Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Clive Owen, Samantha Morton, Jordi Molla
Dir. Shekhar Kapur
Scr. William Nicholson & Michael Hirst
I have been trying to get motivated enough to write this review. My response to this film was “meh” – it’s hard to write about such indifference. But then I started to think about why the heck they even made this film and this angered me. Blanchett’s first Elizabeth outing in 1998 was fantastic cinema and was rewarded both critically and financially. This film is a clear attempt to cash in on that success. Unfortunately, folks, when you don’t have the script, you don’t have anything.
The Golden Age tries to focus on two elements of Elizabeth’s life and the history of England – the Spanish Armada and Sir Walter Raleigh. But this focus is muddied by a script that pulls the characters in several directions at once – the attempted assassination, the search for a husband, the persecution of the Catholics in England, the demise of Walsingham … and so on and so forth. Yes, perhaps these things were all going on at the same time (though historical accuracy is not this films strong point). But that’s no excuse for a script that constantly loses focus, that chooses to focus on something so uninteresting when so much of interest was occurring, that is simultaneously confusing and boring.
Okay, I’m not entirely sure about the nature or extent of Elizabeth’s relationship with Raleigh, but the love triangle that at times dominates this film is just rubbish. I can’t help but assume that the filmmakers completely sold out and thought “well, I guess we’ll need a love story because that’s how it’s done”. That’s not how it’s done at all! The love story is without motivation or credibility. It sullies the film. For goodness sake, there was an attempted invasion going on! And one that was so pivotal that it has entered our language and consciousness. But, no, instead we have to constantly watch a bronzed Raleigh try to seduce both the Queen and her lady-in-waiting (and who, by the way, I’m pretty sure was NOT the hero of the Armada as he is portrayed in this film).
The performances aren’t bad in The Golden Age. Blanchett is back – she has so made this role her own I can’t imagine another Elizabeth – and is fiery and strong and wonderful. Too bad the script doesn’t allow her many opportunities to soar. The scene in which she toys with and then soothes a young suitor is absolutely brilliant and nearly worth the price of admission. Owen, as Raleigh, is very good but his character is so clichéd and annoying that he has little to work with. Molla, as the Spanish King, is brilliantly mad. Rush (Walsingham) is perhaps the standout and his relationship with Elizabeth remains the most interesting (as it was in the first film) – sadly, his role is incredibly small and this is a great downfall of the film. I wanted more Elizabeth/Walsingham intrigue and less Elizabeth/Raleigh rubbish.
So, I wouldn’t recommend The Golden Age at all. I was bored and frustrated. I was annoyed at the obvious manipulation of history to make this movie more marketable which, in the end, was incredibly detrimental to my enjoyment of the film. I was appalled at a clichéd and wooden script. If you want to see wonderful costumes, grand halls and a multitude of wigs, watch the first Elizabeth movie (again, if you have to). But don’t waste your time and money on this one.
----------------------
Spanish Minister: There is a wind coming that will sweep away your pride.
Queen Elizabeth I: I, too, can command the wind, sir! I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
1408
John Cusack, Samuel L Jackson, Mary McCormack, Tony Shalhoub, Jasmine Jessica Anthony
Dir. Mikael Hafstrom
Scr. Matt Greenberg, Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski (based on a short story by Stephen King)
1408 is a movie of two halves. The first half is truly scary, quite intelligent and, above all, entertaining. The second half is not – its clichéd and overly CGI’ed and, well, downright boring. Maybe you could explain this to the ticket seller at your local cinema – they might let you in for half-price, which is all this movie is really worth.
1408 is about Mike Enslin (Cusack), a writer of trashy horror guides – Top Ten Scariest Hotels, Top Ten Scariest Graveyards, etc – who has yet to find something that has truly terrified him. Enslin is convinced that ghosts don’t exist and happy to make money off people who think they do. Jaded by his work, he is lured to the Dolphin Hotel in New York by an anonymous postcard. Specifically, lured to room 1408. Overcoming resistance from the hotel manager (Jackson), he checks in and so it begins.
