Total Pageviews
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Movie Review - Cold Mountain
Based loosely on The Odyssey by on of the forefathers of the modern novel, Homer, Cold Mountain is a tale of the tragedy of war. Set in the American Civil War, it portrays war very realistically (sometimes gruesomely so), and focuses on both the effect it has on those who went to fight, and those who got left behind.
Nicole Kidman plays a Clergyman’s daughter, one of those who gets left behind. Just before the war starts, she falls in love with Jude Law, one of those who is going to war. To call it love is a bit of a misnomer – it’s more a case of attraction that’s just about to bud into something else before being cut short. Many people have said that the romance between them is unrealistic or unbelievable, and to an extent I agree - but what I think people aren’t taking into account is, that’s kind of the point – it’s something to cling to in order to keep some kind of hope and humanity in a world full of war and hate. Well, that’s what I thought anyway.
I don’t want to give away anything more specific about the plot, except that a rough and ready farm girl goes to help Kidman after the war starts. Renee Zellwegger plays this part, and she is absolutley phenomenal. (Especially having seen her in Chicago just last week! [When I wrote this initially, anyway]) The accents sounded fairly convincing to me, though if you actually live in the part of America portrayed here I’m sure you could find plenty wrong with it!
This film has one of the strongest anti-war messages in any film I’ve ever seen – without it ever pushing this message at you. There is no “good” and “bad” side, and there is goodness and evil to be found in people of either side, and people who are on no sides at all – thus making the battle scenes far more affecting than those in something like Return of the King. The brutality and depravity of war are portrayed, sometimes unsettlingly – if you really don’t like gore you should avoid this. There are a couple of sex scenes too, the first of which is (intentionally) shocking. The plot is pretty good, but this is more of an experience than a movie – you live the war rather than watch it. There are some very tense moments, very upsetting moments, scenes where you really feel the relief, love, hatred, or whatever is going on onscreen.
The cinematography is very good, with broad sweeps of the magnificent scenery and excellent handling of both the action and emotional scenes. The musical score fits perfectly and the SFX are suitably grisly. Jude Law does very well with an extremely difficult part to play properly – I can imagine it being extremely easy for an actor to have been either too tough or too soppy in the lead male part. Kidman is good, though she plays the earlier “frail and fragile” side of her character better than the later “tough” woman that she becomes. There are many other fine performances, from Donald Sutherland (Kidman’s father) and Nathalie Portman (who has one of the most telling scenes in the film when she snaps, having just been pushed over the edge – but you’ll have to watch the movie to find out exactly what I mean!), to mention just a couple. The dialogue suffers very occasionally from being too stilted, but in general is very good, and occasionally reaches excellence (such as in showing Law’s deeper side – as in saying to Kidman and her father: “I would think God is sick of being called down on both sides of a war”). The ending is both expected and unexpected... you’ll see what I mean.
As in The Odyssey, the characters are, in the main, personifications of a particular trait rather than fully developed people – which works just as well here as in the Greek epic. (Some people will probably find it helpful to know this beforehand, however… if I hadn’t already read Homer’s work and known that this film is partially based on it, I might have concluded that the characterisation was poorly done.)
Overall, this is a sometimes shocking, sometimes slightly ponderous, but at all times completely absorbing film. Action junkies can forget it and if you’re easily offended stay at home. But if you’re looking for a truly engrossing film that dares to be radically different from your average big-budget film, then this is quite possibly the film of the decade so far – and I don’t see many producers having the courage to match it.
See Also:
CaptainD's Top Ten Films of 2003
Nicole Kidman plays a Clergyman’s daughter, one of those who gets left behind. Just before the war starts, she falls in love with Jude Law, one of those who is going to war. To call it love is a bit of a misnomer – it’s more a case of attraction that’s just about to bud into something else before being cut short. Many people have said that the romance between them is unrealistic or unbelievable, and to an extent I agree - but what I think people aren’t taking into account is, that’s kind of the point – it’s something to cling to in order to keep some kind of hope and humanity in a world full of war and hate. Well, that’s what I thought anyway.
I don’t want to give away anything more specific about the plot, except that a rough and ready farm girl goes to help Kidman after the war starts. Renee Zellwegger plays this part, and she is absolutley phenomenal. (Especially having seen her in Chicago just last week! [When I wrote this initially, anyway]) The accents sounded fairly convincing to me, though if you actually live in the part of America portrayed here I’m sure you could find plenty wrong with it!
This film has one of the strongest anti-war messages in any film I’ve ever seen – without it ever pushing this message at you. There is no “good” and “bad” side, and there is goodness and evil to be found in people of either side, and people who are on no sides at all – thus making the battle scenes far more affecting than those in something like Return of the King. The brutality and depravity of war are portrayed, sometimes unsettlingly – if you really don’t like gore you should avoid this. There are a couple of sex scenes too, the first of which is (intentionally) shocking. The plot is pretty good, but this is more of an experience than a movie – you live the war rather than watch it. There are some very tense moments, very upsetting moments, scenes where you really feel the relief, love, hatred, or whatever is going on onscreen.
The cinematography is very good, with broad sweeps of the magnificent scenery and excellent handling of both the action and emotional scenes. The musical score fits perfectly and the SFX are suitably grisly. Jude Law does very well with an extremely difficult part to play properly – I can imagine it being extremely easy for an actor to have been either too tough or too soppy in the lead male part. Kidman is good, though she plays the earlier “frail and fragile” side of her character better than the later “tough” woman that she becomes. There are many other fine performances, from Donald Sutherland (Kidman’s father) and Nathalie Portman (who has one of the most telling scenes in the film when she snaps, having just been pushed over the edge – but you’ll have to watch the movie to find out exactly what I mean!), to mention just a couple. The dialogue suffers very occasionally from being too stilted, but in general is very good, and occasionally reaches excellence (such as in showing Law’s deeper side – as in saying to Kidman and her father: “I would think God is sick of being called down on both sides of a war”). The ending is both expected and unexpected... you’ll see what I mean.
As in The Odyssey, the characters are, in the main, personifications of a particular trait rather than fully developed people – which works just as well here as in the Greek epic. (Some people will probably find it helpful to know this beforehand, however… if I hadn’t already read Homer’s work and known that this film is partially based on it, I might have concluded that the characterisation was poorly done.)
Overall, this is a sometimes shocking, sometimes slightly ponderous, but at all times completely absorbing film. Action junkies can forget it and if you’re easily offended stay at home. But if you’re looking for a truly engrossing film that dares to be radically different from your average big-budget film, then this is quite possibly the film of the decade so far – and I don’t see many producers having the courage to match it.
See Also:
CaptainD's Top Ten Films of 2003
DVD Review - Chicago
Out of all the films I’d reviewed up to this point, Chicago was the hardest to review. It’s just so much a matter of personal taste, much more so than most other movies, and even I can’t quite work out just how much I like it! But… I will do my best, be it ever so ‘umble…
Chicago is set in the 20’s, a time of jazz, booze, and a new era of freedom for women. However, Roxie (Renee Zellweger) and a dancer she idolises (played by Catherine Zeta Jones) have both just had their freedom taken away, since both are in jail for murder (and both are guilty). Despite being in jail, Zellweger still wants to attain stardom, while Zeta Jones doesn’t want her existing star status to slip. Both seek the help of a wily Lawyer (Richard Gere) and the prison Warden (“Mama”, played by Queen Latifah) in order to help them manipulate the media and public opinion in the quest for freedom and stardom.
What ensues is a biting satire of the legal and journalistic world – the law courts are swayed by public opinion, which is guided by the press, which is manipulated by the solicitors…
The way the film is shown through Roxie’s eyes, which means the insertion of “dream sequences” to get around the problem of “how are we going to fit the songs in without making it look contrived?”. It’s very well done and the way that some of the songs (like a fabulous tango sequence in the jail) are introduced by normal sounds (tapping fingers, the drip of a tap, etc) slowly turning into the beat of the song. The plot is quite dark and the ending is sort of happy – but the characters are basically unlikeable (though Zellweger does for a time maintain a certain innocence at first, this is stripped away completely be halfway through the film). You still care what happens, just not particularly what happens to Roxie. The only sympathetic character is her husband, faithful but not too bright (which is a large part of the reason why he’s faithful).
The song and dance routines range from breathtakingly good (the aforementioned tango in prison, where the other murderesses explain why / how they did it) to good (the opening sequence with Zeta Jones performing “And all that Jazz”, “Be good to Mama” by Queen Latifah – she can really beltout a tune - and “Razzle Dazzle ‘em” with Gere in full smarmy swing) to the rest, which are good-ish but not wonderful. The film does suffer from not having any truly memorable songs, but not too much.
There’s quite a bit of flesh on display and Queen Latifah is in constant danger of falling out of her dress (extremely scary thought, that ), though nothing graphic. The same with the violence, and the sex scene at the beginning of the film is definitely not for kiddies. (You don’t actually see anything but you can see the movements clearly enough!)
The choreography ranges from very good to sheer brilliance, and the set designs are gorgeous and extremely evocative of the era. I’m quite a fan of Renee and she does very well as Roxie. I’m not a fan of Catherine or Gere, particularly, but they are also very good in their roles too, as indeed are all of the cast. The music is good throughout without ever being brilliant.
The DVD comes with the obligatory “Bonus” features – a “making of” featurette that has some interesting moments but is rather too self-congratulatory to really be entertaining, and a song with Queen Latifah and Catherine Zeta Jones called “Class”, that had to be cut from the movie in the end. The Producers go on about how wonderful it was and how they hated having to leave it out, but I’m afraid it did very little to me.
Chicago is set in the 20’s, a time of jazz, booze, and a new era of freedom for women. However, Roxie (Renee Zellweger) and a dancer she idolises (played by Catherine Zeta Jones) have both just had their freedom taken away, since both are in jail for murder (and both are guilty). Despite being in jail, Zellweger still wants to attain stardom, while Zeta Jones doesn’t want her existing star status to slip. Both seek the help of a wily Lawyer (Richard Gere) and the prison Warden (“Mama”, played by Queen Latifah) in order to help them manipulate the media and public opinion in the quest for freedom and stardom.
What ensues is a biting satire of the legal and journalistic world – the law courts are swayed by public opinion, which is guided by the press, which is manipulated by the solicitors…
The way the film is shown through Roxie’s eyes, which means the insertion of “dream sequences” to get around the problem of “how are we going to fit the songs in without making it look contrived?”. It’s very well done and the way that some of the songs (like a fabulous tango sequence in the jail) are introduced by normal sounds (tapping fingers, the drip of a tap, etc) slowly turning into the beat of the song. The plot is quite dark and the ending is sort of happy – but the characters are basically unlikeable (though Zellweger does for a time maintain a certain innocence at first, this is stripped away completely be halfway through the film). You still care what happens, just not particularly what happens to Roxie. The only sympathetic character is her husband, faithful but not too bright (which is a large part of the reason why he’s faithful).
The song and dance routines range from breathtakingly good (the aforementioned tango in prison, where the other murderesses explain why / how they did it) to good (the opening sequence with Zeta Jones performing “And all that Jazz”, “Be good to Mama” by Queen Latifah – she can really beltout a tune - and “Razzle Dazzle ‘em” with Gere in full smarmy swing) to the rest, which are good-ish but not wonderful. The film does suffer from not having any truly memorable songs, but not too much.
There’s quite a bit of flesh on display and Queen Latifah is in constant danger of falling out of her dress (extremely scary thought, that ), though nothing graphic. The same with the violence, and the sex scene at the beginning of the film is definitely not for kiddies. (You don’t actually see anything but you can see the movements clearly enough!)
The choreography ranges from very good to sheer brilliance, and the set designs are gorgeous and extremely evocative of the era. I’m quite a fan of Renee and she does very well as Roxie. I’m not a fan of Catherine or Gere, particularly, but they are also very good in their roles too, as indeed are all of the cast. The music is good throughout without ever being brilliant.
The DVD comes with the obligatory “Bonus” features – a “making of” featurette that has some interesting moments but is rather too self-congratulatory to really be entertaining, and a song with Queen Latifah and Catherine Zeta Jones called “Class”, that had to be cut from the movie in the end. The Producers go on about how wonderful it was and how they hated having to leave it out, but I’m afraid it did very little to me.
Overall
Hmm… tricky. It’s darker than Moulin Rouge but I’m convinced that if you liked that, you will like this too. There are many aspects of this film that are very impressive and it certainly does have style. If you didn’t like that film, you probably won’t like this either.
Although I do like it (perhaps not quite as much as Moulin Rouge), it’s not a film I could watch over and over again – it’ll be a long time before I watch it again. But having said that, I’m very glad I did watch it. If you like musicals, or if you’re a fan of Zellweger, Zeta Jones, or Gere, it would definitely help.
Monday, 30 March 2009
Thoughts on the Bourne Trilogy
I've only recently seen the Bourne films. Starring Matt Damon they are about Jason Bourne, a man who has lost his memory and is determined to find out who he is. Slightly tricky is the fact that people keep trying to kill him... but one of the first things that he finds out about himself is that he has exceptional survival skills (along with a killer instinct, multiple passports, etc...)
The Bourne Identity sets the scene and is an okay film, but personally I found it to be a lot of action without much story.
The Bourne Supremacy is far superior, with a much stronger storyline and more interesting characters.
The Bourne Ultimatum finishes the series and is much like the second with strong action scenes and a good storyline. Wasn't too impressed by some of the character development but you can't have everything.
Overall if you like spy thrillers and similar types of films, you'll definitely enjoy the second and third films. If you value action ahead of storyline, you will probably enjoy the first more than I did too.
Trailers for all three Bourne films:
The Bourne Identity sets the scene and is an okay film, but personally I found it to be a lot of action without much story.
