Review - Les Misérables

Les Misérables is one of my favourite musicals. Although it is over a decade since the last of my four trips to see it, I still know huge chunks of by heart. I have, therefore, been looking forward to seeing the film version. I didn't necessarily intend to go on the day of release but, somewhat spontaneously, I decided to go last night.

Earlier this week, it received 8 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Hugh Jackman), Best Supporting Actress (Anne Hathaway) and Best Original Song. Good news, I thought.

The film has stuck almost completely to the stage version: a brave move given its length and the lack of an interval when viewing it on film. Consulting my copy of the Original London Cast recording has confirmed that only a couple of numbers were cut (although a few were abridged) - and that the running order has been varied.

As with the film version of Evita, there is new song, with music penned by the original composers Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil and lyrics once again provided by Herbert Kretzmer. I must confess to having been concerned about this but I was pleasantly surprised. It may have been a wee bit twee but it bridged a gap in the stage version and moved the story on.

So much for the good stuff, but what did I think of the film itself? Well, I was worried you might ask that... I'm afraid I couldn't get really get past Crowe's singing, and to a lesser extent, Jackman's. My immediate post show Facebook tweet sums up my thoughts in this regard: "When casting a Musical it would help if the lead actors could sing..."

Jackman's voice improved through the film but Crowe's didn't. The films unique selling point is that the singing was recorded with the action, rather than pre-recorded and then dubbed on. As I type this, I'm listening to the soundtrack (which was recorded after the film) and I don't think that capturing the singing as part of the performance is to blame - I really do think they were poor singers and this had a real impact on my enjoyment of the whole film.

Hathaway, on the other hand, was a revelation as Fantine and, in terms of the actors, head and shoulders above the rest. Her rendition of the "I Dreamed A Dream" was fantastic. Sasha Baron-Cohen was good as Thénardier, complete with comedic French accent. Helena Bonham-Carter was also good, as Madam Thénardier. Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks performed well in the roles of Cosette and Eponine, Barks was particularly good although the former was slightly patchy in places. Eddie Redmayne made a passable Marius.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the various numbers sung by the chorus - which were performed with the right level of joy and levity to lift the mood and the tempo. And, despite my earlier comments on Crowe and Jackman, the vocal (and physical) duelling track "Confrontation" between them was excellent.

Visually, the film captures the grit and grime of revolutionary France and the various sets are good (although the barricade not necessarily as impressive as the stage version). Those who have seen the stage show, though, may feel that some of the magic of theatrical sets and effects has been lost in the transition to the screen - although director Tom Hooper does make an effort to retain the impact of some of the deaths.

Hooper is keen to mine the emotion and expressions of the actors in the way that a singer projecting to the back of a Victorian theatre can't. In doing this, though, I found some of the camera angles and shots strange. There were also too many close ups of people almost (but not quite) singing to camera. It was also oddly notable that the female leads were considerably smaller than their male counterparts - and this was often accentuated by the choice of shots.

So, I came away singing (somewhat predictably, Do You Hear The People Sing) but disappointed. Ultimately the stars of the show - other than Hathaway - are the songs and the score. And they're available (in many versions) elsewhere. I would recommend going to see Les Misérables: but go and see it on stage!

Andrew

I should note that my review seems to be at odds with the Oscar nominations garnered and the generally favourable reviews elsewhere. There was also a small round of applause from some of the audience in the screening I went to, so maybe it's just me...

Review - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

In his foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien begins "This tale grew in the telling..." So it has been with the film of The Hobbit - originally conceived as two films, one of the The Hobbit and a second to bridge the gap to the Lord of the Rings - it morphed into two films telling the story in Tolkien's book but drawing on his additional material before being further divided to create a new trilogy.

Throughout this process, and particularly from when Peter Jackson took the helm after the departure of Guillermo del Toro, I have awaited the films with great anticipation, a little trepidation and with immense trust the Jackson could repeat what he had achieved with Lord of the Rings.

The main problem that Jackson had was that the tone of The Hobbit is completely different to that of The Lord of the Rings, and vastly different from the version of Middle Earth created for the films of the latter. The first challenge was to tell this tale but to make it of a piece with the LotR trilogy. 

It is desire that has led to the expansion of the films to a trilogy - and having seen the first, one can more easily understand the shape of the remaining two films and the likely material that will be covered... Their names, too, are a help in this regard: The Desolation of Smaug and There and Back Again. But that, perhaps is for another day: what of An Unexpected Journey?

Jackson begins with "old" Bilbo (Ian Holm) setting out to write his memoirs - and straightaway we're afforded the story of the Lonely Mountain and the exile of the Dwarves* following the coming of the dragon; setting the scene for the appearance of the Dwarves and the quest that Bilbo became a part of. 

This introduction, and the cameo appearance of Elijah Wood as Frodo, are set immediately prior to the "Long Expected Party" at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring". We are then transported back 60 years to when the young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) meets Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and the company of the Dwarves...