Well, so it does begin but, sadly, it’s not maintained. The first hour of this film is great – good set-up; we get to know enough about Enslin to make him interesting and we get a little insight into what motivates him; fantastic scene between Enslin and the hotel manager; SCARY first twenty minutes or so in room 1408. And then, well, this film loses its way. It becomes less about scaring the audience with true creepiness and more about Enslin’s personal demons (ex-wife, dead kid, you know the drill) and lots of unnecessary special effects. In fact, that first period in the hotel room I can’t fully review – it had me so scared that I spent most of the time looking anywhere but at the screen (mostly hiding behind my boyfriend’s shoulder). Which, by the way, I take as a good sign. What’s the point of a horror film you can actually watch all the way through?!? Great suspense and truly disturbing, that section of the film is brilliant. Too bad the rest of it doesn’t deliver.
In terms of acting, this is a one-man show – it’s all about Enslin (Cusack). Cusack is extremely watchable (as always) and as he is torn from reality into the weird and evil world of room 1408, we automatically sympathise and are scared along with him – he truly has that “everyman” quality. Jackson puts in a great performance as the melodramatic hotel manager and McCormack is solid in support as Enslin’s ex-wife. But ultimately this film rests on Cusack’s shoulders – pity the writing didn’t support his very good performance.
1408 is based on a Stephen King short story and film buffs will know there have been a couple of fantastic adaptations of his back catalogue – namely The Shawshank Redemption and Apt Pupil. I am less fond of adaptations of his novels (with the notable exception of the brilliant Stand By Me), so was eager to see what the filmmakers had done with this short story. Sadly, very little of the finesse of Shawshank or Apt Pupil is present in 1408.
This film could have been so much better – if the writers could have just allowed it to be creepy throughout rather than delving into the world of fire and collapsing walls and personal demons. Sadly, I do not recommend this film. If it’s on tv, by all means catch the first hour or so – it’ll give you nightmares. But don’t make yourself sit through a disappointing and woefully unscary second half.
---------------------------
Mike Enslin: [talking into tape recorder] Hotels are a naturally creepy place... Just think, how many people have slept in that bed before you? How many of them were sick? How many... died?
Dir. Mikael Hafstrom
Scr. Matt Greenberg, Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski (based on a short story by Stephen King)
1408 is a movie of two halves. The first half is truly scary, quite intelligent and, above all, entertaining. The second half is not – its clichéd and overly CGI’ed and, well, downright boring. Maybe you could explain this to the ticket seller at your local cinema – they might let you in for half-price, which is all this movie is really worth.
1408 is about Mike Enslin (Cusack), a writer of trashy horror guides – Top Ten Scariest Hotels, Top Ten Scariest Graveyards, etc – who has yet to find something that has truly terrified him. Enslin is convinced that ghosts don’t exist and happy to make money off people who think they do. Jaded by his work, he is lured to the Dolphin Hotel in New York by an anonymous postcard. Specifically, lured to room 1408. Overcoming resistance from the hotel manager (Jackson), he checks in and so it begins.
Well, so it does begin but, sadly, it’s not maintained. The first hour of this film is great – good set-up; we get to know enough about Enslin to make him interesting and we get a little insight into what motivates him; fantastic scene between Enslin and the hotel manager; SCARY first twenty minutes or so in room 1408. And then, well, this film loses its way. It becomes less about scaring the audience with true creepiness and more about Enslin’s personal demons (ex-wife, dead kid, you know the drill) and lots of unnecessary special effects. In fact, that first period in the hotel room I can’t fully review – it had me so scared that I spent most of the time looking anywhere but at the screen (mostly hiding behind my boyfriend’s shoulder). Which, by the way, I take as a good sign. What’s the point of a horror film you can actually watch all the way through?!? Great suspense and truly disturbing, that section of the film is brilliant. Too bad the rest of it doesn’t deliver.
