes. Saying that it would also have been nice for the action sequences to have had a bit more to them as they would have broken up the film’s laboured pace.

Consequently, without the distraction of too many action sequences, there is plenty of time for detailed characterisation, but Corbijn neglects to do this choosing instead to keep the character a mystery. We are not told anything about his past, so he is completely unrelatable and uninvolving. What is worse is that the protagonist is asking for forgiveness for his past, from both the audience and those around him, but he does nothing that can be considered redeeming. We are never really supporting him and because of this we lose interest in him and also the film.

With all this in mind there are some good things in this film that go some way to make up for the long rant above. Corbijn has used his photographic eye to create some absolutely beautiful shots; the countryside of Italy has never looked this idyllic. Using plenty of wide landscape footage and fantastic shots of the architecture creates a sense of openness and emptiness that reflects the loneliness of Clooney’s character. Both Clooney and his co-star Placido have a real chemistry that can be felt on screen. The sex scene is especially intense, with Clooney revealing more usual (this might be reason itself to see the film for some viewers) and there is tangible passion between the stars. When asked about that scene in a chat we had with him, director said that he tried to film ‘… it in a way that you feel sexuality rather than seeing it, which was important because a lot of sex scenes usually don’t feel sexual, you see everything, but it is not sexual.’

Corbijn also uses atmospheric techniques to great effect making many scenes, even ones with Clooney alone in a room, incredibly tense as he ‘can carry that [tension] and keep you interested, his body language was really good.’ We never know when someone will jump out to attack him and this keeps the audience wary of the silences. Although the music helps add to the tension, it is the silences that really make you sit up in your seat. Corbijn plays around with the sound very effectively, knowing exactly when to have a huge crescendo and when it is more appropriate to have nothing at all.

Saying all this the looks and the tension are not enough to hold ones interest throughout the entire film.  It is sad, but it seems that Corbijn hasn’t quite been able to get away from his photographic origins and create something that stood up to his last film ‘Control’. This will likely come as no surprise to him since he admitted to us ‘I know that I can’t top Control in the critical sense, the recognition was so immense it is just something you can’t aim for.’ What made  ‘Control’ was that Corbijn effectively balanced both aesthetics and story; sadly this time around he only seems to have concentrated on the former. Though it is highly doubtful this criticism will phase him since his philosophy is ‘If people hate the film I am sure for anyone that is hard to take because you work so long on the project… [but] you make a movie that you want to make and you have to let it go and see how people react.’

Degree- 3rd

A film that looks beautiful, but lacks any real substance,

characterisation or story telling.

 

(If you are confused about the rating system please click on the ‘About This Blog Page’ which will explain it all)

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

The Prince of Persia started life as a critically acclaimed video game in 1989 and has since become a huge franchise that has spread across two decades and several different mediums from graphic novels to next generation consoles. Now, it hits the big screen. The new film, The Prince ofPersia: The Sands of Time, is set to be the summer blockbuster to rival Marvel’s Iron Man 2 and it certainly has all the usual trappings of an action-adventure flick. We have an attractive male protagonist, Dastan (Gyllenhaal), who with the help of an equally attractive love interest, Princess Tamina (Arterton), must defeat the less attractive antagonist, Nizam (Kingsley). Between the opening and ending credits Dastan will travel around Persia, create a mismatched group of followers and be a part of some impressive fight scenes; if this all sounds familiar to you then you are likely to have seen the producer’s other big hit The Pirates of the Caribbean. However, though Prince of Persia sounds as if it is cut from the same cloth, it sadly falls short of what Pirates of the Caribbean achieved. The characters are not as developed, the settings not as compelling and the plot not as engaging.

Although Gyllenhaal portrays a far more competent and interesting character than Orlando Bloom’s Will Turner (who ironically was rumoured to have been originally playing this part) he isn’t as entertaining or as dynamic as Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow. Arterton’s Princess Tamina also falls short of being an impressive heroine; the flirtatious bickering between Dastan and Tamina is not only typical of Hollywood blockbusters, but it’s rather poorly executed. Instead of coming across as strong, independent and free thinking Tamina simply seems annoying and whiney. Location also causes gripes. Set in Persia, but filmed in Morocco, the movie jumps quickly from one location to another without properly showing the beauty of the landscape. Sadly it seems that Morocco will look more impressive in Sarah-Jessica Parker’s up-and-coming chick-flick Sex and the City 2 than it did here. Along with jumpy scenes, the plot bounded from location to location and fight to fight with very little congruency or tension. The premise of the film is explained within the first 40 minutes and the audience is given no new surprises.

Despite these deficiencies, the film is not without merit. It provides a lot for lovers of action; the fight scenes are well choreographed with many acrobatic tricks accompanying each sword fight. There is also an element of free running introduced to the film which is a subtle homage to the game the movie is based on. And the sequence of rewinding time is a particularly impressive feature of the film; this beautifully crafted CGI sequence is the one bit of originality in the movie. All together the sequences took a year and a half to finish, but visually it was worth every second. However, these tiny moments are not enough to redeem the rest of the 116 minute running time; anyone who is being dragged to see it should go on Orange Wednesday when at least their ticket will be free.

Degree: 3rd

A dumb action flick that delivers in special effects, but lacks in characterisation,

script and everything else important in a good film.