The Bourne Supremacy is far superior, with a much stronger storyline and more interesting characters.
The Bourne Ultimatum finishes the series and is much like the second with strong action scenes and a good storyline. Wasn't too impressed by some of the character development but you can't have everything.
Overall if you like spy thrillers and similar types of films, you'll definitely enjoy the second and third films. If you value action ahead of storyline, you will probably enjoy the first more than I did too.
Trailers for all three Bourne films:
Movie Review - Peter Pan
I had my misgivings about going to see this but, after reading some good reviews, thought that it was worth a shot. This bears no relation to the Disney version (which admittedly I remember little of), being rather darker in tone and with a few plot changes as far as I could tell. Unfortunately, while I applaud the bravery of making the film somewhat dissimilar to what most people would be expecting, it’s a real shame that the producers didn’t try to do anything really different – it’s like painting something a darker shade of the same colour, rather than painting it a new colour.
The plot will be familiar enough to most people, but here goes anyway: Mr & Mrs Darling have 3 children – Wendy, John, and Michael. These go off with Peter Pan, a boy who can never grow up, can fly, and who lives in “Neverland” (which in this movie is on another planet). In Neverland lives his enemy Captain Hook, etc etc they all live happily ever after.
It’s very difficult to know who exactly this movie is aimed at. Due to its darker tone and certain aspects of its content, I wouldn’t really call it a children’s movie. But then, it’s not really an adults movie either. And while a few things along the way are a little different, the ending has not been changed at all, which kind of makes all the changes leading up to it seem rather pointless.
The plot will be familiar enough to most people, but here goes anyway: Mr & Mrs Darling have 3 children – Wendy, John, and Michael. These go off with Peter Pan, a boy who can never grow up, can fly, and who lives in “Neverland” (which in this movie is on another planet). In Neverland lives his enemy Captain Hook, etc etc they all live happily ever after.
It’s very difficult to know who exactly this movie is aimed at. Due to its darker tone and certain aspects of its content, I wouldn’t really call it a children’s movie. But then, it’s not really an adults movie either. And while a few things along the way are a little different, the ending has not been changed at all, which kind of makes all the changes leading up to it seem rather pointless.
The Good Bits
There were a few good things about this movie, it’s not a total disaster. Jason Isaacs was good as Captain Hook / Mr Darling (though I did kind of wish they’d cast Johnny Depp in it and had the same scriptwriters and crew that brought us Pirates of the Caribbean do this film…), and Richard Briars was an absolutely inspired choice as Smee. The child actors do a pretty good job, especially Rachel Hurd-Wood as Wendy, but I wouldn’t say any of them were brilliant. The way some of the children speak is very funny. (SO English!)
The exploration of what Peter Pan had lost was also done quite well, though I thought the end would have had a lot more impact if it had been done differently.
The Bad Bits
Unfortunately, there are plenty of them. The relationship between Mr & Mrs Darling is not only not explored but completely non-existent. The special effects were bad – you could actually see the change from CGI to sets very clearly, and the skeletal parrot looked like something out of the Muppet Show. The plot doesn’t flow very well, being more a series of scenes than one coherent film.
The storyline isn’t as bold as it should be, considering it made a show of trying to be different. It would have been much more effective for Peter Pan to have ended up being shown as the baddie and Captain Hook being the good guy at the end of the day. There seems no reason for the malice shown by Pan towards Hook, and I desperately hoped that Hook would wipe the smile of the cocky little brat’s face permanently. (Okay so he is sort of an anti-hero hero, but it’s overdone).
There are some scenes of the children being treated quite brutally that were a bit too realistic for comfort, though these were portrayed in an almost comic way. There was some completely unnecessary child nudity, albeit brief. And there was something very disturbing about seeing young children kiss each other full on the lips, for a long, lingering moment, too…
Which leads me to another main flaw of the film – the “romance” between Wendy and Pan was completely unbelievable. It was all a bit too contrived.
Almost as annoying as Pan himself was Tinkerbell (the fairy). I wanted them both to die. Unfortunately, when it looks like Tinkerbell has had it, she is brought back in the most vomit-inducing scene of the film.
Overall
As you can probably tell, I didn’t enjoy this film. If it had shown the courage of its alleged convictions and dared to actually be different, it could have been a really good films. As it was I’ll never want to see it again.
But it had me laughing quite a few times, so it wasn’t a complete disaster. I just find it hard to think of anyone who would like it – young children might like it, but it’s not entirely kid-friendly – adults will probably find it too contrived and annoying (okay parents may have more tolerance than me for this sort of thing!) – people who loved the book will likely be disappointed by the changes.
So only recommended to… er… um… people who haven’t been put off by this review!
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Video Clip from Mannequinn
Couldn't find a trailer for the film on YouTube (a trailer for the sequel yes, but not the original), so I present for your enjoyment a very cheesy scene from this very, very cheesy (but good!) movie:
Movie Review - Mannequinn
Movie Review - Mannequinn
Movie Review - Mannequinn
I remembered seeing this many years ago and enjoying it, and recently bought the DVD. I have to say it’s one of the best purchases I’ve ever made – this is a wonderful film. I know many critics and reviewers like to pummel it into the dirt, but it’s not meant to be taken seriously and I really enjoyed it.
Starring Andrew McCarthy as an artistic floater who can never hold down a job, this is the story about an Egyptian woman (well she doesn’t actually look Egyptian, you understand) being zapped forwards in time and into the body of the eponymous Mannequin that is the only creation McCarthy turns out in one of his short-lived jobs. Yep it’s that sort of plot. The Egyptian / Mannequin is played by a young Kim Cattral, who at that time was still sexy and actually quite sweet.
McCarthy’s fortunes take a turn for the better when he is befriended by Golden Girl Estelle Getty, who has inherited a Department Store, and who makes a Window Dresser. The Mannequin having been “acquired” and coming to life one night when he’s working late, they go on to create fabulous window displays, and these in turn start bringing the crowds back to the store. However, baddie James Spader is not happy with this – he owns the rival store over the road. Aided by Security Guard G W Bailey (who plays basically the same character as in the Police Academy series – he’s even a “Captain” here too), they try to put a stop to McCarthy’s creative skills…
There’s nothing clever or pretentious about this film, it’s just great entertainment. It’s funny in many places, from “stupid” funny to some jokes and scenes that any child watching will have no chance of understanding. (Not that it’s not suitable for kids – they just won’t get a lot of it). The characters are pretty thinly developed and either very likeable or very dislikeable. The special effects range from average to cheesy to downright bad. The acting is pretty good, with the lead couple being very sweet together, James Spader being an evil-scary baddie, Carole Davis as McCarthy’s on-off girlfriend being very easy to hope bad things happen to, and G W Bailey being… well… G W Bailey… Oh, and Meshach Taylor plays a very scary window dresser… completely OTT, fortunately not too annoying…
The set pieces have a little of the choreographed mayhem of the modern Jackie Chan films (or perhaps an ancient Keystone Cops film!), the dialogue is good, and the general feel of the film is of one that was created purely to entertain. Oh, and it has a cracking musical score, with many of the 80’s songs that I really love.
It’s one of a very rare genre of films – a modern fairytale. It’s not a retelling of a traditional fairytale (or at least if it is, not obviously so) a la “Ever After”, nor is it an “Urban Legend” like… er… “Batman”?? It’s not a romantic comedy in the traditional sense, since the lovers are together almost from the start, and then torn apart… In fact, I really can’t think of another film that really fits the definition of “Modern Fairytale” – though no doubt several people will suggest some to me soon enough.
This is one of those films that would never win any awards but that you will repeatedly enjoy watching. It’s great entertainment, not great cinema. If you want some light-hearted fun, there’s little to beat this. At the end of the day, you’re going to either love it or hate it – there’s no middle ground. I hope my review’s given you some idea which camp you’re likely to be in!!
Starring Andrew McCarthy as an artistic floater who can never hold down a job, this is the story about an Egyptian woman (well she doesn’t actually look Egyptian, you understand) being zapped forwards in time and into the body of the eponymous Mannequin that is the only creation McCarthy turns out in one of his short-lived jobs. Yep it’s that sort of plot. The Egyptian / Mannequin is played by a young Kim Cattral, who at that time was still sexy and actually quite sweet.
McCarthy’s fortunes take a turn for the better when he is befriended by Golden Girl Estelle Getty, who has inherited a Department Store, and who makes a Window Dresser. The Mannequin having been “acquired” and coming to life one night when he’s working late, they go on to create fabulous window displays, and these in turn start bringing the crowds back to the store. However, baddie James Spader is not happy with this – he owns the rival store over the road. Aided by Security Guard G W Bailey (who plays basically the same character as in the Police Academy series – he’s even a “Captain” here too), they try to put a stop to McCarthy’s creative skills…
There’s nothing clever or pretentious about this film, it’s just great entertainment. It’s funny in many places, from “stupid” funny to some jokes and scenes that any child watching will have no chance of understanding. (Not that it’s not suitable for kids – they just won’t get a lot of it). The characters are pretty thinly developed and either very likeable or very dislikeable. The special effects range from average to cheesy to downright bad. The acting is pretty good, with the lead couple being very sweet together, James Spader being an evil-scary baddie, Carole Davis as McCarthy’s on-off girlfriend being very easy to hope bad things happen to, and G W Bailey being… well… G W Bailey… Oh, and Meshach Taylor plays a very scary window dresser… completely OTT, fortunately not too annoying…
The set pieces have a little of the choreographed mayhem of the modern Jackie Chan films (or perhaps an ancient Keystone Cops film!), the dialogue is good, and the general feel of the film is of one that was created purely to entertain. Oh, and it has a cracking musical score, with many of the 80’s songs that I really love.
It’s one of a very rare genre of films – a modern fairytale. It’s not a retelling of a traditional fairytale (or at least if it is, not obviously so) a la “Ever After”, nor is it an “Urban Legend” like… er… “Batman”?? It’s not a romantic comedy in the traditional sense, since the lovers are together almost from the start, and then torn apart… In fact, I really can’t think of another film that really fits the definition of “Modern Fairytale” – though no doubt several people will suggest some to me soon enough.
This is one of those films that would never win any awards but that you will repeatedly enjoy watching. It’s great entertainment, not great cinema. If you want some light-hearted fun, there’s little to beat this. At the end of the day, you’re going to either love it or hate it – there’s no middle ground. I hope my review’s given you some idea which camp you’re likely to be in!!
Ice Age 3 Trailer
Not entirely sure whether this will be a worthwhile addition to the series... still I loved the first and enjoyed the second Ice Age movies, so I guess I'll be watching this when it comes out...
Why no recent movies reviewed?
You may be wondering just why none of the movies I've reviewed recently have been later than 2003... the answer is that I'm currently in the process of transferring my back catalogue of movie reviews to this blog, at a rate of 1-2 per day. Currently I'm just reaching the end of the movie reviews I wrote in 2003.
Since I'm posting reviews here faster than I'm writing new ones, I'm slowly catching up. By the end of this year I'll definitely have caught up completely, and I'll be posting reviews on Epinions and here on Movie Reviews by CaptainD simultaneously. Until then, please be patient - or view my Epinions profile to find all my newest reviews!
CaptainD
Saturday, 28 March 2009
Round-Up of Movie Reviews
- The Two Towers
- Star Trek: Insurrection
- Asterix in Britain
- Star Trek Nemesis
- Two Weeks Notice
- French Kiss
- How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days
- The Matrix: Reloaded
- X2: X-Men United
- Shanghai Knights
- Bringing Down the House
- Look Who's Talking Now
- Cool Runnings
- Spy Kids 3D
- Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde
- My Big Fat Greek Wedding
- Catch Me If You Can
- Miss Congeniality
- Bridget Jones' Diary
- Shogun
- Murder By Numbers
- An Affair To Remember
- The Cutting Edge
- Down With Love
- The Wedding Planner
- What Women Want
- Pay It Forward
- Finding Nemo
- Cast Away
- The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
- The Matrix: Revolutions
- Chain Reaction
- Bend It Like Beckham
- Harrison Bergeron
- Stormy Weather
- Moon Over Miami
- Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
- Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Round-Up of DVD Reviews
Thought I'd better try to keep this thing organised...
Never Been Kissed
The Two Towers (2-disc extended edition DVD)
The Fellowship of the Rings (4-disc gift set)
About A Boy
Shogun - Complete Mini-Series
Bad Boys
Galaxy Quest
Never Been Kissed
The Two Towers (2-disc extended edition DVD)
The Fellowship of the Rings (4-disc gift set)
About A Boy
Shogun - Complete Mini-Series
Bad Boys
Galaxy Quest
Movie Review - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
The Story So Far…
Before I go on, I’ll recap the plot so far. The great Ring of Power, which has the power to control all other rings if it gets into the hands of the Dark Lord Sauron (who made it in the days when he could fool the races into thinking he was good), is found by a small creature called a Hobbbit called Bilbo (Ian Holm)). In time this ring is passed to his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood). When the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) finds out what this ring truly is, it is decided that Frodo and several companions, including fellow Hobbits Sam (Sean Astin), Merry, (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), along with other companions, must take it to Mount Doom, where it was forged and is the only place it can be destroyed. This is the only option as, since it was created by the Dark Lord himself it cannot be worn by anyone without turning them to evil. The companions include Gandalf, the heir-apparent to the throne of Gondor, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and the dwarf Gimil (John Rhys-Davies) - these two start out as enemies but become friends during the course of their travels.
The party starts out but is split up, with Frodo and Sam taking the route to Mordor and Mount Doom, led be a creature called Gollum (voiced and body-acted by Andy Serkis - he’s a CGI character), who was once a creature similar to a Hobbit, but has been corrupted by the ring, which he wore for many years.