In terms of acting, this is a one-man show – it’s all about Enslin (Cusack). Cusack is extremely watchable (as always) and as he is torn from reality into the weird and evil world of room 1408, we automatically sympathise and are scared along with him – he truly has that “everyman” quality. Jackson puts in a great performance as the melodramatic hotel manager and McCormack is solid in support as Enslin’s ex-wife. But ultimately this film rests on Cusack’s shoulders – pity the writing didn’t support his very good performance.
1408 is based on a Stephen King short story and film buffs will know there have been a couple of fantastic adaptations of his back catalogue – namely The Shawshank Redemption and Apt Pupil. I am less fond of adaptations of his novels (with the notable exception of the brilliant Stand By Me), so was eager to see what the filmmakers had done with this short story. Sadly, very little of the finesse of Shawshank or Apt Pupil is present in 1408.
This film could have been so much better – if the writers could have just allowed it to be creepy throughout rather than delving into the world of fire and collapsing walls and personal demons. Sadly, I do not recommend this film. If it’s on tv, by all means catch the first hour or so – it’ll give you nightmares. But don’t make yourself sit through a disappointing and woefully unscary second half.
---------------------------
Mike Enslin: [talking into tape recorder] Hotels are a naturally creepy place... Just think, how many people have slept in that bed before you? How many of them were sick? How many... died?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Eastern Promises
Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassel, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Sinead Cusack
Dir. David Cronenberg
Scr. Steven Knight
David Cronenberg is widely regarded as a strange man. Look at his films – The Fly, Crash, eXistenZ, The Dead Zone. He’s used to dealing with the weird and the twisted. But, of late, Cronenberg has focussed his attention on the human condition – no mutations, no sci-fi; just people. Raw, flawed people. With A History of Violence, Cronenberg partnered with leading man Viggo Mortensen to make one of the best films of 2005. In Eastern Promises, Viggo and David get together again and explore evil and deceit and hope. For my money, Eastern Promises just might be one of the best movies of 2007.
Set in a dark and foreboding London, Eastern Promises follows the highly mysterious and extremely ruthless Nikolai (Mortensen), who works for a Russian crime family. Mortensen is the driver/henchman/hard man for the only son (Cassel) of the powerful and respected head of the family (Mueller-Stahl). Enter into the dangerous mix Anna (Watts), a midwife trying to find the family of a young Russian woman who dies while giving birth on her shift, who has evidence that could destroy this Russian crime-lord and his family.
There are some surprising and superbly scripted twists and turns thrown into the mix – I won’t go into the details, but let’s just say all is not as it seems (is it ever in the World of Cronenberg?!) What I can say is that Eastern Promises is satisfying without being too obvious – Cronenberg and writer Knight do not spoon-feed the audience but nor is this film so convoluted that one can’t keep up. I love that, in the end, we need not see all that has occurred to make the final shot a reality – we only need to know that the set-up was successful and the end goal came to fruition. This is a device film-makers should use more often. Eastern Promises could have easily been an hour longer, and immensely more boring, but Cronenberg and Knight made sure instead that everything made sense even if everything was not seen.
The performances in Eastern Promises are absolutely superb, without exception. Mortensen is brilliant playing a not-so-bad man in a very bad world. He is a wonderfully gritty and believable leading man. Apparently, in that method-actor way of his (this is the man who mended his own costume in Lord of the Rings), Mortensen was thrown out of a Russian bar in London for unsettling and intimidating the customers. He didn’t say a word – just ordered vodka and sat, looking menacing. Classic. Cassel is perfectly cast as the flawed and drunken heir to the crime organisation – in equal parts sinister and pathetic, a difficult mix to master. By far the scariest character in this film is played by Mueller-Stahl and this film is one of his best. He is absolutely excellent. Watts is very good and I was pleased to not hear her accent slip. She plays Anna with a nice blend of strength and desperation. A nice performance too from Cusack as Anna’s mother.