I shall not, despite the wide knowledge of the book, give away too much of the plot. Instead, I shall restrict myself to a few observations.

First, as a fanboy, I am not without reservations at elements of the changes that Jackson has made to the story as related in the book and accompanying annals. In particular, the introduction of Azog (an Orc Chief) and the sub-plot that will, I'm sure, be present throughout the three films. However, if I divorce myself from the book, this device is probably understandable.

An ensemble cast of 13 Dwarves, a Hobbit and a Wizard could be unweildy and, even though all the Dwarves have been given their own characteristics and idiosycrities, Jackson has sensibly pared things back to a central core of the haughty Thorin (Richard Armitage), Wise Balin (Ken Stott) and the youthful Fili and Kili (Dean O'Gorman and Aidan Turner) as well as Gandalf and Bilbo.

Martin Freeman captures the essence of Bilbo and Armitage is excellent as Thorin (pronounced throughout as Thorin (the way I always read it) and not as T-orin, which I believe is more correct). McKellen is, once again great as Gandalf and Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee are all on hand to reprise their roles from the Lord of the Rings. 

Also reprising his role from those films is Andy Serkis as Gollum and, for me, he was a scene-stealer. The scene in which he and Bilbo compete in a game of riddles was electrifying.

Jackson loves his battle scenes and the film is liberally sprinkled with these - but the guts of the story remain, albeit with tweaks to make them more cinematic. He is also mindful that, even where departing from the original in detail, to make spoken or visual references to source. Bilbo's buttons may not burst from his waistcoat as he exits through a door being closed by goblins, for example, but they do burst off all the same. Likewise, reference is made to havig moved out of the frying pan and into the fire - a chapter title in the novel.

It's not all swords and arrows either - there are moments of light relief provided too. One laugh out loud moment happened when some of the dwarves buried treasure found in the Troll cave - cue Glóin: "We're making a long term deposit". Sylvestor McCoy as Radagast the Brown also lightens the mood, playing the role of the madcap naturalist and wizard with a zany energy and eccentricity.

It won't be to everyone's cup of tea, but it should appeal to those who liked the Lord of the Rings on film. And, fanboy quibbles aside, it should also appeal to lovers of the book... Now, the wait for the next film commences.

Andrew

*I have used Tolkien's preferred spelling "Dwarves" throughout, rather than the "correct" English of "Dwarfs".

**This review was of the "normal" 3D version - I have yet to see the High Frequency 3D version although I shall, amongst many other screenings no doubt!

The Hobbit: Out Today

4 hours and counting...  Excited doesn't even come close to describing how I feel about seeing it later.

Andrew

Sunday Sounds 58 - the Les Misérables edition

Next Thursday, the film of The Hobbit comes out - and regular readers will not be surprised to know that I've had my ticket booked for about 3 weeks now... very exciting.

Looking beyond that, the next film I'm excited about is the adaptation of the Les Misérables musical - even if it does have Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe in it...

Here's Matt Lucas and Jenny Galloway performing Master of the House at the O2 25th anniversary concert production:

And finally, an international version of Do You Hear the People Sing/One Day More, from the 10th Anniversary Concert:

Enjoy,

Andrew

Review - The Imposter

Have you ever thought how you would live if someone you loved went missing? How would you cope? What would you do? Could you get on with your life if they were gone for a prolonged period of time? Would you be able to keep hope for their return alive? And how would you react if they did return?

 

According to Missing People, around 250,000 people go missing in the UK alone each year. Of those, an estimated 140,000 are under 18. Whilst people will go missing for a whole host of reasons - fleeing abusive relationships within the home not least - such disappearances must have a huge impact on those left behind but, aside from a handful of high profile cases these go largely unreported.

250,000 is around 0.4% of the population so if you allow for an average of just two people (parents, siblings or partners, say) remaining in the home then the figures would suggest that every year just over 1 in a 100 of us is directly affected by the issue. And that, of course, is a gross simplification as many, many others will be affected - friends, more distant relatives, colleagues, employers et.c.

It's a huge but largely unrecognised issue and one which I may well come back to. The purpose of the above opening paragraphs, though, was to provoke you to think of how you would react and feel if you had a missing a relative. What would you do, how would it affect your life? And what if you received a phone call out of the blue after a period of three years, suggesting that your relative had been found thousand of miles away on another continent? And what if that person turned out not to be your relative after all?

The Imposter relates such a story - Nicholas Barclay went missing from his home in San Antonio in Texas in 1994. In 1997, they received a call saying he had been found in Spain. His sister flew out to pick him up and he was taken back into the bosom of the family.

A happy ending, you'd have thought... except the new Nicholas was an imposter; in reality he was Frédéric Bourdin, a Fenchman with a long history of impersonating others.

