Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

This may be a novel about spies, but with a cast that includes Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and Gary Oldman no one should be expecting it to be the next Bond or Bourne. In fact ‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ pertains to show audiences the actual reality of being a spy.  John Le Carre’s novel is based on his own experiences in MI6 and reveals it to be a boys club with its own code where office politics takes on a deadly role.

Taking centre stage is Gary Oldman’s George Smiley who has been brought out of forced retirement to find a Russian mole that has been placed at the top of the Circus (the code for MI6). Having not read the novel nor seen the greatly praised BBC mini-series starring Alec Guinness, it is difficult to comment how Oldman’s Smiley compares with past versions, but what can be said is that Oldman fits smoothly into the part he creates. This Smiley is a thoughtful, quiet man who appears to be happier at a desk than seducing beautiful women whilst driving an Aston Martin. Smiley is a real spy, one who is a keen observer, fiercely intelligent and able to do more than just look good in a tuxedo (or perhaps some tight fitting trunks).

Oldman’s controlled and minimal performance makes Smiley a difficult character to warm to initially. He only talks when he has to and always in a deliberate, purposeful manner. In fact there are only two occasions when he appears to lose this tight control and it is at these points that we see Smiley as a mortal man. This careful balancing of emotion really shows off Oldman’s skills.

The cast surrounding Oldman are the crème of British acting talent (at least the male side of it: there aren’t many ladies in the Circus). Colin Firth, John Hurt and Mark Strong play the old boys of the spy world and show off Britain’s great-established talent, whilst Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch are the younger members of MI6 and a new breed of up and coming actors. Although each actor steps up to the challenge and delivers, due to the streamlining of the book to fit into two hours audiences don’t get to know very much about any of them. It is isn’t clear what motivates them or what the stories are behind the older spies, which is probably not the case in either the book or the mini-series. So although the pacing is good plot wise and a lot happens to keep audiences awake, this may have come at the expense of character development.

Even though the film may lack the depth and detail of its source material, it should still be considered a successful literary adaption (unlike other releases this season cough One Day cough). For those who may not have the time to put into either the book or the mini-series, you should know that this is a worthy version that stands up in its own right. Even if you’re not fussed about the film, seeing Oldman at his absolute best is worth the ticket price alone.

Degree- 2:1

A great British film with a strong cast and engaging story

that sadly still suffers from the traditional flaw of not having

enough minutes to fit everything in.

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

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)

Kaboom!

 

When I first went to watch ‘Kaboom!’ I never intended to review it, I thought I deserved a night off. I just wanted to watch a film that I didn’t over-analyse, or try to out-smart and predict (which I have been known to do). But as the movie went on I found myself itching to jot down my thoughts so I could share them with an audience. This need became so great the I ended up using my phone as a notepad to hold my long stream of consciousness about Greg Araki’s latest film. The last thought I typed down pretty much sums up how this review will go ‘It’s just bad’.

The most important aspects of any film are a good plot and a good script; ‘Kaboom!’ fell down with both. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that it all starts off so well (or at least average) with young arts student Smith (Thomas Dekker) experiencing the ‘student life’ of parties, pills and a lot of sex.  Since Smith is a gay boy, but is seen having more sex with girls, it seems that Araki is trying to show the fluidity of sexuality, nothing that hasn’t been done before.  In fact everyone seems to be jumping into bed with everyone, both boys and girls, all except Smith’s lesbian friend Stella(Haley Bennett) who stays firmly in her pigeonhole. Although the amount of sex is over the top, and the excuses to remove clothes are more poorly veiled than in ‘Twilight’, it is what we have come to expect from these coming out/coming of ages stories. So although the plot was predictable, it did not irritate the audience, merely bore them. However, it appears Araki saw this coming and decided that in the last 20 minutes the film would lose the plot and all hell would break loose. Suddenly, almost out of nowhere, the film is full of secret societies, paranormal powers, messiahs, nuclear arms and SPOLIER- the end of the world-. The last quarter makes the whole film feel disjointed and not fully thought through; like a GCSE film project that wishes to mimic the absurdity of ‘Donnie Darko’.  But where ‘Donnie Darko’ had hints and strangeness from the very beginning, ‘Kaboom!’ threw most of it in at the end. To give ‘Kaboom!’ its due the plot no longer becomes predictable, but that is only because it becomes so obscure you are left wondering if this is meant to be mocking something you’re not familiar with.