I have to warn those of you who aren’t fond of violence that this film has a couple of scenes I couldn’t watch – one at the beginning, which is mercifully short; the other in a bathhouse which involves a very naked Mortensen take on two Russian heavies. I can’t review this scene, sorry, because I just couldn’t watch it (being quite a wuss when it comes to knives being stabbed into people). I mainly couldn’t watch it because it’s Cronenberg – I just knew he would push the boundaries. I’ve read that it will go down as one of his most out-there scenes. But I don’t condemn the film for this scene – it is about the Russian mob, after all, and I don’t think the scene is out of place or gratuitous. Just watch out if you’re squeamish.
Eastern Promises is ultimately a tale of morality. It is chilling, utterly compelling, and completely surprising. I can’t wait for the next pairing of Cronenberg and Mortensen.
----------------------
Nikolai: Forget any of this happened. Stay away from people like me.
Dir. David Cronenberg
Scr. Steven Knight
David Cronenberg is widely regarded as a strange man. Look at his films – The Fly, Crash, eXistenZ, The Dead Zone. He’s used to dealing with the weird and the twisted. But, of late, Cronenberg has focussed his attention on the human condition – no mutations, no sci-fi; just people. Raw, flawed people. With A History of Violence, Cronenberg partnered with leading man Viggo Mortensen to make one of the best films of 2005. In Eastern Promises, Viggo and David get together again and explore evil and deceit and hope. For my money, Eastern Promises just might be one of the best movies of 2007.
Set in a dark and foreboding London, Eastern Promises follows the highly mysterious and extremely ruthless Nikolai (Mortensen), who works for a Russian crime family. Mortensen is the driver/henchman/hard man for the only son (Cassel) of the powerful and respected head of the family (Mueller-Stahl). Enter into the dangerous mix Anna (Watts), a midwife trying to find the family of a young Russian woman who dies while giving birth on her shift, who has evidence that could destroy this Russian crime-lord and his family.
There are some surprising and superbly scripted twists and turns thrown into the mix – I won’t go into the details, but let’s just say all is not as it seems (is it ever in the World of Cronenberg?!) What I can say is that Eastern Promises is satisfying without being too obvious – Cronenberg and writer Knight do not spoon-feed the audience but nor is this film so convoluted that one can’t keep up. I love that, in the end, we need not see all that has occurred to make the final shot a reality – we only need to know that the set-up was successful and the end goal came to fruition. This is a device film-makers should use more often. Eastern Promises could have easily been an hour longer, and immensely more boring, but Cronenberg and Knight made sure instead that everything made sense even if everything was not seen.
The performances in Eastern Promises are absolutely superb, without exception. Mortensen is brilliant playing a not-so-bad man in a very bad world. He is a wonderfully gritty and believable leading man. Apparently, in that method-actor way of his (this is the man who mended his own costume in Lord of the Rings), Mortensen was thrown out of a Russian bar in London for unsettling and intimidating the customers. He didn’t say a word – just ordered vodka and sat, looking menacing. Classic. Cassel is perfectly cast as the flawed and drunken heir to the crime organisation – in equal parts sinister and pathetic, a difficult mix to master. By far the scariest character in this film is played by Mueller-Stahl and this film is one of his best. He is absolutely excellent. Watts is very good and I was pleased to not hear her accent slip. She plays Anna with a nice blend of strength and desperation. A nice performance too from Cusack as Anna’s mother.
I have to warn those of you who aren’t fond of violence that this film has a couple of scenes I couldn’t watch – one at the beginning, which is mercifully short; the other in a bathhouse which involves a very naked Mortensen take on two Russian heavies. I can’t review this scene, sorry, because I just couldn’t watch it (being quite a wuss when it comes to knives being stabbed into people). I mainly couldn’t watch it because it’s Cronenberg – I just knew he would push the boundaries. I’ve read that it will go down as one of his most out-there scenes. But I don’t condemn the film for this scene – it is about the Russian mob, after all, and I don’t think the scene is out of place or gratuitous. Just watch out if you’re squeamish.