This much is known from the start, so it is no spoiler. The film sets out not explore what happened but why. Why would someone pretend to be someone they had never met and  didn't overly resemble? And why would a family take such a person in?

 

The film tells the story from both side, using interviews with the main protagonists, letting them outline their thoughts and feelings at the time with flashbacks reconstructed to fit the narrative along with some home video footage of key moments. Unusually (perhaps) for a documentary, there is a sense of tension as the story unfolds. A dramatic feeling that the imposter must sure be unmasked as at each turn he becomes more an more audacious.

 

But his audacity persists and his acceptance by the family raises new questions: why are they doing this? By accepting the fake Nicholas are they somehow acknowledging the permanent loss of the old Nicholas? Do they know more than they say about the situation?

 

By engaging both sides, the film sensitively explores a bizarre and bewildering story which has the capacity to baffle and bemuse. I lost count of the of the number of times I shook my head in disbelief as the drama played out. Towards the end, the film takes an unexpected twist and I was less comfortable with the framing device used for the end - which felt slightly crass.  

 

Overall, though, The Imposter is a fascinating documentary telling an outlandish tale which is exceptional in many, many respects. The film explores what motivates and drives us as humans, how our experiences can affect what we feel is rational or logical behaviour, and how our judgement can be shaped by our desires.

 

Those of us who have never been - and hopefully never will be - in the position of having a missing relative can only guess at how we would feel and act in such circumstances. This film gives us food for thought as to whether we would let ourselves be fooled by the chance of another shot at a full family life: would you buy a lie in order to return to "normality"?

 

I thoroughly recommend The Imposter - it's a dramatic documentary tale which is told with the right mix of pace, mystery and  tension. I also recommend you visit the Missing People website to explore the less outlandish side of this under-reported issue. Amongst other things, it has lots of interesting and informative briefing notes on the subject.

 

Andrew

Review - Anna Kerenina

 

You know what it's like: you take a notion to go to the cinema and just rock up and see what's on. You can never be sure what your choice will be - and you may end up seeing something with little advance knowledge. So it was on Saturday when I ended up at the Cineworld in Fountainbridge in Edinburgh. Total Recall and The Bourne Legacy were both tempting - especially Total Recall in IMAX format - but there was a shorter wait for Anna Karenina and so she won out.

 

Now, my knowledge of the Classics is limited. My knowledge of the Russian Classics is even worse. That said, I had already decided that a little bit of education would do me good and this is the basis on which Anna Karenina was on my list of things to watch.

 

I was also intrigued by knowing that the film was set in a theatre - having heard about this on the wireless in an interview with the director who had described his experiences of searching for locations. Visiting stately mansions in Britain he would be told how they had been used for previous Keira Knightley films. Visiting similar properties in Russia, he would be told how they had been used for many adaptations of Anna Karenina already. Anxious not to make a retread of previous films he decided on the conceit of using a theatrical setting instead.

 

Much of the  film inhabits the sumptuous world of the Russian Aristocracy and has a lavish feel with occasional trips to the more austere surroundings of the Karenina family home in St. Petersburg and the impoverished home of one Nikolai Levin. The revolution which is apparently imminent is hinted at reasonably early on by Levin but as the film continued it became more and more apparent that this wasn't going to actually happen on screen. This is probably because, as I now know, the book was published some 30 years prior to it!

 

Knightley is good as the flighty Anna, bored at home in St. Petersburg with Alexai Karenin (played impressively by Jude Law, although I had to be informed of this afterwards!) and flaunting herself in Moscow Society with another Alexai - Vronsky. Love and Fidelity are fickle friends, though, and those that spurn the love of others are not immune from being spurned in turn.

 

In the absence of a broader political background - such as the hoped for revolution - the story becomes just a love story. (At this point, I began to wish I had paid closer attention to the posters which touted it as "an epic story of love".) Yes, it is a lavish, complicated, intense love story, but a love story none the less. For an old cynic like me (who is also not a fan of period dramas) this is not a film I would recommend. If epic love stories, sumptuous costumes and theatrically-shot films are your thing, though, then this is going to be a real treat.

 

Andrew

Review - The Dark Knight Rises

"Made and Finished on Film" is the proud boast at the end of the credits of The Dark Knight Rises - a boast that will, I imagine, become rarer in years to come. Of course, that's not to say that "film"-making will be any the worse for that, any more than the advent of sound or colour made for worse films - but it may lead to a different type of film.

Christopher Nolan's film is an old-fashioned type of blockbuster - heavy on stunts, lighter on effects and eschewing 3D - and the intelligent (if far fetched) storyline ensures that you don't come out of the screening feeling like you've just been bombarded with music and images for 2 hours and 44 minutes. Indeed, in a lot of ways the action is downplayed or cuts from intense action to quieter or more dramatic scenes. Even the score, which in many places is as bombastic as you'd expect from Hans Zimmer, is adapted to allow for these periods in the film.