Gandalf is thought dead and the other Hobbits captured, so Aragorn along with Legolas and Gimli follow the trail of the Hobbits. A King (Theoden – played by ) is released from the grip of a good turned evil wizard, Gandalf comes back from the dead, the Dark Forces begin to move, and the Ring moves into the region of Mordor.
Enough of that, you’ll have to either watch the other films (or better, read the book – or better still, both) for more detail. On to this film review…
Before I go on, I’ll recap the plot so far. The great Ring of Power, which has the power to control all other rings if it gets into the hands of the Dark Lord Sauron (who made it in the days when he could fool the races into thinking he was good), is found by a small creature called a Hobbbit called Bilbo (Ian Holm)). In time this ring is passed to his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood). When the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) finds out what this ring truly is, it is decided that Frodo and several companions, including fellow Hobbits Sam (Sean Astin), Merry, (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd), along with other companions, must take it to Mount Doom, where it was forged and is the only place it can be destroyed. This is the only option as, since it was created by the Dark Lord himself it cannot be worn by anyone without turning them to evil. The companions include Gandalf, the heir-apparent to the throne of Gondor, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and the dwarf Gimil (John Rhys-Davies) - these two start out as enemies but become friends during the course of their travels.
The party starts out but is split up, with Frodo and Sam taking the route to Mordor and Mount Doom, led be a creature called Gollum (voiced and body-acted by Andy Serkis - he’s a CGI character), who was once a creature similar to a Hobbit, but has been corrupted by the ring, which he wore for many years.
Gandalf is thought dead and the other Hobbits captured, so Aragorn along with Legolas and Gimli follow the trail of the Hobbits. A King (Theoden – played by ) is released from the grip of a good turned evil wizard, Gandalf comes back from the dead, the Dark Forces begin to move, and the Ring moves into the region of Mordor.
Enough of that, you’ll have to either watch the other films (or better, read the book – or better still, both) for more detail. On to this film review…
To begin with
The film starts with Gollum remembering his past. This scene is quie well done, but Gollum quickly begins to irritate in the opening scenes. However, he’s back on form later on. Meanwhile, Gandalf and the others travel to Isengard, where the first of the major omissions / changes from the book’s plot comes to light – there is no exchange between Gandalf and Saruman (Christopher Lee), and Wormtongue () does not throw the Palantir at them – Pippin just finds it. This change is probably forgivable as they needed to save time – or would have been if they hadn’t wasted time on over-long scenes later one… A short time later, he looks into the Palantir and Sauron sees him, but misinterprets what is seen. The plan to attack Minis Tirith sooner than anticipated also comes to light through this, and thus Gandalf along with Pippin set out for Minis Tirith. The men of Rohan need some persuading to come to the aid of Gondor, who have failed them in the past, but this is done through another plot change. Almost forgiveable.
Most of the plot changes before the end of the film are a case of changing the cause rather than effect. Unless my memory is very much mistaken, the shards of Narsil were re-forged during the stay at Rivendell (in the middle of Fellowship of the Ring), and the reason that Aragorn ventured into Dimwood certainly wasn’t anything to do with Elrond. The scene with the Corsair’s ships coming in was handled to far less effect than it would have been had they stuck to the book. If you’ve never read the book these changes will mean nothing to you, but speaking as someone who has read the book several times, I can’t see the reason for these changes and it did annoy me. (Although not as much as the stupid tart on my right who insisted on making lots of noise with her bag of sweets, loudly making banal observations, and laughing at ludicrously inappropriate places…)
Overall
All in all it started rather weakly, had a great middle section (although I do not agree with those who said that the battle scene at Minis Tirith outdoes the battle of Helm’s Deep in The Two Towers, and ended badly. The biggest change in the plot came at the end, and resulted in a tedious end sequence that really should have been anything but.
I’ve focused on the negatives though (okay one more - Cate Blanchet as Galadriel was even more annoying in this than the first film) – there were plenty of good aspects to this film too, which almost made it an excellent movie.
The Good Bits
As a whole the plot was superb – well let’s face it, the bits that stuck faithfully to the book were superb, the other bits not so great. The acting ranged from good to astounding – to me the best performances were from Elijah Wood as Frodo and Sean Astin as Sam (the real hero of the piece as far as I’m concerned), while Bloom and Rhys-Davies were typically good. Ian McKellan was slightly less convincing than in the first two films, and while Viggo Mortensen was great except for his stirring speech at the Black Gate, which was rather less than stirring. Boyd and Monaghan shone as the other Hobbits.
The effects were nothing short of stunning, everything from the monsters to the explosions were realistic and, basically, awesome. The curesed dead blokeys were amazing, and Shelob is fantastic! There was probably some tension there if you hadn’t read the book and didn’t already know what was basically going to happen – so far this week three people have asked me if Frodo dies…
The battle scenes were epic, and while there wasn’t really much in the way of romance (a touch of it, but not much), the camaraderie between Legolas and Gimli, Frodo and Sam, and Merry and Pippin was nicely handled.
Wrapping it up…
Some characters from the book that had small but important parts (like Beregond and Gothmog – well that huge guy might have been Gothmog I guess…) were missing, as were some great lines. Bits of the plot were changed, never for the better and, at the end, disastrously. But if you’re watching the film without having read the book first, this is unlikely to worry you much. There are a lot of things to like about the film, and it’s definitely worth seeing. But I still don’t think it’s a patch on The Two Towers.
See also:
Friday, 27 March 2009
Fame and Recognition at last!
CaptainD's Movie Reviews Blog has been included in Only Good Movies' "100 Best Movie Blogs" (check number 12).
It's always nice to get a bit of recognition. You can check out the full list here.
It's always nice to get a bit of recognition. You can check out the full list here.
DVD Review - Galaxy Quest
Galaxy Quest is a spoof of Star Trek and other sci-fi series. It features the cast of a successful TV series (of the same name as the film), years after the initial success of the series –they are now reduced to attending conventions and opening stores with immortal lines such as “by Gwapthar’s Hammer, what a saving!”. But then they get drawn into a real-life alien battle – the only trouble is, these aliens have been intercepting the TV shows and construing them as factual historical documentaries, and have built their whole society (and spaceship) based on the philosophy and technology of the show.
The Captain (Tim Allen) is not exactly popular with his crew – including the excellent Alan Rickman and Sigourney Weaver. When he gets abducted by the aliens, he at first thinks it’s just another Convention / commercial to be got through as quickly as possible – just with better special effects than usual. But when he finds out the truth, and his crewmates eventually join him, they find out that becoming real-life heroes is much harder than it was to act them…
While obviously taking off Star Trek big-time (at times, Tim Allen even looks like Captain Kirk!), I think people with even a passing interest in Sci-Fi will enjoy the film – although Trekkies will enjoy it more. (Like the lines “I see you managed to get your shirt off” and “does the rolling help?” – they’re funny in context anyway, but so much more so when you’ve seen the original Star Trek series). However the film stands up well in its own right, with a good plot, special effects that aren’t exactly amazing but get the job done, and a tremendous cast. The three I’ve already mentioned are exceptional, but then so are many others – everyone in the film is worthy of mention. I won’t actually mention them all though, ‘cos that would just be boring…
It’s a very funny film, so you can’t really take it seriously – this being the case, as a whole tension as such is missing. Despite this there are a few moments that threaten to have you on the edge of your seat because it’s so well acted.
If you like Sci-Fi, particularly the original Star Trek, you’ll be in heaven here. It’s just so funny and takes off so many elements of real and fictional aspects of ST, for example Tim Allen having a go at a group of fans at a convention for believing it’s real, etc. If you don’t like Sci-fi, you’ll probably still find this film funny – just not side-splittingly so.
The DVD has a few extras: “On location in space” – a very short “how it was made” piece that really should have been longer and more interesting; “Cutting Room Floor” – deleted scenes, many of which are very funny and make you wonder why they weren’t included; and the “Theatrical Trailer”, which is… er… what it says it is. You also get a 4-page booklet with production notes, which is fine for a brief flick through.
My only compliant about the film is that I wish it had been longer. I guess that says it all.
Trailer for Galaxy Quest
The Captain (Tim Allen) is not exactly popular with his crew – including the excellent Alan Rickman and Sigourney Weaver. When he gets abducted by the aliens, he at first thinks it’s just another Convention / commercial to be got through as quickly as possible – just with better special effects than usual. But when he finds out the truth, and his crewmates eventually join him, they find out that becoming real-life heroes is much harder than it was to act them…
While obviously taking off Star Trek big-time (at times, Tim Allen even looks like Captain Kirk!), I think people with even a passing interest in Sci-Fi will enjoy the film – although Trekkies will enjoy it more. (Like the lines “I see you managed to get your shirt off” and “does the rolling help?” – they’re funny in context anyway, but so much more so when you’ve seen the original Star Trek series). However the film stands up well in its own right, with a good plot, special effects that aren’t exactly amazing but get the job done, and a tremendous cast. The three I’ve already mentioned are exceptional, but then so are many others – everyone in the film is worthy of mention. I won’t actually mention them all though, ‘cos that would just be boring…
It’s a very funny film, so you can’t really take it seriously – this being the case, as a whole tension as such is missing. Despite this there are a few moments that threaten to have you on the edge of your seat because it’s so well acted.
If you like Sci-Fi, particularly the original Star Trek, you’ll be in heaven here. It’s just so funny and takes off so many elements of real and fictional aspects of ST, for example Tim Allen having a go at a group of fans at a convention for believing it’s real, etc. If you don’t like Sci-fi, you’ll probably still find this film funny – just not side-splittingly so.
The DVD has a few extras: “On location in space” – a very short “how it was made” piece that really should have been longer and more interesting; “Cutting Room Floor” – deleted scenes, many of which are very funny and make you wonder why they weren’t included; and the “Theatrical Trailer”, which is… er… what it says it is. You also get a 4-page booklet with production notes, which is fine for a brief flick through.
My only compliant about the film is that I wish it had been longer. I guess that says it all.
Trailer for Galaxy Quest
Right... it's March 27th, Orange Film Studios plans are now public...
... so click here for the amazing news about... wait for it...
Saving Private Ryan's Number!
More news as it comes...
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
Saving Private Ryan's Number!
In the middle of a really massive war, finding one man is tough. It's even tougher when nobody's saved his number into their mobile. Duh! So begins an epic journey to find Private Ryan - before it's too late...
More news as it comes...
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Orange Film Studios
Tomorrow (27th March) is the day when Orange Film Studios promise to dazzle us with an amazing announcement.
So check out http://www.orangefilmstudios.co.uk/ tomorrow (or today, if you're reading this tomorrow... well you know what I mean!)
I've seen some exclusive previews and interviews (yes, I feel kinda special...!) and it all looks... very interesting. More tomorrow...
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
So check out http://www.orangefilmstudios.co.uk/ tomorrow (or today, if you're reading this tomorrow... well you know what I mean!)
I've seen some exclusive previews and interviews (yes, I feel kinda special...!) and it all looks... very interesting. More tomorrow...
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Movie Review - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
Pirate movies aren’t as common as they used to be, and swashbuckling isn’t what it once was. However, this movie has plenty of piratey, swashbuckling action, a great cast, and plenty of laughs.
Johnny Depp plays the charming rogue Captain Jack Sparrow, Orlando Bloom is Will Turner, a pirate’s son who hates pirates, Kierra Knightly is the Elizabeth, the Governor’s daughter who doesn’t quite accept the role society has in mind for her, and Geoffrey Rush is the Captain of zombie pirate ship The Black Pearl, all set to rid him and his crew of the curse that made them zombies. Sparrow was once Captain of the Black Pearl, and he knows the origin of the curse that affects his mutinous former crewmates. More importantly, only he knows the true significance of Will Turner. Things get a touch complicated when the Black Pearl attacks Port Royal (add an “e” at the end to make it the former colonial capital of Jamaica – intentional or mistake?!?), where Sparrow has just been captured, after saving Elizabeth from certain death by corset suffocation but then taking her hostage. The pirates capture Elizabeth, thinking she is the one they need after she gives them the false name of “Turner”, since she doesn’t want them to know that she’s the Governor’s daughter.) Turner released Sparrow to help him track down the Black Pearl – and then the fun really starts.
The scene is set for a fun romp through the Caribbean, with battles a-plenty, a touch of romance, more than a dash of humour (there are some really priceless one-liners here), and pretty good special effects.
The cast are excellent: Bloom is good and, as in the Lord of the Rings films, his character gets the best stunts. Knightly is in fine form as the feisty femme fatale, and Rush is his normal reliable self with a superbly over-acted villain. But it’s Depp who steal the show here (though like his performance in Chocolat, his accent seems to change scene by scene!), with an eccentric performance reminiscent of Errol Flynn.
The script is good, with lots of humorous dialogue and a plot that bounces along merrily, not quite fast enough that you don’t notice the plot holes in some parts, but quick enough for you to ignore them when you do notice them. There’s lots of action, some a little graphic – it’s not really for young children but there’s nothing really macabre.
Overall this is a really enjoyable movie. It’s fun, fast, and funny. Personally speaking, I was surprised – I wasn’t really expecting much from the movie. But it delivered a lot, and I will definitely watch it again sometime.