Now I come to the other integral part of a film-the script, and this one is almost as easy to poke fun of as the plot. The entire film is an out of proportion melodrama and this is reflected in the writing, with its over the top language and awkward rapport. The explicit sexual conversations, which is all these teens seem to talk about, feels as if it comes straight from the Sex and the City guide to meal conversation. On top of that, to show that the writers are hip, cool and trendy the script is full of modern pop references that are inorganically inserted into conversation. Even though there are a lot of problems with the script, I will admit there some great lines delivered by the female cast. They range from ‘I need to pee like a banshee’ to ‘It’s a vagina, not a plate of spaghetti’ and even ‘You meet some guy on a nude beach and after five minutes you’re downloading his hard drive in the back of a van. You’re a slut.’ which has to be best line in the film.

The final problem with the film has to be the characters; all are incredibly flat with little to them and spark no interest from the audience. The central character Smith, his best friend Stella and sex buddy London have little going for them (or against them to be fair), while minor characters like Smith’s roommate Thor or Stella’s witchy lover Lorelei add so little that you wonder if there is any reason for them to be included at all.  Every member of the cast is constantly stunning to look at, but this becomes a problem when they are constantly stunning, even after a 5-hour sex session Stella’s hair and make up are still perfectly applied. I expect many women wish to know her secret. Why can’t directors bring themselves to show sex for the gritty, sweaty enjoyment that we all know it is? This filtered, romanticised view does the film no favours.

Overall it is disappointing that Araki who has released ‘Mysterious Skin’, which dealt honestly with the dark issues of child molestation, has decided to direct something as shallow as ‘Kaboom!’ turned out to be. I may be wrong, God knows critics and bloggers have been in the past. ‘Kaboom!’ may gather a cult following like other ‘great before their time’ classics such as ‘The Rocky Horror Picture Show’ and ‘Donnie Darko’. Maybe I missed the point; I will admit I heard people leaving the cinema raving about how ‘truly amazing’ it was. However, for me the whole thing was just rubbish.

Degree-Fail

This film just doesn’t know what to be or do with 

itself. It starts off one thing and ends another

and is just boring and annoying to watch-a real shame.

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

Bridesmaids

Guest writer Andy Bruce

‘Bridesmaids’: the anti-chick flick, laugh-a-minute, female version of the Hangover, if the ten star user reviews on IMDb are to be believed.

They aren’t.

The film is as ‘anti-chick’ as a spa weekend with your BFF, or carrying a tiara-wearingChihuahuain a Mulberry handbag. I mean, the plot follows a group of women planning a wedding – there’s very little you can do with that to ‘unchickify’ it (though Wiig (‘Saturday Night Live’) and Mumolo (You won’t have heard of her before now) would have you believe that a couple of scenes of scatological humour are enough to do just that); there’s a predictable girl meets guy love story; and it ends with a musical performance which screams ‘Shrek’ more than ‘comedy film of the decade’. This isn’t to say the film is bad – not by any stretch of the imagination. It just doesn’t live up to the hype or the expectations I had going in.

However, any film that opens with Jon Hamm (‘Mad Men’) playing an arrogant asshole having fast sex with the hilarious Kristen Wiig’s Annie is bound to have some great moments, and here the film does not disappoint: from Wiig’s early impression of a penis, to Wiig’s performance on the plane, to Wiig going crazy at the bridal shower. In fact Wiig gets so many great scenes you might be forgiven for thinking the film was written just for her to show off… oh… wait… I guess it was. Don’t get me wrong; Wiig is a great comedian, and if the 2008 Republican vice-president nominee had looked like her instead of Tina Fey, perhaps Wiig would have her own (mediocre) half hour comedy on NBC and Fey would be the one writing greedy big screen scripts for herself. But the fact is that the supporting cast of ‘Bridesmaids’ (perhaps with the exception of Rose ‘Ugly when she cries’ Byrne) barely gets a word in, so much so that the bridal party of six has essentially become a party of four by the end of the film, with Wendi McLendon-Covey and Ellie Kemper becoming nothing more than glorified extras after the halfway point – so much so that I can’t even remember their character’s names. And the same is true of Matt Lucas and Rebel Wilson’s creepy brother/sister act, and the almost offensive underuse of Jill Clayburgh as Annie’s well-meaning mother. The film devotes so much time to Annie’s story that it never really develops the other characters to the extent that they might possibly deserve, and there is rarely any conclusion to their subplots.