The Dark Knight Rises completes Nolan's vision for his Batman and seeks to bring the story to a natural end - an end I shall not be giving away - whilst leaving open the door for others to take up and run with elements of the story in further episodes of the franchise. More likely, of course, is that another director will step in and a re-boot will result. Unlike when Nolan took over the reins, however, a reboot is not required. Having set a darker tone and re-created a Batman mythology in Batman Begins, Nolan's version of Gotham and it's universe has been consistent, constant and character driven.

The plot of the latest instalment is somewhat contrived although it just about hangs together within it's own internal logic. To cut a long story short - Eight years have elapsed since the previous film, Batman is in retirement and Commissioner Gordon has banged up 1000's of criminals. Bane arrives in Gotham with an axe to grind against modern culture in general and Batman in particular. In amongst it all is Catwoman - feisty, independent and mercurially minded; but on what side will she be?

Whilst the story arc may have its flaws, what fascinates Nolan is what makes people who they are - in this case, the back story of Bane is told and re-told with each telling bringing us closer to an understanding of his origins - and why he wears a mask which distorts voice. The twin characters of Bruce Wayne and Batman are further explored with Wayne having to plumb new depths of resolve and spirit to succeed. The mercenary character of Catwoman is examined with Nolan questioning whether there can be any deeper motivation for action than either money or self-interest.

Once again, Nolan has a stellar cast: Christian Bale is excellent - again - as Bruce Wayne and also as The Batman (as Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon still insists on calling him), although his voice as the latter still annoys me. Michael Caine is back as Alfred before disappearing in one of the less satisfying elements of the plot. Morgan Freeman is back as Fox - Chairman of Wayne Enterprises and confidant of Wayne.

Joining them this time are Tom Hardy (whom Nolan previously directed in Inception), Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, Marion Cottilard (who was also in Inception) as Miranda Tait and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Blake.

I enjoyed Gordon-Levitt's assured performance and Marion Cottilard was also good as Wayne's business associate. Anne Hathaway was intriguing as Catwoman with some wonderful lines and looks. There was something very sexy about the demure-but-assured way she delivered her initial dialogue with Wayne that had me (almost) falling head over heals for her. Hardy's performance I was less sure about, due in a large part to the ever present mask on his face. This meant that his dialogue was either muffled or shouted.

The film falls down in relation to The Dark Knight in that it lacked a character that lit up the screen - in the case of that film, the late Heath Ledger who brought an edgy, nervous energy to the roll of the Joker. Bane, by contrast, is a thug whose party trick is breaking people's necks with his bare hands and whilst Catwoman has some great lines, she doesn't get enough screentime. It also falls down in relation to Batman Begins which pared everything back and gave a context for Batman's activities and motivation.

I don't want to be down on the film, though, because for all it is flawed - the comparisons I've made are with it's two predecessors. In comparison with other Superhero films (i.e. Spiderman), The Dark Knight still rises well above the competition. Made and finished in plain old 2D film it may be - but in an all singing, all dancing 3D world an analogue Batman is still a force to be reckoned with.

Andrew

Review - The Amazing Spiderman

About once a month - normally on a Tuesday - I'll head off to the cinema. Tuesday is my chosen day as my Showcase Cinema card gets me in for a £5 plus any surcharge for 3D). (It used to be £4.50 but, hey, that's inflation for you.) It also has the benefit of normally being quiet, especially if you're catching a film towards the end of its run.

So when I took the notion to go to the cinema tonight, my starting point was deciding what to see - effectively a straight choice between Prometheus (mixed reviews, Ridley-Scott, limited link to Alien) and The Amazing Spiderman (intriguing from point of view of being a reboot but I knew very little else apart from that).

Anyway, Spiderman won and I took my seat for the 7.30pm screening (not before being sold a ticket for an earlier showing despite the full schedule being displayed on the screen behind the counter assistant. Thankfully the Usher had a better knowledge of what was on and when, so I didn't miss the start.)

Normally I would avoid the release day of a major blockbuster -I like my cinema auditoria to be sparsely populated, especially if the film is likely to appeal to kids - but seeing as Tuesday is a quiet night anyway, I thought it safe to take a chance. As it was, there were around a dozen people in the screening I chose. Goodness only knows why it has been released on a Tuesday - am guessing it has a worldwide release and other markets have Tuesdays as regular release days.

As I said, my main interest was to see how they handled re-booting the Spiderman franchise. I had enjoyed the first two of the Tobey Maguire films but had been less than impressed by the last one. In the hands of a new creative team, with a new lead actor, would Spiderman follow Batman and Star Trek in being rejuvenated by a new approach - or would it follow Superman Returns in lacking the success of those franchises?

Time will tell when it comes to the success of the film but I'm afraid to say I wasn't hugely impressed. Indeed, I seem to have filled up this review with a great deal of talk which isn't about the film - mainly because I can't think of that much to say.