Johnny Depp plays the charming rogue Captain Jack Sparrow, Orlando Bloom is Will Turner, a pirate’s son who hates pirates, Kierra Knightly is the Elizabeth, the Governor’s daughter who doesn’t quite accept the role society has in mind for her, and Geoffrey Rush is the Captain of zombie pirate ship The Black Pearl, all set to rid him and his crew of the curse that made them zombies. Sparrow was once Captain of the Black Pearl, and he knows the origin of the curse that affects his mutinous former crewmates. More importantly, only he knows the true significance of Will Turner. Things get a touch complicated when the Black Pearl attacks Port Royal (add an “e” at the end to make it the former colonial capital of Jamaica – intentional or mistake?!?), where Sparrow has just been captured, after saving Elizabeth from certain death by corset suffocation but then taking her hostage. The pirates capture Elizabeth, thinking she is the one they need after she gives them the false name of “Turner”, since she doesn’t want them to know that she’s the Governor’s daughter.) Turner released Sparrow to help him track down the Black Pearl – and then the fun really starts.
The scene is set for a fun romp through the Caribbean, with battles a-plenty, a touch of romance, more than a dash of humour (there are some really priceless one-liners here), and pretty good special effects.
The cast are excellent: Bloom is good and, as in the Lord of the Rings films, his character gets the best stunts. Knightly is in fine form as the feisty femme fatale, and Rush is his normal reliable self with a superbly over-acted villain. But it’s Depp who steal the show here (though like his performance in Chocolat, his accent seems to change scene by scene!), with an eccentric performance reminiscent of Errol Flynn.
The script is good, with lots of humorous dialogue and a plot that bounces along merrily, not quite fast enough that you don’t notice the plot holes in some parts, but quick enough for you to ignore them when you do notice them. There’s lots of action, some a little graphic – it’s not really for young children but there’s nothing really macabre.
Overall this is a really enjoyable movie. It’s fun, fast, and funny. Personally speaking, I was surprised – I wasn’t really expecting much from the movie. But it delivered a lot, and I will definitely watch it again sometime.
(Reviews of the sequels will come to this blog later, but the second is still enjoyable though not as good as the first, while the third is sort of okay but not as good as the second... isn't that so often the way with trilogies?!?)
See Also:
CaptainD's Top Ten Films of 2003
See Also:
CaptainD's Top Ten Films of 2003
Movie Review - Moon Over Miami
How I saw this…
My dad’s a big Betty Grable fan (not just of her legs – by the way she never really insured her legs for a million dollars, that was a studio publicity stunt) and for this reason I have seen many, if not most, of her films. (Needless to say, I’m not a huge fan myself – though I have nothing against either Grable or her undoubtedly fine pins, either). The latest one he bought was “Moon Over Miami”, which is, as most Betty Grable films are, watchable and entertaining enough without being spectacular.
The Story…
This 1941 movie is very similar to the later Grable film with Marylyn Monroe - “How to Marry a Millionaire”. This film is actually a musical remake of the play “Three Blind Mice”. I have a problem with the whole gold-digging idea anyway, but not so much that I can’t appreciate the humour of the situations herein. Kay Latimer (Grable) talks her sister Barbara (Carole Landis) and aunt (Charlotte Greenwood) into a crazy plan of spending their entire inheritance money going to Miami in the hope of her being able to marry a rich bachelor before their money runs out.
Her two prospective suitors are Phil O'Neil (Don Ameche) and Jeffrey Bolton (Robert Cummings) – though one of them is not as rich as they at first appear…
Corn
This film has it in abundance. The acting is corny and the plot cornier. And yet somehow that is the appeal of this sort of ultra-light musical – it’s pure escapism, so far removed from reality that it’s quite enjoyable. And after all, the plot is really just an excuse for lots of singing and dancing, and showing off Gable’s talents and wonderful figure (and Greenwood’s amazing dancing style!).
The competition between O’Neil and Bolton is frankly ridiculous, but it’s played for laughs and works most of the time.
And the opening sequence deserves a place in film history for being one of the most awe-inspiringly hammy song and dance routines ever!
The Cast
While Gable is her normal engaging self and Tyrone Power (who plays opposite Gable in many films) is his normal charming self, Cummings is a rather weak romantic lead and not up to the class of Gable’s normal leading men, Tyrone Power and John Payne. Jack Hayley turns in a good performance as Charlotte Greenwood’s put-upon love interest.
The Songs
The songs vary greatly in quality from "Is that Good?" (yes it is) to the frankly awful “Kindergatrten Conga”, which is so bad it makes your ears want to do you bodily harm. The dancing, however, ranges from good to excellent. The Condos Brothers feature in an extended dance routine with Gable, along with Jack Cole and company.
The quality of the dancing is probably above average for this type of film. The songs just about make average.
Overall
It really depends if you like this sort of film, and especially if you like Grable. If you do, then I’m sure you’ll find this one as enjoyable as most. If not, there’s nothing to particularly recommend this film. It’s not bad for what it is, but nothing remarkable either. The humour in the film works more often than not, but don’t expect anything sophisticated!
Other Details
Runtime: 1 hour, 31 minutes
Directed by Walter Lang.
Grable’s previous movie, “I Wake Up Screaming” (also 1941) saw a critically acclaimed performance by Grable in a more sombre role than usual. However, her fans didn’t like the fact that she didn’t show off her legs, so “Moon Over Miami” was commissioned to make up for it!
Legendary choreographer Hermes Pan, who worked with Grable on many movies, makes his one and only screen appearance in this film.
My dad’s a big Betty Grable fan (not just of her legs – by the way she never really insured her legs for a million dollars, that was a studio publicity stunt) and for this reason I have seen many, if not most, of her films. (Needless to say, I’m not a huge fan myself – though I have nothing against either Grable or her undoubtedly fine pins, either). The latest one he bought was “Moon Over Miami”, which is, as most Betty Grable films are, watchable and entertaining enough without being spectacular.
The Story…
This 1941 movie is very similar to the later Grable film with Marylyn Monroe - “How to Marry a Millionaire”. This film is actually a musical remake of the play “Three Blind Mice”. I have a problem with the whole gold-digging idea anyway, but not so much that I can’t appreciate the humour of the situations herein. Kay Latimer (Grable) talks her sister Barbara (Carole Landis) and aunt (Charlotte Greenwood) into a crazy plan of spending their entire inheritance money going to Miami in the hope of her being able to marry a rich bachelor before their money runs out.
Her two prospective suitors are Phil O'Neil (Don Ameche) and Jeffrey Bolton (Robert Cummings) – though one of them is not as rich as they at first appear…
Corn
This film has it in abundance. The acting is corny and the plot cornier. And yet somehow that is the appeal of this sort of ultra-light musical – it’s pure escapism, so far removed from reality that it’s quite enjoyable. And after all, the plot is really just an excuse for lots of singing and dancing, and showing off Gable’s talents and wonderful figure (and Greenwood’s amazing dancing style!).
The competition between O’Neil and Bolton is frankly ridiculous, but it’s played for laughs and works most of the time.
And the opening sequence deserves a place in film history for being one of the most awe-inspiringly hammy song and dance routines ever!
The Cast
While Gable is her normal engaging self and Tyrone Power (who plays opposite Gable in many films) is his normal charming self, Cummings is a rather weak romantic lead and not up to the class of Gable’s normal leading men, Tyrone Power and John Payne. Jack Hayley turns in a good performance as Charlotte Greenwood’s put-upon love interest.
The Songs
The songs vary greatly in quality from "Is that Good?" (yes it is) to the frankly awful “Kindergatrten Conga”, which is so bad it makes your ears want to do you bodily harm. The dancing, however, ranges from good to excellent. The Condos Brothers feature in an extended dance routine with Gable, along with Jack Cole and company.
The quality of the dancing is probably above average for this type of film. The songs just about make average.
Overall
It really depends if you like this sort of film, and especially if you like Grable. If you do, then I’m sure you’ll find this one as enjoyable as most. If not, there’s nothing to particularly recommend this film. It’s not bad for what it is, but nothing remarkable either. The humour in the film works more often than not, but don’t expect anything sophisticated!
Other Details
Runtime: 1 hour, 31 minutes
Directed by Walter Lang.
Grable’s previous movie, “I Wake Up Screaming” (also 1941) saw a critically acclaimed performance by Grable in a more sombre role than usual. However, her fans didn’t like the fact that she didn’t show off her legs, so “Moon Over Miami” was commissioned to make up for it!
Legendary choreographer Hermes Pan, who worked with Grable on many movies, makes his one and only screen appearance in this film.
Related Review
If you like musicals, you may be interested in the musically brilliant Stormy Weather, one of the first films to feature an all black cast.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Video Clips from Stormy Weather
Lena Horne singing:
Bill Robinson "Bo Jangles" himself in the film's introduction:
Fats Waller singing Ain't Misbehavin'
The Nicholas Brothers in what Fred Astaire apparently called "the greatest dance number ever filmed".
If your eyes aren't watering by the time they get to the bottom of those stairs, you ain't human!!
Movie Review - Stormy Weather
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
Bill Robinson "Bo Jangles" himself in the film's introduction:
Fats Waller singing Ain't Misbehavin'
The Nicholas Brothers in what Fred Astaire apparently called "the greatest dance number ever filmed".
If your eyes aren't watering by the time they get to the bottom of those stairs, you ain't human!!
Movie Review - Stormy Weather
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
Movie Review - Stormy Weather
What?
I’d never heard of this film until my dad stumbled across it on ebay – since it was fairly cheap and he loves jazz, he got it. And I can’t tell you how glad I am that he did!
20th Century Fox and MGM took quite a risk producing and releasing a film with an all black cast back in the monochrome days (although the entire female cast actually look more white than black), and for this alone it deserves a place in film history. But this is also great entertainment.
You mean there’s a plot? Well… nearly…
That’s right – it’s great entertainment, but not a great film. The plot (very loosely a biopic of the star Bill Williamson (whose stage name is Bill “Bojangles” Robinson) is rather haphazard and corny. But that’s not important – even the blurb on the back of the video says that the thin storyline is really just an excuse for lots of singing and dancing. (And although a lot of humour shines through, I’m not quite sure how much of it was actually intentional!) Oh there’s an angle on a love story too, with singer Lena Horne (playing singer Selina Rogers). Most of the film is told in a series of flashbacks, with Bojangles relating his life to a bunch of kids. Don’t expect much in the way of characterisation or plot development, that’s all.
What it’s really all about
So much for the plot. But what matters here are the songs, the music, and the dancing. If you like jazz you’ll love it. There are some tremendous musical performances here, from the sultry Lena Horne’s rendition of the title song (accompanied by an impressive visual sequence), to the rather scary trousers of Cab Calloway. Even scarier (but very funny and musically brilliant) is Fats Waller, whose performance of “Ain’t Misbehavin’” is just wonderful. There are many other great performances (in fact I can’t think of a bad one), but Fats Waller was the one that really stood out to me.
The dancing is also brilliant and some (particularly by the unnervingly flexible Nicholas Brothers) brought tears to my eyes. (Well how would you feel about watching two guys leap over each other down some stairs – doing the splits on every landing!). Bojangles does a fair bit of dancing as well, and boy can he dance!
Serious bit
Well, so far this review reads like a list of songs, singers and dancers. Which is as it should be, since that’s what the film itself is. Though it features an all black cast, I’m really not too sure what the black population itself would think of this. It portrays them as real people (as far as there is any characterisation at all), but the stereotyped images are all there. It tends to put them across as happy-go-lucky, talented individuals but not too bright. (Okay this sort of film rarely makes anyone look intelligent…).
But that’s really being analytical. The film is really about jazz, and it was the darker-skinned portion of our race that invented this wonderful music form. And I, among many other members of the lighter-skinned portion of the human race, am eternally grateful for that.
I’d never heard of this film until my dad stumbled across it on ebay – since it was fairly cheap and he loves jazz, he got it. And I can’t tell you how glad I am that he did!
20th Century Fox and MGM took quite a risk producing and releasing a film with an all black cast back in the monochrome days (although the entire female cast actually look more white than black), and for this alone it deserves a place in film history. But this is also great entertainment.
You mean there’s a plot? Well… nearly…
That’s right – it’s great entertainment, but not a great film. The plot (very loosely a biopic of the star Bill Williamson (whose stage name is Bill “Bojangles” Robinson) is rather haphazard and corny. But that’s not important – even the blurb on the back of the video says that the thin storyline is really just an excuse for lots of singing and dancing. (And although a lot of humour shines through, I’m not quite sure how much of it was actually intentional!) Oh there’s an angle on a love story too, with singer Lena Horne (playing singer Selina Rogers). Most of the film is told in a series of flashbacks, with Bojangles relating his life to a bunch of kids. Don’t expect much in the way of characterisation or plot development, that’s all.
What it’s really all about
So much for the plot. But what matters here are the songs, the music, and the dancing. If you like jazz you’ll love it. There are some tremendous musical performances here, from the sultry Lena Horne’s rendition of the title song (accompanied by an impressive visual sequence), to the rather scary trousers of Cab Calloway. Even scarier (but very funny and musically brilliant) is Fats Waller, whose performance of “Ain’t Misbehavin’” is just wonderful. There are many other great performances (in fact I can’t think of a bad one), but Fats Waller was the one that really stood out to me.
The dancing is also brilliant and some (particularly by the unnervingly flexible Nicholas Brothers) brought tears to my eyes. (Well how would you feel about watching two guys leap over each other down some stairs – doing the splits on every landing!). Bojangles does a fair bit of dancing as well, and boy can he dance!
Serious bit
Well, so far this review reads like a list of songs, singers and dancers. Which is as it should be, since that’s what the film itself is. Though it features an all black cast, I’m really not too sure what the black population itself would think of this. It portrays them as real people (as far as there is any characterisation at all), but the stereotyped images are all there. It tends to put them across as happy-go-lucky, talented individuals but not too bright. (Okay this sort of film rarely makes anyone look intelligent…).
But that’s really being analytical. The film is really about jazz, and it was the darker-skinned portion of our race that invented this wonderful music form. And I, among many other members of the lighter-skinned portion of the human race, am eternally grateful for that.