The other exception to this is Melissa McCarthy’s (‘Gilmore Girls’) portrayal of Megan, who at first glance might look like the token ‘comic relief’ member of the group. Indeed, at first she plays up to this role with a couple of throw-away lines and some physical comedy, but then develops into a character with actual feelings – a rare occurrence in the film. Her own subplot even gets a conclusion in the coveted (but utterly ridiculous) post-credits scene. So she, along with Chris O’Dowd, who plays the only not-a-glorified-extra male character surprisingly well in a female (Wiig) dominated film, is the real stand-out. Whilst Rose Byrne, who I expected to be great, was lumbered with a two dimensional bitch of a character whose eleventh hour reprieve is out of character at best, and totally unbelievable at worst.

All of this makes the film sound pretty bad, which isn’t the case. It’s just far easier to point out its flaws than remember the scenes that had the audience laughing*, which there were plenty of. For all the above criticism, Wiig plays Annie perfectly, switching from hilarity to sombre moments seamlessly, and carrying the audience with her on her journey to rock bottom and then even lower, and you can truly feel for her character. The main plot revolves more around friendship than the actual planning of the wedding, which gives the film more depth than its poster and marketing would have you believe, and the fact that they managed to make an actual comedy into a full length two hour film rather than the standard eighty minute ‘comedy’ is not without merit.

Despite the faults pointed out above, the film is still very good, and well worth the student two-for-one ticket it cost. Go in with great expectations and you’ll come away slightly disappointed, but you’ll still have had two hours of laughter. Ignore the hype and you’ll come away happy and you’ll have had two hours of laughter.

*I wanted something more dramatic like ‘cackling’ or ‘giggling’, but they both imply a predominantly female audience, which is accurate but shouldn’t put men off seeing it – there were at least 10 of us in the full cinema…

Degree: 2.1

A funny film to highlight Wiig’s great writing/acting,

though the humour is often obvious and unintelligent.

The crass scatological humour doesn’t really do enough to offset

the 95% female cast, 90% of whom are almost pointless. Certainly doesn’t live up to hype.

X-Men First Class

 

As a self-confessed geek and huge X-Men fan, I have wasted many an hour or two reading through countless Wikipedia pages on all the characters from my favourites to the lesser known ones, so I was extremely excited about the up coming prequel. Having been disappointed both by ‘X3-The Last Stand’ and embarrassed by ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ I was optimistic when I saw the names Matthew Vaughn (who directed ‘Kick Ass’), Jane Goldman (who helped adapt ‘Kick Ass’) and Bryan Singer (the director of the first two X-Men films). Needless to say, my expectations were met and, in some areas, surpassed.

Set in the 1960s, ‘X-Men: First Class’ has gone back to basics to create an origin of one of the most fascinating relationships in the franchise – the one between Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender). As well as their relationship, the film focuses on how Xavier becomes Professor X, the world’s most powerful telepath, and Lehnsherr becomes Magneto, a man who can control magnetic fields and thus manipulate metal. Set during the real-life event of the Cuban missile crisis, the story concentrates on the first coming-out of mutants to the not only the rest of the world, but also to each other. Lehnsherr’s is the first power we see manifest and audiences are given an insight into his anger and drive; how he survived a Nazi concentration camp as a young boy (fan boys will notice how Singer’s original opening to ‘X-Men’ was used) and his powers stem from the emotional hardship he suffered. Seeing Lehnsherr’s origins allows us to understand how his later philosophy of mutants above humans does not come from being innately evil, but from his own negative experiences of the world, many of them cruel and unbending. As the film goes on Lehnsherr transforms from a volatile loner to a calm, magnetic (excuse the pun) leader that we recognize as the Magneto immortalized by Sir Ian McKellen. Fassbender plays a brilliant young Magneto, who is stylish, ruthless and takes no prisoners. It would not come as a surprise if Fassbender became the next James Bond as he skillfully manages to give feeling and depth to what some might describe as an unrepentant character. He also manages to make turtle necks look suave and menacing, which is no mean feat by any means.

Xavier’s transformation to the serene mentor played by Sir Patrick Stewart is a little more obvious, and slightly poorly handled. At the start Xavier is a confident arrogant DPhil student (well what DPhil students aren’t?) studying genetics at Oxford University and using his powers for his own personal pleasure, such as reading the mind of a girl to find out her favourite drink. However, upon finding the existence of other mutants besides himself, and realizing that they need to be looked after, he grows up and willingly accepts his responsibility as a mutant mentor. This transformation doesn’t feel fully believable, most likely because McAvoy lacks the gravitas to pull off the serious act. He is much better playing the annoying playboy than serious grown up.