It isn't that it's particularly bad - it just isn't particularly good. Andrew Garfield is alright as Peter Parker (although his accent seems to slip occasionally). Emma Stone is alright as Gwen Stacy. Rhys Ivans is good as Dr Curt Connors, although I was less keen on his performance his alter-ego The Lizard (the face and voice of which reminded me of Voldermort in the Harry Potter films). Sally Fields is good as the long suffering Aunt May. Best, though, is President Bartlett Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben. Sadly his time in the film is all to short, aside from the prophetic voicemail he leaves prior to his murder.

The schedule board at the ticket counter - you remember, where the assistant was oblivious to the number and timing of the screenings - billed The Amazing Spiderman as Spiderman 4. Don't be fooled; it isn't. This is a complete re-write of the origins of Spiderman - as if the previous three films never happened.

I'm led to believe that in a number of respects, this version more closely follows the comics than the previous versions - specifically Spiderman's web is produced from a manufactured device rather than coming out of him directly. Another difference is that he lets his secret be known to Gwen from quite early on, rather than lead an entirely double life although whether this is authentic, I'm not sure.

In other respects, the story will be familiar - Parker is orphaned at a young age, is raised by his Aunt and Uncle, is an outsider at school, he finds his way to a Scientific Research Corporation - in this case the former employer of his father - where he gets bitten by a spider. He develops extraordinary powers of grip and strength which he learns to control whilst, simultaneously, becoming less of the steady and reliable Nephew he had been. Ultimately his own conscious inaction when he witnesses a robbery leads directly to his Uncle's murder and to the invention of Spiderman himself.

Spiderman's quest for justice brings him to the attention of the Police - and diverts attention from the antics of Oscorp and Dr Curt Connors. Parker's quest for peace and an understanding of his father's legacy leads him to give Connors the final piece of the puzzle preventing inter-species mutation. Connors quest for a World Without Weakness leads him develop his Lizard serum and seek to disseminate it to all New York. Ultimately, Spiderman must find a way to save the city and defeat Connors - and fulfil his Uncle's ambition that he take the opportunities to do good which present themselves to him.

Whilst more attention is given to the human side of Spiderman - he is repeatedly injured whilst in character - this isn't explored as deeply as it could be with Parker shrugging off the injuries sustained.

Ultimately, this is a bit of a missed opportunity; with a bit more drama and tension this could have been a good film. There is, however, too much comedy, too much slush, too much silliness and too much padding for it to really work.

So, this month's first cinema trip was a bit of a disappointment. Still, I got to see a trailer for November's Skyfall on the bigscreen. And President Bartlett. So it wasn't all bad. And there is The Dark Knight Rises to come later...

Andrew

P.S. If you do go and see it, stay past the start of the end credits and you'll see a teaser for the next film - if and when it happens, though, I won't be rushing to see it.

Review - Dark Shadows

Picture the scene:

Johnny Depp has popped round to Tim Burton's Hampstead flat for dinner, followed (one imagines) by Cognac and Cigars in the Billiard Room. Mrs Burton, otherwise known as Helena Bonham Carter, has popped over from her flat next door to join the proceedings.

Between courses conversation turns from Ms Bonham Carter's recent OSCAR nomination for her turn as HRH Queen Elizabeth in The King's Speech to future projects. I've had this idea, says Tim... As the meal progresses, the idea grows and develops - Depp is employed as the lead actor and has volunteered himself as Producer, Bonham Carter has agreed to a supporting role (as long as it isn't too weird, one doesn't want to be typecast as oneself!) and Burton has put in a call to Danny Elfman asking for a score.

Dark Shadows is, in other words, a very typical Tim Burton film. As such it has had a marmite effect on audiences and critics. Unlike the salty spread, however, I very much liked the film - although it is far from perfect or Burton's best.

I must confess to not knowing much about the film prior to my cinema visit, having only read the briefest of synopsis. It is based on a 1960's TV soap-opera which is described as "Gothic" although the introduction of supernatural elements only arose after some months and the central character of the film arrived after a year.

That character is vampire Barnabus Collins. 200 years after being confined to a chained coffin by a spurned lover who had killed his parents and his True Love, he is unexpectedly set free by construction workers. Returning to his family home, he finds that his descendants have fallen upon hard times and the family fishing and canning business is being pushed out of town by Angelbay, presided over by Angie; a beautiful ambitious blonde it would do well not to cross.

Barnabus resolves to resurrect the fortunes of the family, drawing on resources hidden in the family vaults and the support of the modern family's matriarch, Elizabeth. The Dark Shadows that have blighted generations of Collins' are, however, never far away...

The look of the film recreates in live action something akin to Burton's animations, in particular Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride. Indeed, in places one is almost transported to those worlds rather than the Eastern Seaboard of the States in 1972.