Jazz fans only though
If you like jazz, you’ll love this. I love jazz so I thoroughly enjoyed it.
However, if you don’t like jazz this may hold merely a vague interest to you as an example of the attitudes of the time it was made.
Video Clips from Stormy Weather - hear Lena Horne and Fats Waller sing, see BoJangles and the Nicholas Brothers dance.
Movie Review - Harrison Bergeron
This little known film, made in 1995, is loosely based on a short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. (If you’re never read it, there’s a link to this story at the end of the review). I remember reading this in a sci-fi anthology years ago (ooooooh, that makes me feel old… :-C) and being impressed by it – so impressed that I remember it vividly even after the aforementioned years have past…
The Plot
Anyway, the basic idea of the story and the film is that the world has a completely egalitarian society – taken to its ultimate conclusion. Everyone with special talents and abilities is given handicaps – i.e., the strong are forced to carry weights permanently, the intellectual have buzzers fitted to their ears to constantly distract them – the cleverer they are, the more frequent the interruptions , etc – to bring everyone down to the same level. This way nobody can feel superior or inferior. No-one can rise above anyone else, and even the world’s leaders have no advantages in nay way over the lowest society member.
Or so everyone believes, including the eponymous hero of the film. Harrison (played by Sean Astin (Sam in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy), who does pretty well with his role - I can't really understand why some of the other reviewers have slated his performance here) has the largest handicaps of anyone in history – so obviously he cannot reach anything like his full potential. Things are not going to change until he visits a “brothel” – where women satisfy intellectual rather than physical delights – and takes his handicaps off during a game of chess. But then the brothel is busted – and that’s when things start getting interesting…
For of course you need people in full possession of their faculties to run the world. (Step aside G Bush and T Blair…) But it’s not an official government of any kind – it’s a secret organisation, where the un-handicapped control the lives of the handicapped – who think that there is no-one above them, and that the system of handicaps is to everyone’s benefit. As Harrison gets more involved in their operations, he also finds their methods and attitudes more and more distasteful… and falls in love with one of the leading class, played by Miranda de Pencier.
Style
Enough of the plot – I have only told you that much because some of my comments on the film would make no sense if you didn’t know that much. The acting is pretty good – okay it’s not brilliant, but the basically unknown cast does a pretty good job. The scriptwriters have also done a good job of turning Vonnegut’s short story into a full-length film. There definitely wasn’t enough material in the original story to turn into a film, but this manages to follow the spirit of the original despite some radical plot changes and additions. They also don’t take the easy “feel-good” options on some of the plot devices, which helps to keep it feeling realistic.
Acting
Other reviews have criticised the acting – I admit it’s not brilliant, but it’s certainly not terrible. I didn’t personally find that it detracted from my enjoyment watching the film – after all, it’s quite an unusual experience to hardly recognise anyone when you’re watching a film!
The REAL reason to watch this film…
The strength of the film is its ability to make you think. Not just about the societal structure, but also the abuse of power, repression, and what it would be like if the great artists etc had not been allowed to express themselves without constraints on their natural abilities. A particularly nice scene is where Harrison watches old movies (before the regime of equalisation was brought in – these movies are of course banned to the normal people) - and marvels at the artistry, plot intrigue, and acting ability he sees. He listens to music so unlike any of the drab and mundane melodies he had been used to (that could well be a commentary on today’s music scene!). He is moved in was impossible in his former existence. And he wants to share these expressions of human accomplishment with others, with all people if possible – but this, of course is not allowed… people might start to realise what they were missing, and what is being held back from them so that a few can retain complete control…
In Conclusion…
Overall, I feel that this is really an unsung hero of science fiction filmography. It deserves a lot more recognition than it is every likely to get. I would recommend it to fans of science fiction and movies that make you think. Fantasy fans and action junkies are better off looking elsewhere.
There are some flurries of bad language in this movie, so watch out if that's going to be a problem for you. When I saw it again recently there was actually a lot more swearing than I remembered - probably because it is isolated to three or four places in the film, but when it comes there is a whole stream of it. I could have done without the profanities, and they didn't really add any kind of emphasis to the film other than to show one of the characters as unthinking and incapable of rational thought - which we already knew anyway.
Monday, 23 March 2009
Movie Review - Bend It Like Beckham
Jess – full name Jasminder Bhamra - (Parminder Nagra) dreams of playing professional football and is crazy about David Beckham. (No accounting for taste I guess). But… “she can’t even cook a japatti!” Her family, particularly her parents, are very traditional and not at all enamoured of the idea of their daughter playing football. In fact, the life they have planned for her is more along the lines of getting married and having lots of children, and of course cooking lots of Indian food…
Despite her dreams Jess doesn’t actually think she’s talented enough to play professionally (not that there’s a great deal of opportunity for women to do this in England), nor does she think she would be able to escape the clutches of her family in order to do so. However, a chance encounter with a girl called Jules (Keira Knightley) leads to her becoming (secretly) part of a local girls football team. However, despite Jules’ help, this is a hard secret to keep, and the Team Coach (Joe – played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) seems to be much too hard on her at first. Things get even more complicated when Jess starts to fall for Joe (he’s much nicer to her by this stage!) – something that Jules is not exactly happy about, as she saw him first…
Enough of the plot, you’ll have to find out the rest for yourself. (Or from other reviewers who like to tell you so much of the plot that it’s barely worth actually watching the film for yourself!)
Despite the footballing theme, this film is really about the contrasting cultures – English and Indian – women wanting to do something that isn’t “normal” for women – about someone following their dream, about love, about the expectations people have on you… and in the end, I think it is mainly about a combination of different cultures being better than either culture on its own. The typical culture clash ideas are played out her but in ways fresh enough for you to feel that it’s never quite been done like this before. It’s often funny, often touching, and you really do care about Jess – but you also care about her family, and can sympathise with their views and ideals, if not always their somewhat intolerant attitude.
Gurinder Chadha wrote and directed the film, and has a deep knowledge and respect of the Indian culture, but is also able to point out the inconsistencies and absurdness of certain things, and laugh at them. He does the same thing with English culture. The end result is a social commentary on both cultures that is very funny without being offensive.
The largely unknown cast do a magnificent job, with Nagra’s and Rhys-Meyers’ performances standing out. (Since she’s blond and pretty, Keira Knightly has and will be more popular and successful, of course… this comment from my review originally posted in November 2003 has proved pretty accurate!!).) Another point of interest for me was that I’m absolutely convinced that the Bhamra’s house was filmed in Firs Drive – a street not 10 minutes away from where I used to live! I’ll have to check that out…
The storyline is strong and overall the performances excellent, though there are one or two scenes that seem to drag on a bit – in fact the film would be 5-star material if it were about 20 minutes shorter (or with a better 20 minutes in place of the boring bits!) The football scenes are pretty well filmed, looking fairly convincing.
The one thing that did really annoy me was that Joe was seen to be in the wrong to accept a job for the men’s 2nd team (he later retracted and stayed with the girls), while it’s fine for the two girls to end up jetting off to America to play football professionally over there. Equality? Nope, that’s vanished somewhere and been taken over by feminism (uncontroversial comment no. 152 – see other reviews for previous uncontroversial comments, though they’re not numbered…).
Thankfully there’s not too much David Beckham in this movie, though still too much for my liking. (I think he is a talented footballer and seems to be a committed family man, which can only be a good thing, but I don’t want to actually have to look at him… apart from perhaps in an England shirt).
All in all, this is a very good movie but not quite excellent. It’s definitely one I wouldn’t mind seeing again. It’s funny, sassy, sensitive, and is a very feel-good movie. The only thing that prevents it from getting an excellent rating is the fact that there are too many scenes that go on long after their natural life course has ended. But I would certainly recommended it overall.
Despite her dreams Jess doesn’t actually think she’s talented enough to play professionally (not that there’s a great deal of opportunity for women to do this in England), nor does she think she would be able to escape the clutches of her family in order to do so. However, a chance encounter with a girl called Jules (Keira Knightley) leads to her becoming (secretly) part of a local girls football team. However, despite Jules’ help, this is a hard secret to keep, and the Team Coach (Joe – played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) seems to be much too hard on her at first. Things get even more complicated when Jess starts to fall for Joe (he’s much nicer to her by this stage!) – something that Jules is not exactly happy about, as she saw him first…
Enough of the plot, you’ll have to find out the rest for yourself. (Or from other reviewers who like to tell you so much of the plot that it’s barely worth actually watching the film for yourself!)
Despite the footballing theme, this film is really about the contrasting cultures – English and Indian – women wanting to do something that isn’t “normal” for women – about someone following their dream, about love, about the expectations people have on you… and in the end, I think it is mainly about a combination of different cultures being better than either culture on its own. The typical culture clash ideas are played out her but in ways fresh enough for you to feel that it’s never quite been done like this before. It’s often funny, often touching, and you really do care about Jess – but you also care about her family, and can sympathise with their views and ideals, if not always their somewhat intolerant attitude.
Gurinder Chadha wrote and directed the film, and has a deep knowledge and respect of the Indian culture, but is also able to point out the inconsistencies and absurdness of certain things, and laugh at them. He does the same thing with English culture. The end result is a social commentary on both cultures that is very funny without being offensive.
The largely unknown cast do a magnificent job, with Nagra’s and Rhys-Meyers’ performances standing out. (Since she’s blond and pretty, Keira Knightly has and will be more popular and successful, of course… this comment from my review originally posted in November 2003 has proved pretty accurate!!).) Another point of interest for me was that I’m absolutely convinced that the Bhamra’s house was filmed in Firs Drive – a street not 10 minutes away from where I used to live! I’ll have to check that out…
The storyline is strong and overall the performances excellent, though there are one or two scenes that seem to drag on a bit – in fact the film would be 5-star material if it were about 20 minutes shorter (or with a better 20 minutes in place of the boring bits!) The football scenes are pretty well filmed, looking fairly convincing.
The one thing that did really annoy me was that Joe was seen to be in the wrong to accept a job for the men’s 2nd team (he later retracted and stayed with the girls), while it’s fine for the two girls to end up jetting off to America to play football professionally over there. Equality? Nope, that’s vanished somewhere and been taken over by feminism (uncontroversial comment no. 152 – see other reviews for previous uncontroversial comments, though they’re not numbered…).
Thankfully there’s not too much David Beckham in this movie, though still too much for my liking. (I think he is a talented footballer and seems to be a committed family man, which can only be a good thing, but I don’t want to actually have to look at him… apart from perhaps in an England shirt).
All in all, this is a very good movie but not quite excellent. It’s definitely one I wouldn’t mind seeing again. It’s funny, sassy, sensitive, and is a very feel-good movie. The only thing that prevents it from getting an excellent rating is the fact that there are too many scenes that go on long after their natural life course has ended. But I would certainly recommended it overall.
See also: Movie Review - My Big Fat Greek Wedding (another culture-clash comedy)
Friday, 20 March 2009
Press Release - "Boy in the Striped Pyjamas"
This press release was sent to me by an online PR company, the text of what follows has not been altered by me in any way (though I've had to change the formatting a little):
FULL SCALE OF HOLOCAUST UNKNOWN TO BRITISH CHILDREN
“Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” helps to improve understanding of World War II in UK classrooms
· Only one in three (37%) children realise the Holocaust claimed the lives of six million Jews
· A quarter (25%) do not know what Auschwitz was, with some mistaking it for a beer-like drink
· 60% do not know what the Final Solution was, with 20% believing it was peace talks to end the war
Most British children underestimate the true horrors of the Holocaust, according to new research released today.
The nationwide study, commissioned by Miramax Films and the London Jewish Cultural Centre to mark the DVD release of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas on Monday 9 March 2009, surveyed 1,200 secondary school children of all religions about their knowledge of the subject.
Despite the fact that Holocaust studies are part of the national curriculum in English secondary schools, two in three (63%) pupils underestimate the death toll at concentration camps by as much as five million lives.
A quarter (25%) of respondents do not know what Auschwitz was, with one in ten (8%) mistaking it for a country bordering Germany. Others believe it to be a type of bread or a beer-like drink.
Some taking part in the study - the equivalent of over 135,000 secondary school pupils - even misidentified images of historical figures such as Winston Churchill, Salvador Dali and Albert Einstein as Adolf Hitler.
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is based on the award-winning novel of the same name by John Boyne. It tells the story of a German boy’s friendship with a Jewish child held in a concentration camp. Makers of the movie Miramax Films are now working with the charity Film Education to encourage use of the DVD, which is classified as a 12 certificate in the UK, as the basis for increasing children’s knowledge of what happened.
Special screenings of the award-winning film, which stars Sheila Hancock and David Thewlis, are taking place for school children around the UK and new teaching aids that tie into the national curriculum key stage 3 are being devised to help capture the interest of students in the classroom.
Stephanie Rose, Director of the Holocaust and Anti-racism Education Department of the London Jewish Cultural Centre, said that the study proves how vital it is to continue to teach about the Holocaust in schools, and to constantly re-assess the impact of its delivery.
“There is an assumption that British children understand what happened; but thousands clearly don’t. After hearing survivors speak in their schools, our experience has been that many young people, despite having studied the Holocaust, respond with shock and surprise as if hearing such information for the first time.”
Mark Herman, director of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, said the new DVD can be a powerful educational tool when used with the teaching aids created by Film Education:
“The reaction I had from many teachers and school children to the film when it came out was that, although this is a fictional story, it is one that children get very emotionally involved in, and as a result makes them want to learn more about the subject.
“Sadly, children sometimes find documentaries and textbooks on the subject quite inaccessible, whereas because this quite simple fictional tale revolves around children, it is something they can relate to. They are touched, their hearts get involved, and they seem to want to know more as a result.”