As well as Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, ‘X-Men: First Class’ includes a list of characters that fans of the original comic books will enjoy. The strongest, most interesting and best written one is easily Raven, who will come to be known as the blue shape-shifter, Mystique. In the original movies Mystique was many people’s favourite due to her refusal to hide her difference, even though she easily could, in this prequel we see how this determination develops. Originally she hides her mutant ability and assumes the look of the normal, albeit beautiful, Jennifer Lawrence, but as the film progresses she is shown to question whether she should have to hide. What makes her part in the film even more interesting is how she creates a kind of love triangle with Xavier and Lehnsherr. She starts off following Xavier, but audiences all know she will change her allegiance if she is to be on Magneto’s side at the start of the first X-Men.  Watching the two men battle for her support adds extra tension to a relationship that already has two strong egos believing they are right.

The second supporting character to add to the characterization and depth of the film is another blue fan favourite, Hank McCoy, later known as Beast. Although in his blue bestial form when played by Kelsey Grammer in ‘X3: The Last Stand’ in this prequel he still has his human form and is played by Nicholas Hoult. What is interesting about McCoy’s character is he is not as selfless as the rest of the team and desperately wants to make his monkey-like feet normal again. For once, it is nice to see a superhero that reacts in a normal, slightly superficial, way to his situation in a way that reflects how audiences might also react. It would be great to say that the rest of the X team are as well developed and as well written as Mystique and Beast, however, this is sadly not the case. Whether it is the fault of the script for not giving them more depth or the fault of the original source material for not providing enough to work with, the rest of the students from Mutant High feel like add-ons. It seems that they are only there to fill up the fight scenes. It could be argued that out of the hundreds of characters that could have been picked, Jane Goldman and her team should have chosen more filled out ones.

If some of the characters in the X-team let the side down, Kevin Bacon’s Sebastian Shaw – a mutant who can absorb energy – and January Jones’ Emma Frost – a telepath who can also turn her skin into diamonds – are certainly enemies who bring it back up. Both actors ooze the natural sophistication and glamour that is associated with wealth in the 60s. Because of this they are a delight to watch and part of you will want them to succeed in their plot because they just look so good doing it.

Unlike many comic book films released at the moment (Green Lantern comes to mind…) ‘X-Men: Fist Class’ is character and plot driven over the special effects. Truth be told, some of the CGI is not up to scratch with most summer blockbusters; maybe blue is a difficult colour to use, but both Mystique and Beast have looked better in previous incarnations and Emma Frost’s diamond skin looked a little cheap. But if these faults have come because more time was spent neatening up the script, then they are a worthy price to pay so that the film breaks away from being a normal comic book adaption. Saying this, there are still enough little bits of comic trivia for fans. From jokes about Xavier’s hair to the appearance of two stars from the original three films, these little in jokes will keep fans happy. However, the studio did take a few artistic licenses that some fans may not be happy with.  For example, likely due to American audiences being unable to understand British accents (commiserations Ms Cole) both Banshee and Moira McTagart have lost their heavily accented heritage to become clean spoken Americans. Although this may seem a little petty to complain about, this is just the sort of things that fans will pick up on and get annoyed about.

Although some aspects of the film have been changed for better or for worse, the premise is still very much pride of the underdog. ‘Mutant Pride’ is constantly and unsubtly mentioned, but really the word ‘mutant’ could be replaced by any minority or down trodden group – gay pride, female pride, geek pride. This is the very essence of what X-Men is about: who the fan base is. And that is what has made it become so successful. People enjoy X-Men because it shows that being born different doesn’t mean you are born unequal, and it is fantastic that this mantra shines though out the entire film.

Degree- 2:1

Finally the franchise has gone back to the basics that made

it so successful to begin with. This is a film that even those who

don’t like the comics may enjoy as it focuses more on plot than CGI.

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

Julia’s Eyes (Los Ojos De Julia)

A film with Guillermo del Toro’s name on it is like a car with a Ferrari badge, you know it is going to be good quality, and ‘Julia’s Eyes (or ‘Los ojos de Julia’ in Spanish) is no exception. Although there is a lack of Guillermo del Toro’s visual prowess and grandeur, director Guillem Morales creates a film that is probably more shocking and thrilling than ‘The Orphanage’.