This setting of a vampire story - and Barnabus is very much a vampire in the Hammer Horror mould - in the recent past is part of the film's appeal. Whilst Burton can play around with the Gothic imagery of the Collins' house and it's inhabitants, the town and other scenes can be portrayed in a (slightly) more naturalistic way.

The setting also gives the film it's main conceit - the merging of a Comedy of Manners (How to woo the woman with the best child-bearing hips?) with a gothic horror story of vampires, werewolves, curses and witches. For the record, it turns out that the best way to woo said female is to hold a "happening" with Alice Cooper as the entertainment.

Depp gives an understated performance as Barnabus Collins, with just the right level of camp and none of the excess of Captain Jack Sparrow. Bonham Carter also turns the histrionics down a notches in her role as Psychiatrist Dr Hoffman.

Eva Green has gained, rightly, great plaudits for her playing of Angie - a character which is given great scope to develop through the film. For me, though, Michelle Pfeiffer was a revelation as Elizabeth Collins. I'm not sure the last time I saw her in a film but she has matured into an actress with dignity and gravitas.

Bella Heathcote is also good as Victoria Winters (governess to the son of Johnny Lee Miller's character, Roger Collins) and bearing a startling resemblance to the "young" Barnabus' True Love. There is also a welcome cameo from another Burton regular, Sir Christopher Lee in a sit-down role befitting of his 90 years.

Unusually for a Burton film, there is no central theme of repression by and liberation from a Father figure. Indeed Jonny Lee Miller's weak father (the antithesis of, say, Christopher Lee's Dr Wilbur Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) seems to be there to make up the numbers and gender balance initially before being hastily shown the door around 2/3rds of the way through. It was a superfluous and unnecessary role and one of the flaws of the film.

Instead of themes of paternal discipline and neglect, the film's central themes are love, revenge and the extent to which they feed off each other in a mutually symbiotic relationship. Somewhat predictably, it will all end badly - the only question is how much collateral damage will be sustained by others. 

The film has a number of laugh out loud moments even if it is lacking in substance. But substance isn't everything and sometimes one just wants to be entertained. To check one's brains in at the door and be subsumed into another world. It seems to me that there are worse places to be than the world of Tim Burton's mind - and films with more substance I'd enjoy much less.


Andrew

10 things... Worst Films

I reviewed The Artist here yesterday. Whilst I was at the cinema to see it I also saw a trailer for the re-release of Titanic. That was the inspiration for this post - 10 of the worst films I have seen, in no particular order:

1. Titanic. Near, far, wherever you are, just sink/die already. Over-hyped and over-long with an over-blown theme song.

2. Top Gun. I managed twenty minutes of this before then bf asked if I'd prefer Top Gear instead. There was only one answer to that question.

3. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Switched off after 30 or so minutes. Should have asked the Livingston Blockbusters for a refund.

4. The Legend of Zorro. A friend (she knows who she is) wanted to see this ahead of Corpse Bride. I've not spoken to her since...

5a. The Matrix Reloaded. It's all about the Benjamin's.

5b. The Matrix Revolutions. I had to look the title to that one up, it was so forgettable.

6. Fantastic Four. Despite some nice scenes with Chris Evans, I'd have felt severely cheated if it weren't for my UGC/Cineworld pass I had at the time.

7. The Phantom Menace. Another film getting a 3D re-release. One long special effect without any substance or plot to speak of.

8. Austin Powers in Goldmember. The law of diminishing returns in action.

9. The Holiday. A prime example of why I don't really do RomComs - too much Rom and not enough Com.

10. Confessions of a Shopaholic. Forced into cinema by sudden rainstorm, limited choice (and a date who really wanted to see it) forced me into this. I don't really do Chick Flicks and this must be one of the best/worst examples of its kind.

All those and I didn't even get to mention Sex and the City...

Andrew

Film Review: The Artist

I finally got to see the multi-BAFTA, multi-OSCAR winning The Artist today. In this context, this review would only really be noticeable if I were to completely trash the film.

I won't.

It's an astounding and towering achievement. I understand it won't be to everyone's taste, but on it's own terms it is, quite simply, amazing.

The conceit, for anyone who has had their head buried in sand for the past couple of months, is that in telling the story of a star of the silent movie era, the film itself is silent. After 8 decades of "Talkies", could such a film find an audience?

Jean Dujardin plays George Valentin, a matinee idol whose life gradually falls apart as his marriage becomes increasingly strained, his Studio moves to making talkies, the stock market crashes and his personally funded "Tears of Love" is a box office flop when it opens against "Beauty Spot" starring Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), a star of the new technology whom Valentin had met as an extra on  an earlier production.

It would seem that things couldn't get any worse from this low point but they can and do - will the former leading man be reconciled to the new age and will he accept the help of the world's newest star?