Additional research findings:
· 40% of children don’t understand Hitler’s motives, with many thinking that the Holocaust was a revenge attack on Jewish people while others think it was a way of reducing the German population
· The equivalent of over 270,000 secondary school pupils could not identify a swastika as the Nazi emblem
· The survey also looked at children’s attitudes to befriending people of different religions, with positive findings showing that only 7% of youngsters would let someone’s faith get in the way of befriending them – a theme supported by the film
- Ends -
· Only one in three (37%) children realise the Holocaust claimed the lives of six million Jews
· A quarter (25%) do not know what Auschwitz was, with some mistaking it for a beer-like drink
· 60% do not know what the Final Solution was, with 20% believing it was peace talks to end the war
Most British children underestimate the true horrors of the Holocaust, according to new research released today.
The nationwide study, commissioned by Miramax Films and the London Jewish Cultural Centre to mark the DVD release of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas on Monday 9 March 2009, surveyed 1,200 secondary school children of all religions about their knowledge of the subject.
Despite the fact that Holocaust studies are part of the national curriculum in English secondary schools, two in three (63%) pupils underestimate the death toll at concentration camps by as much as five million lives.
A quarter (25%) of respondents do not know what Auschwitz was, with one in ten (8%) mistaking it for a country bordering Germany. Others believe it to be a type of bread or a beer-like drink.
Some taking part in the study - the equivalent of over 135,000 secondary school pupils - even misidentified images of historical figures such as Winston Churchill, Salvador Dali and Albert Einstein as Adolf Hitler.
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is based on the award-winning novel of the same name by John Boyne. It tells the story of a German boy’s friendship with a Jewish child held in a concentration camp. Makers of the movie Miramax Films are now working with the charity Film Education to encourage use of the DVD, which is classified as a 12 certificate in the UK, as the basis for increasing children’s knowledge of what happened.
Special screenings of the award-winning film, which stars Sheila Hancock and David Thewlis, are taking place for school children around the UK and new teaching aids that tie into the national curriculum key stage 3 are being devised to help capture the interest of students in the classroom.
Stephanie Rose, Director of the Holocaust and Anti-racism Education Department of the London Jewish Cultural Centre, said that the study proves how vital it is to continue to teach about the Holocaust in schools, and to constantly re-assess the impact of its delivery.
“There is an assumption that British children understand what happened; but thousands clearly don’t. After hearing survivors speak in their schools, our experience has been that many young people, despite having studied the Holocaust, respond with shock and surprise as if hearing such information for the first time.”
Mark Herman, director of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, said the new DVD can be a powerful educational tool when used with the teaching aids created by Film Education:
“The reaction I had from many teachers and school children to the film when it came out was that, although this is a fictional story, it is one that children get very emotionally involved in, and as a result makes them want to learn more about the subject.
“Sadly, children sometimes find documentaries and textbooks on the subject quite inaccessible, whereas because this quite simple fictional tale revolves around children, it is something they can relate to. They are touched, their hearts get involved, and they seem to want to know more as a result.”
Additional research findings:
· 40% of children don’t understand Hitler’s motives, with many thinking that the Holocaust was a revenge attack on Jewish people while others think it was a way of reducing the German population
· The equivalent of over 270,000 secondary school pupils could not identify a swastika as the Nazi emblem
· The survey also looked at children’s attitudes to befriending people of different religions, with positive findings showing that only 7% of youngsters would let someone’s faith get in the way of befriending them – a theme supported by the film
- Ends -
Notes to editors
Survey carried out among 1,200 secondary school children aged 11 to 16 from Monday 9 February to Friday 27 February 2009 by youth research agency Dubit.
According to TGI Youth 2007 Autumn there are approximately 4.5 million children aged 11-16 in the UK.
Stills from The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and interviews with Film Education and Stephanie Rose at the London Jewish Cultural Centre, are available on request.
Sound files of the testimonial from Eva Neuman are available on request.
Clips, stills and artwork from The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas are available on request
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas
The Miramax film, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, tells the story of Bruno – an eight-year-old who befriends a boy of his own age through the wire fence of a concentration camp. Through the naive perceptions of Bruno, audiences get telling glimpses of the true horrors taking place. This unique story of forbidden friendship and its devastating consequences in the context of World War II is based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Irish author John Boyne.
The film stars David Thewlis (Kingdom of Heaven, Seven Years in Tibet), Rupert Friend (Pride and Prejudice, The Young Victoria) and newcomer Asa Butterfield as ‘Bruno’. American actress Vera Farmiga (Breaking & Entering, The Departed) who was named Best Actress at the 2008 British Independent Film Awards for her moving portrayal of Bruno’s mother.
The London Jewish Cultural Centre
The London Jewish Cultural Centre (LJCC) offers the widest range of Jewish learning opportunities and Jewish cultural events in the UK. Although the Holocaust stands as the central issue of twentieth century Jewish history, the Centre emphasises its continuing and inescapable relevance for humanity as a whole. To this end the LJCC runs pioneering and influential educational programmes in the UK, including the provision of survivor testimony in schools, and also - under the auspices of the International Task Force for Holocaust Education - in Eastern Europe and in China. The Centre also acts as an advisor on issues related to the Holocaust and racism for many organisations including the BBC (the recent visit to Auschwitz by Blue Peter presenter Joel de Fries, with Auschwitz survivor Freda Weineman was facilitated by the LJCC).
Film Education
To mark the release of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas on DVD, Miramax is working with Film Education on a school educational campaign comprising:
· The development of new content for an online teaching resource that was created to mark the theatrical release of the film in September 2008
· Updates including: historical learnings from World War II; The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas teacher case studies showing other educators how the film has been used effectively in the classroom to aid learning; and a Holocaust survivor case study
· Screenings of the DVD around the UK, exclusively for secondary school children
· Mailers to 12,000 schools about national screenings and background information on the film
Survey carried out among 1,200 secondary school children aged 11 to 16 from Monday 9 February to Friday 27 February 2009 by youth research agency Dubit.
According to TGI Youth 2007 Autumn there are approximately 4.5 million children aged 11-16 in the UK.
Stills from The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and interviews with Film Education and Stephanie Rose at the London Jewish Cultural Centre, are available on request.
Sound files of the testimonial from Eva Neuman are available on request.
Clips, stills and artwork from The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas are available on request
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas
The Miramax film, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, tells the story of Bruno – an eight-year-old who befriends a boy of his own age through the wire fence of a concentration camp. Through the naive perceptions of Bruno, audiences get telling glimpses of the true horrors taking place. This unique story of forbidden friendship and its devastating consequences in the context of World War II is based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Irish author John Boyne.
The film stars David Thewlis (Kingdom of Heaven, Seven Years in Tibet), Rupert Friend (Pride and Prejudice, The Young Victoria) and newcomer Asa Butterfield as ‘Bruno’. American actress Vera Farmiga (Breaking & Entering, The Departed) who was named Best Actress at the 2008 British Independent Film Awards for her moving portrayal of Bruno’s mother.
The London Jewish Cultural Centre
The London Jewish Cultural Centre (LJCC) offers the widest range of Jewish learning opportunities and Jewish cultural events in the UK. Although the Holocaust stands as the central issue of twentieth century Jewish history, the Centre emphasises its continuing and inescapable relevance for humanity as a whole. To this end the LJCC runs pioneering and influential educational programmes in the UK, including the provision of survivor testimony in schools, and also - under the auspices of the International Task Force for Holocaust Education - in Eastern Europe and in China. The Centre also acts as an advisor on issues related to the Holocaust and racism for many organisations including the BBC (the recent visit to Auschwitz by Blue Peter presenter Joel de Fries, with Auschwitz survivor Freda Weineman was facilitated by the LJCC).
Film Education
To mark the release of The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas on DVD, Miramax is working with Film Education on a school educational campaign comprising:
· The development of new content for an online teaching resource that was created to mark the theatrical release of the film in September 2008
· Updates including: historical learnings from World War II; The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas teacher case studies showing other educators how the film has been used effectively in the classroom to aid learning; and a Holocaust survivor case study
· Screenings of the DVD around the UK, exclusively for secondary school children
· Mailers to 12,000 schools about national screenings and background information on the film
Movie Review - Chain Reaction
I’m
Chain Reaction starts off with an intriguing premise and goes downhill from there, despite trying really hard to be a tense techno-thriller.
In
The initial idea, of a new power-source being developed from water (we’re not talking traditional hydro-power here though) – which supposedly has the capacity to use the hydrogen in small glass of water to power the whole city of Chicago for weeks –is brilliant. The idea of the rich and powerful oil companies being desperate to stop this is entirely credible. The idea of an eccentric scientist wanting to actually give away this technology is less believable but forgivable. The idea of a secret government agency getting involved is plausible. Sabotage of the research plant the night that the breakthrough is made seems reasonable enough. Even Keanu Reeves as a maverick machinist (yes, I know – there’s just something so wrong with that idea) involved with the project for some reason going back to the research centre just in time to see proof that the reason for the explosion was definitely sabotage can be forgiven as poetic licence. But Rachel Weisz’s unbelievably phoney and entirely unnecessary upper-class English accent? That I can’t forgive. (She was born in London, but the accent still sounds very forced!)
The
Given the strength of the initial premise, it’s a pity that the film didn’t adopt a much more thoughtful stance than it does. It’s also a pity that the producers decided to use what I term “The Phantom Menace Approach” – that is, cutting between scenes so fast and for so little reason that any plot coherency that may have existed evaporates in confusion – thus destroying the chances for this film to be more than the series of set pieces that it ends up being.
Middle
Eddie (Keanu Reeves) is suspected of being involved in the sabotage and thus has to flee, his only companion being Rachel Weisz (who is only there to look vulnerable, have silly accent, and give Reeves something to protect and possibly fall in love with… oh and did I mention her silly accent?), and his only contact that he can (possibly) rely on a mysterious character played by Morgan Freeman.
Of
Reeves does reasonably well in his role (he’s not quite as wooden as in his role as Neo in the Matrix Trilogy), Morgan Freeman is suitably mysterious, Rachel Weisz has such a pathetic character to play that there’s no chance she can do anything with her role (I’m assuming someone told her to put on that accent – she sounds like the queen would sound if she was on diuretics – if the accent was her own idea, she should be punished), and the bit-part actors and actresses are competent enough.
A
The plot buzzes along well enough apart from the stupid way the scenes cut incoherently every few seconds - this also disperses very quickly any tension that is generated. There’s a fair amount of techobabble liberally thrown in at various points of the film, and I’m the sort of weirdo that actually enjoys that sort of thing. The stunts are generally good and the special effects quite impressive. As an all-out action flick it’s not bad.
Chain
There’s a brain behind this film (somewhat a rarity for this genre), but unfortunately it’s been rather lost in the translation. It’s almost as though someone said, “Hey, here’s a brilliant idea for a film, let’s turn it into a mediocre movie” – and lo! – it became so.
It’s certainly not a terrible film – watching it didn’t leave me feeling that part of my life had been stolen – just that I hadn’t made a profit on what time I’d spent.
Reaction
“Average” sums it all up really. It’s better than a lot of films, and worse than a lot of films, and in the big scheme of things it’s firmly in the middle and completely forgettable. Which is a crying shame, since it could have been so much more. Better production and editing would have improved things immensely.
My final thought – it’s from the same people who brought us “The Fugitive”. If only this film had matched up to it.
Links
Keanu Reeves also starred in the enjoyable Matrix: Revolutions and its appalling prequel, Matrix: Reloaded.
Rachel Weisz had a slightly less silly accent and a much better role in the superb British comedy About A Boy and the highly enjoyable action comedy The Mummy.
Chain Reaction starts off with an intriguing premise and goes downhill from there, despite trying really hard to be a tense techno-thriller.
In
The initial idea, of a new power-source being developed from water (we’re not talking traditional hydro-power here though) – which supposedly has the capacity to use the hydrogen in small glass of water to power the whole city of Chicago for weeks –is brilliant. The idea of the rich and powerful oil companies being desperate to stop this is entirely credible. The idea of an eccentric scientist wanting to actually give away this technology is less believable but forgivable. The idea of a secret government agency getting involved is plausible. Sabotage of the research plant the night that the breakthrough is made seems reasonable enough. Even Keanu Reeves as a maverick machinist (yes, I know – there’s just something so wrong with that idea) involved with the project for some reason going back to the research centre just in time to see proof that the reason for the explosion was definitely sabotage can be forgiven as poetic licence. But Rachel Weisz’s unbelievably phoney and entirely unnecessary upper-class English accent? That I can’t forgive. (She was born in London, but the accent still sounds very forced!)
The
Given the strength of the initial premise, it’s a pity that the film didn’t adopt a much more thoughtful stance than it does. It’s also a pity that the producers decided to use what I term “The Phantom Menace Approach” – that is, cutting between scenes so fast and for so little reason that any plot coherency that may have existed evaporates in confusion – thus destroying the chances for this film to be more than the series of set pieces that it ends up being.
Middle
Eddie (Keanu Reeves) is suspected of being involved in the sabotage and thus has to flee, his only companion being Rachel Weisz (who is only there to look vulnerable, have silly accent, and give Reeves something to protect and possibly fall in love with… oh and did I mention her silly accent?), and his only contact that he can (possibly) rely on a mysterious character played by Morgan Freeman.
Of
Reeves does reasonably well in his role (he’s not quite as wooden as in his role as Neo in the Matrix Trilogy), Morgan Freeman is suitably mysterious, Rachel Weisz has such a pathetic character to play that there’s no chance she can do anything with her role (I’m assuming someone told her to put on that accent – she sounds like the queen would sound if she was on diuretics – if the accent was her own idea, she should be punished), and the bit-part actors and actresses are competent enough.