The film makes the audience jump right from the start and doesn’t let up for the entire 112 minutes. Julia (played by Belén Rueda) is devastated after her blind twin sister Sara has committed suicide. Although both the police and her husband Issac (Lluís Homar) believe there was no foul play involved, Julia suspects otherwise, and goes off in search for the killer. She must shine light upon this mystery quickly as she is slowly losing her sight due to the same degenerative disorder that affected her sister. And as her sight gets worse she becomes the killer’s new target. This short synopsis does not do the tension the film creates any justice as this is a film that is all about successfully creating tension the likes of which most audiences never feel.

Julia’s failing vision is certainly the aspect of the film that is most terrifying and is what puts this film leagues ahead of many other thrillers. The idea of being unable to see who or where the killer is, of being constantly in the dark and not knowing who to trust, the concept is terrifying and the movie expertly plays off this primal fear. Morales uses the great cinematography and music to constantly build up the tension to unbearable levels that leave the audience craving for something to happen just to give them some relief. The soundtrack causes hearts to beat faster while the blacked out shots create real fear during the chase scenes.

A distinct part of the film that really helps heighten up the tension is Belén Rueda’s sympathetic and engaging portrayal of Julia. Unlike many other thrillers, such as Paranormal Activity or Scream 4, Belén Rueda manages to make the audience engage with her character so that in the end we want her to survive. When she hears someone in her room at night we hope she gets out of there quickly and as her sight starts to fade we feel sorry for her. These feelings comes about partly due to Rueda’s engaging portrayal of Julia, but also because Julia is a well written, interesting character, at least for a thriller movie. She has a job, relationships, dreams, fears and a personality, which instantly makes her more relatable and therefore easier to empathize with. When this is all put together means that Julia’s survival is important to us and this helps raise the tension beyond a normal slasher/thriller.

The ‘who dunnit’ aspect of the film potentially lets it down a little bit. Although there are plenty of twist and turns within the story the more experienced moviegoer will likely see outcomes of a lot of the twists. Saying that, however, Morales and co-writer Oriol Pualo, have included enough red herrings so that although you may have a good idea about what will happen next you never completely know. The tension does also drop a little about 2/3^rd of the way through, but this comes as a godsend as up till then you are on the edge of your seat for almost every minute. This doesn’t mean the ending is a let down though, although the film never reaches the tension highs it did at the start it still manages to hook us up till the very last scene.

Overall this film is by far the scariest film on release at the moment, and possible up there with being one of the scariest ones of all time. It does all that a scary film should do and it does it well. There is tension, gore, mystery and surprises they stay with you till the next day. Don’t say you weren’t warned. See it for yourself.

Degree- 1st

Easily one of the scariest film out at the moment

and possibly one of the scariest films ever

this one will certainly keep you up at night afterwards.

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

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec

As foreign language films go ‘The Extraordinary adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec’ certainly feels different. Doubtless many similar films are made and released, but most of the ones that arrive on these shores tend to follow the same pattern:they are often character based criticisms on how tough life can be and what is important about being human; this film on the other hand is a more light hearted bit of fun than deep melodrama and is more enjoyable because of it.

Based on a series of Franco-Belgian comics written before and after the Great War, ‘The Extraordinary adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec’ follow author and investigative journalist Adele Blanc-Sec (Louise Bourgoin) as she searches ancient Egyptian tombs for a way to cure her twin sister Agathe from her coma. As this is going on a pterodactyl, which has remained dormant for about 130 million years, is terrorising early 20^th Century Paris.  This gives you an idea of the off the wall feeling that the film has, and it is this quirkiness that is the film’s strongest part. From walking mummies discussing what site to see all the way to a pterodactyl pooing on the Parisian commissioner (yes both do happen) the film does not take itself too seriously and is full of charm and laughs because of it.

The bulk of the charm certainly comes from Louise Bourgoin, who plays Adele Blanc-Sec. She is an exceptional example of a great leading lady with stunning looks, excellent comic timing and great acting chops. Adele is a great character, one that Hollywood’s leading ladies should try to emulate. Often many central female characters end up being strong right up until they are in trouble and then they ask for the help of their male love interests. However, not only is Adele smart, but she has no need for a male love interest, which is refreshing as many Hollywood films include love interests just so that a sex scene can be shown in the trailer. As well as being strong and independent, Adele is also very funny, and this comes from a script filled with little witty one-liners and turns of phrases, which help maintain the film’s light hearted feel.

