Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt, Kristin Scott Thomas, Amr Waked, Tom Mison

Dir. Lasse Hallstrom
Scr. Simon Beaufoy (adapted from novel of same name by Paul Torday)

Well, I can’t say I didn’t enjoy this movie. It was, at times, delightful. Both McGregor and Blunt were adorable. And Scott Thomas provided some wonderfully comic (if utterly ridiculous and random) moments. The story is interesting enough to reel you in and keep you hooked. But it was just all a little too contrived, predictable in large parts and somehow uncomfortably disjointed. It’s a lovely film to look at and you will laugh a handful of times, but it doesn’t quite work as the well-rounded romantic comedy I wanted it to be.

A visionary and extremely wealthy sheikh (Waked) has a dream of bringing salmon fly-fishing from his much-loved Scotland to his native Yemen. He employs consultant Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Blunt) to help make his vision a reality. With no small amount of convincing, Harriet is joined by fishing expert and long-time public servant Dr Alfred Jones (McGregor) and the trio strike up a somewhat unlikely friendship. Added to the mix are the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary (Scott Thomas), desperate for a good news story out of the Middle East, a terrorist group intent on raining on the sheikh’s parade, and an army boyfriend missing in action (Mison). We are taken on a journey of faith – in fishing, in religion, in making the impossible, possible. With, as I mentioned, a few laughs along the way.

I’ve seen some pretty hard-going movies of late, so this couple of hours in the cinema was a welcome relief. That’s not to say this is simply fluff, in fact the filmmakers try very hard to make their audience think a bit, cry a bit and be indignant a bit. My major problem with this film was that particular mix, along with the laughs, made for a bitsy and disjointed experience. Apparently the source material is very good indeed and perhaps they were simply trying to chuck as much of it up on screen as possible. But, you know what, I think this movie would work best as a romantic comedy (and was certainly advertised as such) and it wasn’t handled well enough for the political satire and geo-political debate to complement that. As much as I loved Scott Thomas, her role was jarring and, at times, completely misplaced. The kind-of-boyfriend-but-not-really-missing-in-action was distracting and, ultimately, unbelievable. There was too much going on for my liking.

Having said that, when the movie did work, it worked very well indeed. The scenery was simply beautiful. The bureaucracy of the British civil service was nicely played out. I very much enjoyed the relationship between Dr Jones and his distant wife and felt it was perhaps the most realistic portrayal of the lot. McGregor and Blunt were magic together and their burgeoning friendship was the sweetest part of the movie. The whole film was undeniably hokey, but endearingly so.

In terms of acting duties, this film is a mixed bag. There was too much two-dimension for my liking. I won’t fault Scott Thomas, but can fault what she was given to work with – sure, some great one-liners beautifully delivered, but ultimately an out-of-place caricature. Mison too was horribly underdeveloped and was wooden with it. Waked was all soft light and wise words. Again, not necessarily his fault. Blunt was charming, as usual. But I do think the whole boyfriend sub-plot was a hard sell, for any actor. McGregor, for me, was the real stand-out. Perhaps because he had the most to work with – actual character development, for instance. But mostly because he is completely watchable and utterly engaging.

So, yeah. If you fancy a light Sunday afternoon flick, by all means see this movie. But this isn’t a classic British rom-com by any stretch of the imagination. It has its moments and I would certainly watch it again if I stumbled across it on tv.

---------------------------------

Alfred Jones: When things get tricky in my life, I talk to my fish.

The Grey

Liam Neeson, Dallas Roberts, Frank Grillo, Dermot Mulroney, Nonso Anozie, Joe Anderson

Dir. Joe Carnahan
Scr. Joe Carnahan & Ian Mackenzie Jeffers

The movie in which Liam punches some wolves. Well, I must say I was slightly apprehensive. But I was assured by many critics that it’s not as bad as it sounds. And, you know what, it’s not. In fact, it’s pretty darn good. The Grey does not always work, is mostly utterly predictable and could have lost 20 minutes without anyone noticing. But, boy, when it does work, it’s wild and terrifying. And Liam continues his reign as the number one most rugged and awesome aged action hero. I can’t think of another actor working today that could have pulled off “alpha male” in such a convincing way.