A
The plot buzzes along well enough apart from the stupid way the scenes cut incoherently every few seconds - this also disperses very quickly any tension that is generated. There’s a fair amount of techobabble liberally thrown in at various points of the film, and I’m the sort of weirdo that actually enjoys that sort of thing. The stunts are generally good and the special effects quite impressive. As an all-out action flick it’s not bad.
Chain
There’s a brain behind this film (somewhat a rarity for this genre), but unfortunately it’s been rather lost in the translation. It’s almost as though someone said, “Hey, here’s a brilliant idea for a film, let’s turn it into a mediocre movie” – and lo! – it became so.
It’s certainly not a terrible film – watching it didn’t leave me feeling that part of my life had been stolen – just that I hadn’t made a profit on what time I’d spent.
Reaction
“Average” sums it all up really. It’s better than a lot of films, and worse than a lot of films, and in the big scheme of things it’s firmly in the middle and completely forgettable. Which is a crying shame, since it could have been so much more. Better production and editing would have improved things immensely.
My final thought – it’s from the same people who brought us “The Fugitive”. If only this film had matched up to it.
Links
Keanu Reeves also starred in the enjoyable Matrix: Revolutions and its appalling prequel, Matrix: Reloaded.
Rachel Weisz had a slightly less silly accent and a much better role in the superb British comedy About A Boy and the highly enjoyable action comedy The Mummy.
Movie Review - Matrix: Revolutions
To say I was surprised would be a serious understatement…
Well shiver me timbers, tie me to a chair and beat me with a feather duster, rub me with asphalt and call me Ginger… (note to self – make sure no-one who knows where I live suffers from literalism before writing that sort of thing…) – this is actually a Very Good film! And believe me, after the atrocity that was Matrix: Reloaded, no-one could be more surprised to find me saying that than myself. I described Reloaded as “contender for the worst film ever”, “an insult to the audience’s intelligence”, “risible”, and “tedious”. I don’t think I’ve ever been quite so vitriolic about any other film in a full review.
But Revolutions, although filmed at the same time as Reloaded, is infinitely better. To refresh your memory about the plot:
Well shiver me timbers, tie me to a chair and beat me with a feather duster, rub me with asphalt and call me Ginger… (note to self – make sure no-one who knows where I live suffers from literalism before writing that sort of thing…) – this is actually a Very Good film! And believe me, after the atrocity that was Matrix: Reloaded, no-one could be more surprised to find me saying that than myself. I described Reloaded as “contender for the worst film ever”, “an insult to the audience’s intelligence”, “risible”, and “tedious”. I don’t think I’ve ever been quite so vitriolic about any other film in a full review.
But Revolutions, although filmed at the same time as Reloaded, is infinitely better. To refresh your memory about the plot:
In the Beginning…
In the original Matrix Neo (Keanu Reeves) finds out that the world he lives in is in fact a simulation of reality creating be machines (The Matrix), though everyone inside it believes it to be the real world. The machines need the energy from humans’ bodies to continue – this all came about after a war between humans and machines, which the humans lost rather badly.
Neo is rescued into actual reality by Morpheus (Laurence Fishbourne), who believes that he is “The One”, a person prophesied to have the power to alter the very nature of the Matrix. Morpheus’ belief in Neo is unshakeable, but not shared by many of the free humans. Along the way Neo falls in love with Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), who believes in him because the Oracle, who everyone believes is wise, told her that she would fall in love with “The One”. Agents, powerful programs that roam the Matrix eliminating anything that might threaten it, including the free humans who are “jacked in” to it, try and fail to stop Neo. The most sinister of these is Agent Smith – more on him later…
The film appears to end with the power to end the Matrix and thus end the machines’ control over humans. And let it be said that The Matrix was a very good film. Whereas…
Reloaded but needs rebooting…
Matrix: Reloaded continues the story and set a new low in film-making. Apart from the fact that it was a terrible film, the story goes that the machines are about to launch an unstoppable attack . Agent Smith has mutated and can clone himself by taking over other programs (this leads to probably the most boring fight scene in all film history when thousands of Agent Smiths attack Neo). However this is an important plot development, and you wouldn’t understand events in the final film without it. There is also a program represented in the Matrix by an obnoxious French bloke, who makes a cursory appearance in Revolutions…
Neo also meets The Architect, the program that designed the Matrix, and learns things about himself and the nature of his universe that unsettle him. Towards the end of the film he appears to gain new powers but struggles to know how to use them – though he works some of it out in time to bring Trinity back from the dead. But he ends up in a coma right at the end of the film…
Revolutions don’t have to include the revolting…
Well now. I’ve told you the basic storyline of the first two films, but I’m not going to tell you any of this film’s story. It has a good plot with plenty of twists, and right to the end it didn’t turn out how I thought it would. The only thing I will tell you is that the plot centres more around the real struggle between mankind and technology, rather than the struggle inside the Matrix. This is a million times more effective and creates real tension. One of the main problems with Reloaded was that it was almost all inside the Matrix and you knew it wasn’t real, and you didn’t really care that Neo got blown up or punched through a mountain since you knew he’d just get up again at the end of it. This is different – the battle scenes here are extreme and very realistic, perhaps in their own way as good as the battle at Helm’s Deep in The Two Towers.
Revolutionary SFX…
The special effects are just unbelievable. The trouble with the effects that made the first film so ground-breaking was that once you’d seen them, they weren’t groundbreaking anymore. So the second film was just more of the same, and got boring very quickly. Revolutions contains special effects that are new, and some that maybe aren’t quite so new but are still extremely visually impressive.
Characterisation
Well, this hasn’t exactly been a strong point in any of the Matrix films, but is reasonably good here. Several rather peripheral characters from the previous movie are given a more prominent role here and do well. (I’m not going to tell you which ones at that would give away some of the plot). This also helps the film to be more interesting because, let’s face it, Neo isn’t actually that interesting a character, despite his powers and Messianic status. The emotional scenes between himself and Trinity were actually emotional this time, though, which is a fantastic improvement!
Morpheus kept his mouth shut most of the time, which was a real blessing after the banal speeches of the previous film. Even Agent Smith’s chronic overacting and the nauseating Frenchmen were so much more bearable this time around – largely because there is a wry sense of humour about the whole thing, which really worked for me. The Oracle wasn’t so annoying either. Everything that was terrible about the second film had either been removed or toned down, and what made the first film good was improved upon. Very little philosophy is pushed on us this time, and what there is manages to be subtler and even makes a lot of sense! Refreshing to say the least… sorry but I just can’t help comparing it the Reloaded…
It doesn’t adopt an “all main good characters survive” policy either, adding a refreshing realism to the proceedings. With one main character it didn’t seem certain to me if they were actually going to survive or not – not telling you who though! Many questions are left with open-ended answers or none at all, which in this case works a lot better than trying to tie up every loose end…
One final comment. Although it seems a little contrived at times, the film contains characters of about every race possible, which is nice to see. (Okay they’re mostly computer programs rather than real people, but it’s still nice to see… I thought so anyway!).
Everything that has a beginning has an end…
The ending is very good, doesn’t take the easy way out, and has some real surprises in there. The atmosphere of the whole film is very tense, sometimes almost unbearably so. I really enjoyed it, but a slight proviso on the recommendation – that’s for the first time you see it. Much as I enjoyed it, Revolutions is not the sort of film I’d want to see again in a hurry. That’s more to do with the type of film than the quality of it, though.
I was as surprised to see negative comments about this as I was positive comments about Reloaded – that had nothing to recommend it while this has a lot. It’s a very satisfying end to the trilogy, and much, much better than I had come to expect. If I had a hat, I would take my hat off to the Wachowski brothers (writers/producers).
See Also:
CaptainD's Top Ten Films of 2003
In the original Matrix Neo (Keanu Reeves) finds out that the world he lives in is in fact a simulation of reality creating be machines (The Matrix), though everyone inside it believes it to be the real world. The machines need the energy from humans’ bodies to continue – this all came about after a war between humans and machines, which the humans lost rather badly.
Neo is rescued into actual reality by Morpheus (Laurence Fishbourne), who believes that he is “The One”, a person prophesied to have the power to alter the very nature of the Matrix. Morpheus’ belief in Neo is unshakeable, but not shared by many of the free humans. Along the way Neo falls in love with Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), who believes in him because the Oracle, who everyone believes is wise, told her that she would fall in love with “The One”. Agents, powerful programs that roam the Matrix eliminating anything that might threaten it, including the free humans who are “jacked in” to it, try and fail to stop Neo. The most sinister of these is Agent Smith – more on him later…
The film appears to end with the power to end the Matrix and thus end the machines’ control over humans. And let it be said that The Matrix was a very good film. Whereas…
Reloaded but needs rebooting…
Matrix: Reloaded continues the story and set a new low in film-making. Apart from the fact that it was a terrible film, the story goes that the machines are about to launch an unstoppable attack . Agent Smith has mutated and can clone himself by taking over other programs (this leads to probably the most boring fight scene in all film history when thousands of Agent Smiths attack Neo). However this is an important plot development, and you wouldn’t understand events in the final film without it. There is also a program represented in the Matrix by an obnoxious French bloke, who makes a cursory appearance in Revolutions…
Neo also meets The Architect, the program that designed the Matrix, and learns things about himself and the nature of his universe that unsettle him. Towards the end of the film he appears to gain new powers but struggles to know how to use them – though he works some of it out in time to bring Trinity back from the dead. But he ends up in a coma right at the end of the film…
Revolutions don’t have to include the revolting…
Well now. I’ve told you the basic storyline of the first two films, but I’m not going to tell you any of this film’s story. It has a good plot with plenty of twists, and right to the end it didn’t turn out how I thought it would. The only thing I will tell you is that the plot centres more around the real struggle between mankind and technology, rather than the struggle inside the Matrix. This is a million times more effective and creates real tension. One of the main problems with Reloaded was that it was almost all inside the Matrix and you knew it wasn’t real, and you didn’t really care that Neo got blown up or punched through a mountain since you knew he’d just get up again at the end of it. This is different – the battle scenes here are extreme and very realistic, perhaps in their own way as good as the battle at Helm’s Deep in The Two Towers.
Revolutionary SFX…
The special effects are just unbelievable. The trouble with the effects that made the first film so ground-breaking was that once you’d seen them, they weren’t groundbreaking anymore. So the second film was just more of the same, and got boring very quickly. Revolutions contains special effects that are new, and some that maybe aren’t quite so new but are still extremely visually impressive.
Characterisation
Well, this hasn’t exactly been a strong point in any of the Matrix films, but is reasonably good here. Several rather peripheral characters from the previous movie are given a more prominent role here and do well. (I’m not going to tell you which ones at that would give away some of the plot). This also helps the film to be more interesting because, let’s face it, Neo isn’t actually that interesting a character, despite his powers and Messianic status. The emotional scenes between himself and Trinity were actually emotional this time, though, which is a fantastic improvement!
Morpheus kept his mouth shut most of the time, which was a real blessing after the banal speeches of the previous film. Even Agent Smith’s chronic overacting and the nauseating Frenchmen were so much more bearable this time around – largely because there is a wry sense of humour about the whole thing, which really worked for me. The Oracle wasn’t so annoying either. Everything that was terrible about the second film had either been removed or toned down, and what made the first film good was improved upon. Very little philosophy is pushed on us this time, and what there is manages to be subtler and even makes a lot of sense! Refreshing to say the least… sorry but I just can’t help comparing it the Reloaded…
It doesn’t adopt an “all main good characters survive” policy either, adding a refreshing realism to the proceedings. With one main character it didn’t seem certain to me if they were actually going to survive or not – not telling you who though! Many questions are left with open-ended answers or none at all, which in this case works a lot better than trying to tie up every loose end…
One final comment. Although it seems a little contrived at times, the film contains characters of about every race possible, which is nice to see. (Okay they’re mostly computer programs rather than real people, but it’s still nice to see… I thought so anyway!).
Everything that has a beginning has an end…
The ending is very good, doesn’t take the easy way out, and has some real surprises in there. The atmosphere of the whole film is very tense, sometimes almost unbearably so. I really enjoyed it, but a slight proviso on the recommendation – that’s for the first time you see it. Much as I enjoyed it, Revolutions is not the sort of film I’d want to see again in a hurry. That’s more to do with the type of film than the quality of it, though.
I was as surprised to see negative comments about this as I was positive comments about Reloaded – that had nothing to recommend it while this has a lot. It’s a very satisfying end to the trilogy, and much, much better than I had come to expect. If I had a hat, I would take my hat off to the Wachowski brothers (writers/producers).
See Also:
CaptainD's Top Ten Films of 2003
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Movie Review - The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Preamble
There are some actors and actresses, a very few, who are so good that they have a real presence that can lift a whole film. If I were to make a list of these, I would include Alan Rickman, Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones, Cate Blanchet, Judi Dench, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Nicole Kidman, Drew Barrymore, Kevin Spacey, Samuel L Jackson, Renee Zellweger, and Kathy Birke. (Not an exhaustive list, but many more names and you’d be falling asleep before you got to the review itself).
Now, you may well violently disagree with some of my choices in this category. In fact, I’d be surprised if you didn’t. But I suspect that one name that would appear on almost everyone’s list would be Sean Connery. Not just for being by far the best Bond, but also his performances in films like Medicine Man. His presence lifts this film above average, although I certainly wouldn’t rank it among his best performances. But the simple fact that it’s him gives the film a star quality that it could never hope to achieve through the plot or other characters in the film.
There are some actors and actresses, a very few, who are so good that they have a real presence that can lift a whole film. If I were to make a list of these, I would include Alan Rickman, Harrison Ford, Tommy Lee Jones, Cate Blanchet, Judi Dench, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Nicole Kidman, Drew Barrymore, Kevin Spacey, Samuel L Jackson, Renee Zellweger, and Kathy Birke. (Not an exhaustive list, but many more names and you’d be falling asleep before you got to the review itself).