Eastern Promises is ultimately a tale of morality. It is chilling, utterly compelling, and completely surprising. I can’t wait for the next pairing of Cronenberg and Mortensen.
----------------------
Nikolai: Forget any of this happened. Stay away from people like me.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Atonement
Keira Knightley, James McAvoy, Saoirse Ronan, Romola Garai, Vanessa Redgrave, Brenda Blethyn
Dir. Joe Wright
Scr. Christopher Hampton (based on the novel by Ian McEwan)
Okay, I am slightly bewildered by all this hoopla about Atonement. Apparently, if it doesn’t win the Oscar for best picture next year it will be a travesty. Hmmm. And, apparently, it’s the best British film of the decade. Hmmmmmmmmm. I did like this film, but not as much as I was obviously supposed to. And I blame (a) Knightley, (b) some painful scenes of nothingness, and (c) the marketing machine that told me I was going to experience something truly special – a flawless film. Well, it wasn’t.
I know, I know. We can’t blame the filmmakers for over-hyping a film, can we? Well, no, I guess we can’t. But there was more that annoyed and disappointed me than just some truly over-the-top marketing. I haven’t read Atonement, though I am a fan of Ian McEwan and I especially enjoyed that adaptation of Enduring Love. I’m going to assume that this was a pretty faithful adaptation and that they didn’t butcher the book. Which makes me think that Atonement might be a brilliant book that doesn’t easily translate into a brilliant movie.
The story is very interesting and compelling and I won’t spoil it for those who have yet to see the film. There is many a twist and turn that you will want to be taken aback by – for me, it was sometimes the only thing keeping me awake. Atonement centres around the Tallis sisters – Cecilia and Briony – and a particular summer which turned their lives upside down. Hmmm. I don’t actually think I can even outline the story without giving a few things away. Let’s just say there’s jealously and betrayal and love and all that good stuff. Oh, and there’s a war thrown in for good measure. And a healthy dose of blood and guts along the way.
The acting, on the whole, is very good. McAvoy, for my money, has become a deserving leading man and has shown, again and again, his range and his ability. He is excellent here as Robbie, the poor boy made good. I can’t fault the supporting cast, including the ever-brilliant Blethyn. Who I can fault is Knightley. I am not a fan, it’s no secret. But I was assured by many reviewers that she shows her true acting ability here and finally has a role to grow into. Well, that’s rubbish. She pouts her way through this film just as she’s pouted her way through everything else. She is annoying and there is a worrying absence of chemistry between her and McAvoy, for which I blame her entirely. Contrast the horrible Knightley to the excellent performances by the three women to play her sister, Briony – Saoirse Ronan (aged about 11), Romola Garai (aged 18), and Vanessa Redgrave (old age). These three women are the reason that I did actually like this film and the reason why I will not slate it altogether. Ronan is by far the stand-out – she is so good that hairs stood up on the back of my neck when she did, well, that thing she does in the film that is so awful. A great actress in the making. Garai, unknown to me before this film, is also excellent as nurse-in-training Briony – she has a quality that ensures you can’t take your eyes off her. And Redgrave; well, not much needs to be said of this powerhouse of an actress. Her appearance on screen is short but perhaps the highlight of the film. Her emotion is truly wonderful.
The production value is good, I suppose. But then they had a lot of money to play with. There is war, which is portrayed with a complete lack of originality and didn’t really move me at all. There is a love story that lacks believability. There is a tragic ending, which was indeed incredibly sad, but I had somewhat ceased to care too much about the characters by that point in the film. By far the most interesting journey is that made by Briony, and this is portrayed very well indeed, in no small thanks to the triumvirate of actresses playing her. Overall, this is a diverting film, with enough of a story to hold your attention but not really enough heart to have you care about everyone’s fate as much as you should. And that, I must say, is the tragedy.