The Grey follows a group of plane crash survivors as they brave the icy and treacherous conditions of the Alaskan wilderness, led by Ottway (Neeson), a mysterious sharp-shooter contracted to keep wolves from attacking his oil-drilling colleagues. They are largely a group of roughnecks, hard men used to working in hard conditions. But nothing prepares them for a pack of wolves intent on picking them off one by one. As you can imagine, things do not go well for the human pack.

So, first of all, let’s address the obvious – this movie requires a great deal of disbelief suspension. Would a pack of wolves really be overly bothered by a handful of men who are likely to be killed by the conditions sooner or later? How likely is it that wolves would kill, but leave the bodies behind? How on earth did they keep that fire going in a blizzard? I don’t know the answer to these questions but none of it sat very easily with me. My advice – just let it go. Let the ridiculousness of the situation just wash over you and move on. And enjoy the scenery. Of course, on another level, the wolves represent so much more than just bloody-thirsty killers – it’s not much of a stretch to see this movie as a mythical struggle of man versus nature, the inhumanity of man, the existence of God, the pointlessness of life, and so on and so forth.

However much you want to read into this film, there is no doubting the brilliance of some of its set-pieces. The plane crash alone was absolutely worth the price of admission. To say it wasn’t easy to watch is a huge understatement – it was utterly terrifying and harrowing. The immediate aftermath is equally compelling and frightening. I also very much enjoyed the completely unbelievable jumping-off-the-cliff scene. I was more than simply on edge though. A couple of scenes had me in tears – the best, without question, involved Ottway helping a man accept his death after the horrific crash. Wow – brilliantly written and beautifully acted.

The acting on offer here is top-notch. There’s no doubt that this is Neeson’s show, but he has some quality support, particularly from Roberts and Grillo. The band of survivors are a varied bunch and there are no weak links, acting-wise. Neeson, unbelievably turning sixty later this year, is perfect. He is pure masculinity.

The Grey is overlong and, at times, kind of silly. But it’s also tense and compelling and frightening. I can’t say I was unhappy it was over. Avoid if you can’t stomach a bit of gore, or scare easy. But I definitely recommend for fans of Neeson and of gripping stories of survival.

------------------------------

Ottway: Don’t move. Stare right back at them.

The Five-Year Engagement

Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt, Alison Brie, Rhys Ifans

Dir. Nicholas Stoller
Scr. Nicholas Stoller & Jason Segel

I read one review of this film that simply said “make it stop!” And half an hour in, knowing there was still more than ninety minutes left, I couldn’t help but wishing the same thing. I am a movie optimist – I will stick with a film and will always look for the good in it (Black Swan being an obvious recent exception). But, for the first time in many many years, I was almost tempted to walk out. Which saddened me greatly – I love Segel and Blunt, and it features the ever-hilarious Ifans, and the trailer had me itching to see this rom-com. However, this film is neither romantic, nor funny enough. And when it tries to be serious, it’s simply a bore. I suggest you avoid.

The Five-Year Engagement tells the story of Tom (Segel) and Violet (Blunt) and their very long, very troubled path from engagement to marriage. The trouble starts early, with Violet getting a university post that relocates the couple from San Francisco to Michigan. And a couple of years become a couple more. Tom isn’t happy, Violet doesn’t understand, blah blah blah. More stuff happens. Yawn.

The main issue I have with this film is that very little of it rings true. I recognised frustration and mean-spiritedness. But there was so much that was lacking, so little empathy, so little understanding. Violet is a psychology post-doc and yet she doesn’t seem to recognise extreme self-centredness in herself or absolute misery in her fiancé. At one point, she tells him he doesn’t get it – she has worked her whole life for this opportunity and so on and whatnot. I’m sorry, but excuse me??! Tom is a chef and was well on his way to being head chef in his own restaurant – I think he probably washed more than his fair share of dishes in his career! He sacrifices everything for her and she tells him he doesn’t get it – ugh, I just wanted to reach in and punch her in the nose.