Since it is in French it of course sounds beautiful, but the visuals are also stunning as well. Set in 1912, ‘The Extraordinary adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec’ is a gorgeous period piece, filled with bright frocks and smart suits and of course the wide streets and bohemian rooms of Paris. Each scene is stunning to look at, whether it is an ancient tomb or Adele’s lavish flat, the film certainly looks stunning. There are a few areas where the film does look a bit cheap, namely the poor animation of the risen mummies and the pterodactyl, but this is of little consequence for the overall feel of the picture.

This film is certainly not for everyone. If you are looking for a serious bit of drama or maybe some form of enlightenment then you will likely leave ‘The Extraordinary adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec’ feeling that it was all superficial twaddle.  However, if you take the film as an enjoyable, light-hearted bit of fun then you will leave feeling elated and excited to see if Adele Blanc-Sec has any more adventures on the horizon.

Degree- 2:1

Not the deepest film you’ll ever see, but where it lacks depth

this film has charm that more than makes up for it.

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

Howl

Guest Writer Dean Newby

Howl is a film concerning the 1957 obscenity trial of Alan Ginsberg’s poem after which the film is named. It is written & directed by film-making partners of over 20 years Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman and co-produced by Gus Van Sant (‘Milk’, ‘Good Will Hunting’). It stars James Franco as the now legendary but, at the time, little-known poet, Alan Ginsberg, as well as a host of other well known actors such as Mary-Louise Parker, Jeff Daniels, and Jon Hamm.

I have to admit from the offset, that I am a massive Ginsberg fan. Not just of his work (some of his poems being my favourite of all time), but also of the man, what he stood for and how(l) and why he wrote. With that in mind, I had 3 questions when I entered the cinema to watch ‘Howl’:

1. Will non-Howl/non-Ginsberg fans or those who simply do not know his work like or get anything positive from the film?
2. Will the film remain true to the poem, the trial and the man (Ginsberg)?
3. How can a poem such as ‘Howl’ be successfully portrayed on-screen?

The answers in short, are a resounding: Yes. Yes. Brilliantly & Beautifully.

The film opens in black & white with Franco’s Ginsberg on stage preparing to read his poem. The room is filled with people, with a haze of cigarette smoke hanging in the air. The audience is waiting, some clearly with bated breath.

When Franco begins speaking his voice higher than usual, with a touch of nervousness. His pitch, intenation, and rhythm all contribute to the feeling that at times, one could actually be listening to Ginsberg reading his poetry – as I have courtesy of a ‘Voice of the Poet’ CD of his work. There is a tenderness to Franco’s performance that cements his portrayal as Ginsberg, he deals with the reading of the poem with the same energy and passion as Ginsberg, and his interview with the same calmness and confidence. This shows the two sides to most people: the performer and the ‘real’ person.

We’re soon introduced to scenes of real-life colour, alternating between Ginsberg’s interview and the current trial of 1957. There are also animated sequences which act as a visual interpretation of the poem. Reminiscent of Van Gogh in their swirls of colour, they are juxtaposed with scenes in black and white. In contrast they seem like silent snapshots of memories past.

The film carefully balances several scenes: Ginsberg’s interview with an unidentified interviewer, the trial, his past and the animated poem, and it does so perfectly, which considering the number of scene-changes, is an extremely skilled thing to do. There is enough imagery & speech that the viewer doesn’t get bored or lose interest, but not so much that they are left feeling dazed or lost somewhere between Franco laying in on some steps and animated penises floating through the night sky.

The film is bigger than ‘Howl’, Ginsberg, or the trial. It skillfully delivers the message that art often outlives all of us, and lives eternally in a world beyond time. This is shown beautifully in a scene of the past in which the only object of colour is a painting in a gallery Ginsberg is visiting. If black & white is the past, and colour the present, then this painting displayed in Ginsberg’s past continues into his present, into our present.

Of the many things this film has to offer; superb acting, some of the most beautiful animation I’ve ever seen, and a story of a man who wrote what he saw at a time when many were blinded by anger and fear, I think one of the most important is a renewed interest Ginsberg and his work. That can only be a good thing.

While testifying at the trial, Treat Williams’ character, academic Mark Schorer, states that ‘poetry cannot be translated into prose’, but having watched ‘Howl’ I think it’s fair to say that it can, in this case anyway, indeed be translated into film.

1st

Cinematically beautiful with an honesty and appreciation of history

that is too often overlooked in today’s ‘quick-buck’ film industry.