Now, you may well violently disagree with some of my choices in this category. In fact, I’d be surprised if you didn’t. But I suspect that one name that would appear on almost everyone’s list would be Sean Connery. Not just for being by far the best Bond, but also his performances in films like Medicine Man. His presence lifts this film above average, although I certainly wouldn’t rank it among his best performances. But the simple fact that it’s him gives the film a star quality that it could never hope to achieve through the plot or other characters in the film.
The Plot… as far as it goes…
The plot is pure hokum (although enjoyable hokum, so that’s forgiveable). In 1899 trouble is brewing that could lead to a world war, with a mysterious character called “The Phantom” causing trouble and having technology way ahead of anything the rest of the world has. A last-chance meeting is called by the leaders of Europe in Venice to avert war, but The Phantom has found out and is planning something…
Enter Alan Quartermain, reluctantly answering the call of Queen and Country to lead the eponymous League of Extraordinary Gentleman in their daring attempt to stop The Phantom… This League consists of Quartermain (Sean Connery), Dorian Gray, Captain Nemo, a vampire woman called Meena, an invisible man (not the Invisible Man as he died in the book), Dr Jekyl, and an American agent called Sawyer…
The plot is rather silly, well okay it’s extremely silly and doesn’t hold up too well to the candle of logic. However, it does hold plenty of surprises (I don’t think I foresaw any of them – that must be a first this year!), so it’s not a complete disaster.
Okay, bad bits first…
Characters – the characters are a bit thin. An attempt has been made to give them a background and personality, but not nearly enough thought has been put into this aspect of the film. They are often illogical and inconsistent, and mostly unsympathetic – you’d almost rather the villains won. There is a reason for this, but seems a tad too contrived. The characterisation is easily the weakest aspect of the film.
Also several people fall in love with the vampire woman – even the one character who could be called relatively normal – and I have serious issues with this. I know being a monster half the time etc could be a serious problem in getting a date, but I found it impossible to believe that anyone would fancy her for 3 main reasons – 1/ most of them not only knew she was a vampire but actually saw her sinking her neck into someone (I mean I know you necking on a first date would be bad form anyway buy really…), 2/ she’s cold, arrogant, and generally unfriendly to everyone in sight, and 3/ she’s just plain ugly.
As mentioned, the plot is silly and occasionally stupid, but makes up for it to a large extent by being unpredictable (in the positive sense of the word). It could have been a lot worse but pales into insignificance alongside something like either X-Men movie, which is the only thing you can really compare it too.
There are moments where one of the heroes is thrown with great force fifty feet or more and land heavily on their back – and then bounce up without so much as catching their breath! I know they’re meant to be extraordinary, but even Superman would have rubbed his back to acknowledge the idea of pain…
And just how did Nemo have what looked very much like a 1960’s Porsche Roadster? And how did Sawyer learn how to drive it instantaneously? Chasing Mr Hyde across the roottops of Paris, shooting at him and causing destruction and lots of very loud noises causes not even the winking on of a bedroom light – apparently the people of Paris are not very curious… Things like that really stretching the imagination just that little bit too far…
Oh, and one thing that I personally found irksome, I don’t know if you will. I just couldn’t take Captain Nemo seriously – he looked far too much like Clinger out of MASH! Every time he came on-screen I thought it was Clinger…
But the good bits are…
Well, overall the acting is fairly good, given the constraints of the poor characterisation. (Which basically means there’s not an awful lot of it – acting, IO mean). The film is very much action-based, and the action does indeed come fast and furious enough to stop the poor characterisation being too much of a problem. At the end of the day, no-one who’s seen the trailer or even read the synopsis would have expected an intellectual or thoughtful film anyway. And the action scenes are, on the whole, excellent.
Connery enjoys his most active film role in years, and it’s pretty tongue in check. There’s a lot of humour in the film and a lot of it works. Some of it falls rather flat. I did find myself laughing out loud quite a few times through the movie though, so it works far more often than it fails. There’s even the odd moment of subtlety – when Captain Nemo introduces his first mate, the man raises his hat to them and say: “Call me Ishmael”. (That’s the first line of “Moby Dick” – just in case you didn’t know!). The Secret Service agent who recruits them is called simply “M”, presumably an oblique reference to James Bond.
The real star of the movie is the special effects – they are just awesome. Mr Hyde is particularly impressive, with the transformation scenes superb and the split-personality scenes as technically impressive as Gollum’s in The Two Towers (though lacking that film’s thoughtfulness). The effects throughout the film are probably as good as I have ever seen in any film.
The plot is pure hokum (although enjoyable hokum, so that’s forgiveable). In 1899 trouble is brewing that could lead to a world war, with a mysterious character called “The Phantom” causing trouble and having technology way ahead of anything the rest of the world has. A last-chance meeting is called by the leaders of Europe in Venice to avert war, but The Phantom has found out and is planning something…
Enter Alan Quartermain, reluctantly answering the call of Queen and Country to lead the eponymous League of Extraordinary Gentleman in their daring attempt to stop The Phantom… This League consists of Quartermain (Sean Connery), Dorian Gray, Captain Nemo, a vampire woman called Meena, an invisible man (not the Invisible Man as he died in the book), Dr Jekyl, and an American agent called Sawyer…
The plot is rather silly, well okay it’s extremely silly and doesn’t hold up too well to the candle of logic. However, it does hold plenty of surprises (I don’t think I foresaw any of them – that must be a first this year!), so it’s not a complete disaster.
Okay, bad bits first…
Characters – the characters are a bit thin. An attempt has been made to give them a background and personality, but not nearly enough thought has been put into this aspect of the film. They are often illogical and inconsistent, and mostly unsympathetic – you’d almost rather the villains won. There is a reason for this, but seems a tad too contrived. The characterisation is easily the weakest aspect of the film.
Also several people fall in love with the vampire woman – even the one character who could be called relatively normal – and I have serious issues with this. I know being a monster half the time etc could be a serious problem in getting a date, but I found it impossible to believe that anyone would fancy her for 3 main reasons – 1/ most of them not only knew she was a vampire but actually saw her sinking her neck into someone (I mean I know you necking on a first date would be bad form anyway buy really…), 2/ she’s cold, arrogant, and generally unfriendly to everyone in sight, and 3/ she’s just plain ugly.
As mentioned, the plot is silly and occasionally stupid, but makes up for it to a large extent by being unpredictable (in the positive sense of the word). It could have been a lot worse but pales into insignificance alongside something like either X-Men movie, which is the only thing you can really compare it too.
There are moments where one of the heroes is thrown with great force fifty feet or more and land heavily on their back – and then bounce up without so much as catching their breath! I know they’re meant to be extraordinary, but even Superman would have rubbed his back to acknowledge the idea of pain…
And just how did Nemo have what looked very much like a 1960’s Porsche Roadster? And how did Sawyer learn how to drive it instantaneously? Chasing Mr Hyde across the roottops of Paris, shooting at him and causing destruction and lots of very loud noises causes not even the winking on of a bedroom light – apparently the people of Paris are not very curious… Things like that really stretching the imagination just that little bit too far…
Oh, and one thing that I personally found irksome, I don’t know if you will. I just couldn’t take Captain Nemo seriously – he looked far too much like Clinger out of MASH! Every time he came on-screen I thought it was Clinger…
But the good bits are…
Well, overall the acting is fairly good, given the constraints of the poor characterisation. (Which basically means there’s not an awful lot of it – acting, IO mean). The film is very much action-based, and the action does indeed come fast and furious enough to stop the poor characterisation being too much of a problem. At the end of the day, no-one who’s seen the trailer or even read the synopsis would have expected an intellectual or thoughtful film anyway. And the action scenes are, on the whole, excellent.
Connery enjoys his most active film role in years, and it’s pretty tongue in check. There’s a lot of humour in the film and a lot of it works. Some of it falls rather flat. I did find myself laughing out loud quite a few times through the movie though, so it works far more often than it fails. There’s even the odd moment of subtlety – when Captain Nemo introduces his first mate, the man raises his hat to them and say: “Call me Ishmael”. (That’s the first line of “Moby Dick” – just in case you didn’t know!). The Secret Service agent who recruits them is called simply “M”, presumably an oblique reference to James Bond.
The real star of the movie is the special effects – they are just awesome. Mr Hyde is particularly impressive, with the transformation scenes superb and the split-personality scenes as technically impressive as Gollum’s in The Two Towers (though lacking that film’s thoughtfulness). The effects throughout the film are probably as good as I have ever seen in any film.
Parental Guidance
I have mixed feelings about the (European) 12A rating. On the one hand, most of the violence in the film has a rather cartoon feel to it – it doesn’t look particularly real. On the other hand, some parts, particularly with the vampire woman are unpleasant and I can see younger children being upset by them.
Overall
While on reflection there are plenty of things to criticise about the film, you don’t really notice them that much when you’re actually watching it. I went having read both glowing and derogatory reviews, so I was under no illusions, and I think that helped me enjoy it more. I’ve not left you under any delusions that this is the sort of thing to watch unless you enjoy an almost mindless action flick every so often. The combination of fantastic special effects, fast pace, twisting plotline, and of course Sean Connery make it a good choice if you’re looking for something action-oriented that will keep you on the edge of your seat without making you think too much.
I’ve seen it described as “X-Men in Victorian times”. That’s a fair description, but in my view it’s nowhere near as good a film as the first two X-men films (better than the third though, and it remains to be seen just how the Wolverine Origin movie will fare...). The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is purely an action flick, whereas X-Men one and two had superb characters and stories as well.
So when you want to watch something fun and entertaining (and can feel quite comfortable leaving your brain tucked up in bed while doing so), The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a good choice.
See Also:
CaptainD's Top Ten Superhero Movies
CaptainD's Top Ten Films of 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts - This Week
-
With fast internet connectivity, high quality large screens and extensive app stores it has never been so easy to enjoy the world of movies ...
-
This is just awesome - if you want a good laugh but haven't got much time, go to a few seconds before the 8 minute mark and play it for 15 s...
-
BEST PICTURE War Horse The Tree of Life The Artist Moneyball The Descendants Midnight in Paris The Help Hugo Extremely Loud and In...
-
X-MEN: FIRST CLASS photo call which took place in London yesterday, ahead of the film’s release in cinemas on June 1 st . Jane Goldma... -
PhoneApp.com announces Clapboard 1.0.0 for iPad users. Clapboard is an inexpensive and visually appealing application that is perfect for ...
-
British crime drama fans have been well catered for recently, with the long-awaited second series of Sherlock , starring Benedict Cumberbatc... -
Tienen, Belgium - Appsequence has announced the release and immediate availability of Kinema 1.0, their exciting new movie entertainment ap... -
Director, Producer and Key Cast of the film discuss ‘Noble, Universal’ themes at DTFF Doha, 25 October 2011 – The director, producer and ... -
I didn't think this would be of much interest to me at all, but actually the trailer makes it look pretty interesting - they seem to be appr... -
Molière was an actor / playwright in 17th century France and is considered to be one of the great masters of comedy. In this movie he is p...
Popular Posts - This Month
-
With fast internet connectivity, high quality large screens and extensive app stores it has never been so easy to enjoy the world of movies ...
-
PhoneApp.com announces Clapboard 1.0.0 for iPad users. Clapboard is an inexpensive and visually appealing application that is perfect for ...
-
X-MEN: FIRST CLASS photo call which took place in London yesterday, ahead of the film’s release in cinemas on June 1 st . Jane Goldma...
-
COLIN FIRTH BOARDS EPIC DRAMA “THE RAILWAY MAN” LIONSGATE TAKES UK DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS AND WILL HANDLE WORLDWIDE SALES Friday 9 Septemb...
-
This is just awesome - if you want a good laugh but haven't got much time, go to a few seconds before the 8 minute mark and play it for 15 s...
-
Sky and Atlantic Productions are delighted to announce the 3D TV world premiere of David Attenborough’s ground breaking documentary film T... -
28th October. Entertainment One UK is pleased to announce the acquisition of all UK and Irish rights to the explosive feature film adaptat...
-
BEST PICTURE War Horse The Tree of Life The Artist Moneyball The Descendants Midnight in Paris The Help Hugo Extremely Loud and In...
-
Director, Producer and Key Cast of the film discuss ‘Noble, Universal’ themes at DTFF Doha, 25 October 2011 – The director, producer and ...
Popular Posts - All Time
-
Top 5 Movie Apps There are loads of ‘best app’ lists out there, especially for movies, but some of them seem to be filled up with apps for...
-
X-MEN: FIRST CLASS photo call which took place in London yesterday, ahead of the film’s release in cinemas on June 1 st . Jane Goldma...
-
With fast internet connectivity, high quality large screens and extensive app stores it has never been so easy to enjoy the world of movies ...
-
PhoneApp.com announces Clapboard 1.0.0 for iPad users. Clapboard is an inexpensive and visually appealing application that is perfect for ...
-
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a wonderful blend of live action and traditional animation, with sleuth Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) investigating... -
It would be easy to think that Robin Hood's story is one that really doesn't need yet another retelling, but Ridley Scott's movie is nothing... -
Please pardon the language, it's what this online sitcom is called! Though it's not only online nowadays as the complete first season has n...
-
Jim Carrey's breakthrough performance in superhero comedy movie " The Mask " showcased his insane energy and elastic facial muscles, and i... -
Molière was an actor / playwright in 17th century France and is considered to be one of the great masters of comedy. In this movie he is p...
-
Since this is currently in the Bullring shopping centre in Birmignham city centre, we thought we'd have a look. It's quite interesting how ...