Another problem with this film is that it’s very very very long, especially for a comedy. Now, that’s not fatal in and of itself. But, with a saggy middle and a lack of compelling narrative cohesion, I simply couldn’t believe how much it dragged on. When, finally, the happy couple live happily ever after (sorry, but it’s not really a spoiler when it’s so obvious), I simply didn’t care anymore.

The film is not devoid of laughs. I laughed out loud a handful of times. In fact, there are a couple of very funny scenes (when Violet and her sister argue using Elmo and Cookie Monster voices, I snorted). But a few laughs does not a movie make. And there were plenty of times I knew I was supposed to be laughing, but I just couldn’t. It’s not that the film is too crass, although it certainly has its moments, or too dark. It’s just not very funny.

I really don’t think the acting is all that bad. Segel and Blunt do have an easy chemistry. Ifans has some great moments. The supporting cast is full of funny, talented people. I just think they weren’t given the right things to say or the right ways to act.

Some might say this film is wacky and raw and poignant. Or that it tells the story of a perfect couple who become less perfect as time goes by. That it’s a light and dark look at a real relationship. Well, those people can bite me. Do not see this film.

----------------------------

Suzie: This is supposed to be exciting. This is your wedding. You only get a few of these.

Martha Marcy May Marlene

Elizabeth Olsen, Sarah Paulson, John Hawkes, Hugh Dancy

Dir & Scr. Sean Durkin

So, another day, another movie that was excellent but I really wouldn’t want to see again. It’s my perverse goal, for 2012, to see as many of these movies as possible. Which makes a recommendation very difficult – I’m completely conflicted. It’s very well acted, interesting, thoughtfully shot and beautifully paced. But it’s also creepy and disturbing and unsettling and, at times, icky. So, yeah – see this film, just don’t blame it on me!

Martha Marcy May Marlene (the most challenging film title to remember when asking for your ticket) is a psychological drama about a young woman, Martha (Olsen), who seeks help from her estranged sister (Paulson) to escape a sticky situation and her attempts to reintegrate, mostly unsuccessfully, into normal life. Err, that’s vague, I know. I don’t really want to give too much away – I would argue the less you know going in, the better the movie probably is. Many reviews and descriptions give away the whole ballgame and that bugs me immensely. There’s no great twist or reveal here. But the drama that comes from Martha’s memories and flashbacks really does creep up on the audience, becoming more and more disturbing.

This feature is Durkin’s directorial debut and, boy, what a debut. The movie really does feel likes it’s in the hands of a much more seasoned operator. It’s smart and watchable (despite the subject matter) and incredibly well played out. It’s being called a thriller by many, but I think that label is a little misleading – it conjures up more action than this film possesses. Chiller would be a more fitting genre, if it was actually a proper genre and not one I just made up. I found the end a tad unsatisfying at the time, but I think it’s less of a problem after the movie has sat with you and festered for a couple of days.

The acting on offer here is truly excellent. This is only Olsen’s second feature and she is expected to carry the film, which she does with absolute ease. She may well be the younger sister of the truly awful Olsen twins, but please don’t let that put you off – she obviously received all the talent genes in the Olsen clan. Martha is a complicated lass, for reasons that will become clear, and Olsen plays all aspects of her fractured and troubled personality with wonderful honesty, vulnerability and edge. Hawkes, who plays the charismatic and sinister Patrick, is outstanding, as ever. Paulson, as Martha’s older sister Lucy, is also excellent. The argument on the stairs between Martha and Lucy towards the end of the film, when their relationship is truly becoming untenable, is heart-breakingly brilliant.

Martha Marcy May Marlene is not the film I expected it to be – it’s a heck of a lot better. It’s an unsettling look at psychological manipulation and the scars that remain. It’s unnerving and disturbing, perhaps too much for some. But I’m very glad I saw it – Olsen’s performance alone is well worth the outing.

---------------------------

Martha: I am a teacher and a leader.