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

True Grit

By Will Tooke

Remakes are a tricky business.  Here in the glamorous, Soho based Film Don Inc. offices, we still argue about the relative merits of Let Me In, the American remake of the far superior Swedish Let The Right One In, that seemed to me at least to cater solely for American teenagers too lazy to read subtitles for two hours. Equally re-boots such as ‘Karate Kid’ and ‘The A-Team’ can cause a lot of heavy debate as to whether they ruined or improved the franchise.

Which brings us to the Coen Brother’s True Grit. Whilst not a remake of a foreign movie or a reboot of an 80’s classic, the comparison holds in that it is a remake of a much loved original, that garnered widespread critical acclaim upon its release in 1969, and finally won Marion Morrison (or John Wayne to you and me) a Best Actor Oscar for his swan song performance as Rooster Cogburn, the gruff, no nonsense US Marshal. The Coen’s have more than proved themselves when it comes to Westerns, having adapted and directed 2007s No Country For Old Men, but they also proved themselves to be wildly inconsistent filmmakers by following up No Country with Burn After Reading, a weird, unpleasant comedy that raises a few laughs (George Clooney’s dildo machine*, anyone?) but has dark streaks so broad that as a whole the film is uncomfortably discordant. So purists of the Western genre perhaps have a lot to be worried about. Especially since the last Coen remake was 2002’s The Ladykillers, starring Tom Hanks. There’s a reason why you probably haven’t heard of it.

Then again, the original True Grit has a lot wrong with it – and however sacrilegious this may sound; don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. The 1969 Henry Hathaway directed version screamed sixties Hollywood – if you can look past the poor quality special effects (shots of people falling off horses were sped up, a safer way for stuntmen to earn their living, but it has more than a little of the Benny Hill chase sequence about it), then its hard to look past how anaesthetised the Wild West looks. Clothes are new and clean, and saddles shine with the over care of a zealous props department. With modern additions to the genre like the much underrated, Kevin Costner directed Open Range, the TV show Deadwood, or even the sprawling epic videogame Red Dead Redemption audiences are used to seeing the Old West like it was. Violent, dark and dirty.  Pleasingly this is how the Coens have realized their version of the film. Which isn’t to say it doesn’t look beautiful, the grimy grey-brown palette periodically broken up by skylines stretching blue across the Midwestern horizons, or the spurting crimson of a fatal gunshot.

Another fault with the original was the casting. Surly Texas Ranger Labouef was played by country singer Glenn Campbell, who couldn’t act as well as he could sing, a piece of stunt casting thankfully not emulated by the Coen brothers- presumably 50 Cent was upset not to be asked to a reading, Matt Damon being a perfect fit for the role, much to Fiddy’s chagrin.  Jeff Bridges brings a gruff, whiskery authority to the one eyed Cogburn. Unlike Wayne’s incarnation, it’s easy to forget that you’re watching an actor and not a real cowboy. It’s unkind, but in truth Wayne played a gunslinger at the end of his career at the end of his career, whereas Bridges continues to go from strength to strength. He has made the role his own. John who? Wisely, Bridges channels hardly any of Wayne’s original performance, although it’s great to see the inclusion of the original’s most iconic scene – Cogburn galloping toward a posse of badguys, reins in his teeth, a six shooter in each hand, kill or be killed.

Despite Bridge’s stellar performance, the real tip of the ten gallon hat has to go to newcomer and spell check molester Hailee Steinfeld who is nothing short of astonishing in the roll of the young Maddie Ross, who hires Cogburn to track down her father’s murderer. Here – and in the original book – Maddie is only fourteen, whereas in 1969 she was played by Kim Darby, then in her early twenties, the character having been made sufficiently old enough to hint at a love interest with Cogburn, another bum note in the original. Steinfeld manages to bring the outwardly gutsy, bluntness of the character to the screen in tandem with her naivety and concealed sensitivity, a performance made all the more impressive considering she is acting alongside the likes of Damon and Bridges. That Best Supporting Actress Oscar nod is so well deserved, albeit a nomination that rather understates her role in True Grit, as she is arguably the central character – reflected in her BAFTA nomination for Best Actress. It is as much her film as it is Bridges’.

Aside from the top notch cast – bolstered by a subtle turn by Josh Brolin as the bad guy – the reason why the film really works is weirdly because it is one of the least Coen-y Coen Brother’s film. It has less of the cooky twists that seem to delight and irritate in equal measure, and is much less violent than a lot of their previous work (thus making it still pretty violent).  All in all it’s a carefully, understated film that is made all the stronger by its simple plot, letting strong character performances carry the compelling tale of revenge and justice.