Michel Hazanavicius direction is superbly adapted to the silent medium, allowing the story to be told through the visuals (and occasional, but not too many, title cards) without over- or under-labouring points. The film is beautifully shot to reflect the spirit and look of films of the 20's and has a classy as well as classic feel. Dujardin gives a stunning performance, without the "mugging" Peppy claims is favoured by the silent actors... Bojo's performance is full of fun, vigour and vitality. 

Perhaps the biggest star of the film, though (other than Uggie, the Jack Russell) is the score. When you take out the words and background noise, you need a strong score. Ludovic Bourse's score is precisely this and encompasses (with a few brief exceptions) the whole film, expertly supporting the ebb and flow of the story and the changing pace and tone.

So, for once, believe the hype. And if you've not seen it yet, I'd thoroughly recommend it.

Andrew

It's time to play the music...

...it's time to light the lights...

OK, well maybe not just yet - the new Muppet film is out in the States at Thanksgiving but not in the UK until 17 February 2012. No matter, thanks to the wonders of t'interweb we can still enjoy the trailer:

Andrew

The Dark Knight Rises (well, in a year he will...)

One of my favourite writer/directors is Christopher Nolan, best know for Momento, Inception and the re-boot of the Batman franchise. On the 20th July next year, The Dark Knight Rises will be released, completing Nolan's trilogy of Batman films.

In Batman Begins, Nolan developed Batman's backstory and imbued the character with a gritty darkness lacking from some of the previous films. The Dark Knight was memorable for Heath Ledger's amazing portrayal of The Joker in his last complete filmed role. 

The Dark Knight Rises has a lot to live up to... but I'm confident it's in good hands. Along with the next Star Trek film, the latest Bond and the first of Peter Jackson's Hobbit films, it's another on my long list of films I'm looking forward to next year. Here's the first trailer, only 366 days to go...

Andrew

The Tailor... a short film

Today's post is a short film version of the "Jewish joke" Markus Pincus the tailor - although surely a joke's a joke, regardless of context and history. 

Set in New York, and shot beautifully in black and white, the mostly silent film tells the tale of two young Talmudic scholars who are concerned that they've been done by their tailor, Markus Pincus...

Here's a written version of the joke too:

Two Orthodox Jews went to Markus Pincus the tailor for new suits.

"Listen, Markus," one said, "the last suits you made for us were sort of gray. We want black suits, the darkest black cloth that we can get."

"See this cloth? Pincus said, fingering a bolt of fabric. "This is the stuff they make nuns' habits from. There ain't no blacker cloth." After a few minutes of haggling, Markus was able to convince the two Rabbis that this was indeed black cloth and they negotiated a price.

A few weeks later, the two men were walking down the street in their new suits when they passed two nuns. Impulsively, one of the men went up to the nuns and matched his suit against their habits. He muttered something to his friend and they both walked off, much to the shock of the two nuns.

"What did that man want?" one nun asked the other.

"It was very strange," she replied, "he looked at my garment, whispered something in Latin and left."

"What did he say?"

"He said, 'Markus Pincus Fucktus'." 

Andrew

It. All. Ends.

There's just under a month to wait until the last of the Harry Potter films and I'm really looking forward to it. Whilst I've not been as much as fan of the films as the books - indeed, I've not actually seen all the films - I am really looking forward to the conclusion of the series.

Deathly Hallows part 1 seemed to fly by and ended with a cliff-hanger, setting up part 2 nicely. There'll be death, destruction and a fair amount of tears. There'll be treachery, secrets and revelations. And there will be a victor in the epic battle of Good against Evil.

Andrew

I. Just. Can't. Wait.

Every four years since I was a teenager I have, without fail, re-read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The completeness and consistency of Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth has never ceased to amaze me and I will never tire of it.

From the creation myths of The Silmarillion to the ending of the Third Age in The Return of the King, from the homely familiarity of Hobbiton to the huge variety of peoples, societies and languages portrayed, Tolkien's work is a masterpiece and towering achievement of English Literature.

I still remember when I heard that The Lord of the Rings was to be filmed. I recall the fear that what would result would be a travesty, completely unworthy of the book. I can remember as stills were released in the months prior to first film the gradual realisation that these were as I envisaged them, that what was being committed to film was (for the most part) faithful to my own interpretation of the books. And I remember finishing work early and going to the Odeon in South Clerk Street, Edinburgh on the day "Fellowship" was released - full of excitement and expectation and not being disappointed. 

And now? Now we have The Hobbit to look forward to. This time there is no fear - after all, in the hands of Peter Jackson, how could there be? But there is excitement and there is expectation. You can be sure you will hear again from me on this matter but for now, though, here are some pictures from the set - Mr Jackson himself in Bilbo's Hobbit hole.

You can follow production more closely through the official Facebook page, theonering.net and also through the Hobbit in 5 weekly webcast on YouTube.