*Coincidentally, a rather good name for a band.

Degree- First.

The best Western movie in years, and even ifgunslingers and horse

chases aren’t your thing– the strong performances are worth the price of admission alone.

The film to give The King’s Speech a run for its money when the

Oscars come round at the end of the month.

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

Never Let Me Go

Production companies 20^th Century Fox, DNA and Film 4 have recently taken on the difficult task of adapting a popular and highly acclaimed novel. This is always a challenge, but when your source material is Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let Me Go’ which has been called the greatest novel of the decade by Times:London the task is made even harder. However, with the help of some great young British talent and a team clearly passionate about the story, director Mark Romanek has managed to pull it off.

The film, like the book, is broken up into three acts, each one set at different times at the end of the 20^th Century on an alternate timeline; before you make any wrong assumptions this not a sci-fi movie with space ships and chrome, but a sci-fi fable set in the English countryside. The science-fiction that is a crucial part of the story is simply used as a metaphor for what the film is trying to put across, which is not that medical advances are scary, but that life is fleeting and difficult.

The first part takes place in Hailsham boarding school and it is in this ‘Just William’ like setting that we meet the three central characters, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, as children; played by Isobel Meikle-Small, Charlie Rowe and Ella Purnell, who must carry the film for the first third. All three are incredibly engaging and each give phenomenally mature performances. While at Hailsham all the children, are given everything they need: food, clothes, exercise, companionship, the lot, but there is also something sinister we are not told about. Many of the adults act uncomfortable around them, while those that don’t describe the children as special and use words such as ‘donations’ and ‘carers’, which is not made sense of till much later. In the second two parts the adult cast of Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley are used and the more grown up dynamics, such as duty, jealousy, love and despair are brought in as they all get close to their ‘completion’.

Ultimately story deals with the issue of growing up and realising how fleeting life truly is. It seems we only have a second or two with the ones we love before it is all over and this is what Romanek and Ishiguro are opening our eyes to. With watches and clocks in almost every scene the audience are constantly reminded how short life can be, especially for the poor students from Hailsham.  This massage is also made more tragic by having us watch young people grappling with ideas that they should not be grasping until they are 80-years old. Don’t go into the film expecting a rom-com, but this bleak drama is touching non-the less.

In order to work the film relies on the love triangle that forms between Kathy, Ruth and Tommy so it was the right move of Romanek’s to bring on such amazing British stars. Both Garfield and Mulligan show that they are worthy of the term ‘rising star’. Garfield’s performance has great passion and one of his scenes later on in the film will break your heart and send shivers up your spine. Mulligan gives a much more reserved performance that perfectly fits with her character Kathy who on the surface may seem to accept her fate, but is struggling against it as much as any of them. The two seem to have an adorable, down played chemistry that makes their relationship seem real and believable. Knightley is also exceptional as Ruth, the girl who is blocking Kathy and Tommy’s love. With ‘Never Let Me Go’ she increases her impressive literary pedigree by this time playing the unlikable character, so it credits her ability that she can make the audience sympathise and pity Ruth by the end.

Not only are the actors beautiful to watch but also the scenery surrounding them is stunning. With the film being shot all over England, Romanek captures some beautiful images of the countryside such as Holkam Beach and Clevedon Pier. To give the film an extra feel of strangeness the visual palette was made completely devoid of primary colours, leaving behind only muted browns, greens and blues. The purpose of this was clearly to add to the atmosphere, but it also makes the film seem very dreary, which was not helped by its slow pace. Although the fate of the characters is not explained right away there are enough clues for most to guess what will happen and this predictability, along with the slow pace and subdued colours, might bore many and have them miss the overall meaning that Romanek is trying to put across.  However, those that feel that way will likely have missed what really makes the movie effective. It tugs subtly at our emotions and the fact that Romanek avoids using obvious tear jerking motifs or crowd pleasers is to his credit.

The film sticks very closely to both the original message and dialogue of Ishiguro’s book. This may mean that it is not the right thing for some people, but for others it will be a delightful and haunting watch. Thanks to the superb acting of the leads and the layered source material, the experience will stick with you long after it has all ended.

Degree: 2:1

This is a film that will divide people, even I was umming and ahhing about

what to give it. In the end it is well acted, beautifully shot

and deserves to be recognized, even if the subject matter

isn’t to everyones taste.

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