Andrew

Recent Films

It's been a while since I posted a film review - and it has, indeed, been a while since I was last at the cinema. Other than Brighton Rock, which I did review, the last few films I saw at the cinema (with my lasting impressions) were:

The Tourist - Attempted to appeal to blokes and blokesses alike and failed to entirely pull it off. Still, an enjoyable enough film for what it was.

The Kings Speech - What is there left to say about this, other than I didn't like it. Except I did. Very much.

Black Swan - After all the hype, this disappointed me. Although uncomfortable to watch I maybe would again, just to get my head round it.

Never Let Me Go - Very much my type of film, it performed poorly at the box office - although I could understand this in America, I would have thought Brits would have more of a stomach for it. A bleak vision of an alternative reality in which a generation of children are raised to provide spare body parts for the rest of us. (NB - that not a spoiler unless you intend to read the book. In which case, my apologies. Do still read the book, though)

I've also seen a few films on DVD lately too, amongst them:

Cars - I thought the first half to two thirds lacked the usual charm of Pixar's films but it pulled through and won me over in the end!

The Social Network - A well written telling of the history of Facebook and the various lawsuits which it spawned. It's the screenplay that really makes this a good film.

Paranormal Activity 2 - Not as good as the original but interesting conceptual twist at the end.

It's a Wonderful Afterlife - From the director of Bend it like Beckham, a truly bizarre story of murder, love and restless spirits. Not particularly recommended.

I also watched the M. Night Shyamalan penned Devil but will need to watch again after dosing off through much of it.

Andrew

Senna: No Fear, No Limits, No Equal

Today's post is a trailer for the forthcoming documentary film "Senna" which promises to be a fantastic portrait of the legend that was Ayrton Senna.

I've been a fan of Formula 1 for years although it is only in recent seasons that I've really got into watching every race. As time goes by I get more and more interested in the details of the cars and the politics of it all - although I have a long way to go to match some people I know!

By contrast, Senna died when I was still relatively new to Formula 1 and while I am obviously aware of his talent, skill and achievements, I'm looking forward to learning more about the man and his life. 

 

Here's a taster:

There's more on the official website. The film's due out on June 3rd and those that have seen it give it glowing reviews - now, is there any chance my sister will move her wedding so I can go see it?!

Andrew

A Tale of Two Cities

Thanks to @jpshaddock 's twitter paper, I came across a series of short films which were created as adverts for an international language school. I'm not sure about the soundtracks, but think the footage, narrative and typography are fantastic. They are directed by Gustav Johansson with Typography by Albin Holmsqvist.

First up, Paris:

EF - Live The Language - Paris from Albin Holmqvist on Vimeo.

and here's London:

EF - Live The Language - London from Albin Holmqvist on Vimeo.

You can find films for Beijing and Barcelona here.

Andrew

Brighton Rock

Earlier this evening, I went to see Brighton Rock. I should point out that I have neither seen the 1947 version of the film, featuring Richard Attenborough, nor read the novel.

Sam Riley is Pinkie Brown, a runner in a Brighton gang who witnesses the gang's leader (and his mentor) being murdered by a member of a rival gang. He takes the subsequent reprisals too far and murders the man responsible.

Matters are complicated by the presence of Rose (Andrea Riseborough), who has the potential to be a devasting witness should she ever tell the police what she knows, and her employer Ida (Helen Mirren) who was a sometime lover of the deceased. Can Pinkie ensure that Rose doesn't reveal what she knows or will Ida persuade her to speak to to police?

Riley gives a steady and measured performance which takes his character from a wet-behind-the-ears teenager who fluffs his first attempt to revenge the killing to the sociopathic killer whom, it seems, will stop at nothing to avoid capture. Rose can only be described as "dowdy" - a fifties throwback in 1960s Brighton - living with her father and working in a tea room. Her association with Pinkie offers her - she believes - "a life" but she seems, initially at least, unable to step out of her down-trodden role and use the knowledge she has as power and currency. Mirren is great as Ida, exhibiting a steely determination to find out what happened to her "gentlemen friend" and to save Rose fromthe life of a gangster's moll.

The film is bleak in its portrayal of human nature - both that of the sociopathic Pinkie and the blindly loving Rose. The palette is equally dark and even the gaitiy of the Palace Pier at night takes on a jaded feel. It is safe to assume that Brighton's tourist authoroties did not have a veto on the portrayal of the city!

For all the inevitabilty of an impending doom, however, the film manages to maintain tension throughout in part due to the score. While other reviewers have described this as bombastic, I felt that this was well judged, adding an additional layer of melodrama.

All in all, I enjoyed this a lot. It is beautifully shot and while the slow pace may not be to everyones taste, it is well worth going to see. Of course, you may have an alternative opinion of this film or be able to compare it to the book or the classic film. If so, please feel feee to share your thoughts below. In the meantime, I'm giving Brighton Rock 7/10.

Andrew