They are saying it’s the new English Patient. Well, that’s just plain absurd. And, don’t they know, that the English Patient gets worse and worse the more you see it? Ah well, I am resigned to the fact that Atonement will probably fulfil its own prophecy and sweep next year’s Oscars. But if Knightley wins best actress, repeating the Pathrow/Shakepeare in Love travesty, I shall be seriously displeased.
--------------------
Robbie: Why are you crying?
Cecilia: Don't you know?
Robbie: Yes, yes I know exactly.
Dir. Joe Wright
Scr. Christopher Hampton (based on the novel by Ian McEwan)
Okay, I am slightly bewildered by all this hoopla about Atonement. Apparently, if it doesn’t win the Oscar for best picture next year it will be a travesty. Hmmm. And, apparently, it’s the best British film of the decade. Hmmmmmmmmm. I did like this film, but not as much as I was obviously supposed to. And I blame (a) Knightley, (b) some painful scenes of nothingness, and (c) the marketing machine that told me I was going to experience something truly special – a flawless film. Well, it wasn’t.
I know, I know. We can’t blame the filmmakers for over-hyping a film, can we? Well, no, I guess we can’t. But there was more that annoyed and disappointed me than just some truly over-the-top marketing. I haven’t read Atonement, though I am a fan of Ian McEwan and I especially enjoyed that adaptation of Enduring Love. I’m going to assume that this was a pretty faithful adaptation and that they didn’t butcher the book. Which makes me think that Atonement might be a brilliant book that doesn’t easily translate into a brilliant movie.
The story is very interesting and compelling and I won’t spoil it for those who have yet to see the film. There is many a twist and turn that you will want to be taken aback by – for me, it was sometimes the only thing keeping me awake. Atonement centres around the Tallis sisters – Cecilia and Briony – and a particular summer which turned their lives upside down. Hmmm. I don’t actually think I can even outline the story without giving a few things away. Let’s just say there’s jealously and betrayal and love and all that good stuff. Oh, and there’s a war thrown in for good measure. And a healthy dose of blood and guts along the way.
The acting, on the whole, is very good. McAvoy, for my money, has become a deserving leading man and has shown, again and again, his range and his ability. He is excellent here as Robbie, the poor boy made good. I can’t fault the supporting cast, including the ever-brilliant Blethyn. Who I can fault is Knightley. I am not a fan, it’s no secret. But I was assured by many reviewers that she shows her true acting ability here and finally has a role to grow into. Well, that’s rubbish. She pouts her way through this film just as she’s pouted her way through everything else. She is annoying and there is a worrying absence of chemistry between her and McAvoy, for which I blame her entirely. Contrast the horrible Knightley to the excellent performances by the three women to play her sister, Briony – Saoirse Ronan (aged about 11), Romola Garai (aged 18), and Vanessa Redgrave (old age). These three women are the reason that I did actually like this film and the reason why I will not slate it altogether. Ronan is by far the stand-out – she is so good that hairs stood up on the back of my neck when she did, well, that thing she does in the film that is so awful. A great actress in the making. Garai, unknown to me before this film, is also excellent as nurse-in-training Briony – she has a quality that ensures you can’t take your eyes off her. And Redgrave; well, not much needs to be said of this powerhouse of an actress. Her appearance on screen is short but perhaps the highlight of the film. Her emotion is truly wonderful.
The production value is good, I suppose. But then they had a lot of money to play with. There is war, which is portrayed with a complete lack of originality and didn’t really move me at all. There is a love story that lacks believability. There is a tragic ending, which was indeed incredibly sad, but I had somewhat ceased to care too much about the characters by that point in the film. By far the most interesting journey is that made by Briony, and this is portrayed very well indeed, in no small thanks to the triumvirate of actresses playing her. Overall, this is a diverting film, with enough of a story to hold your attention but not really enough heart to have you care about everyone’s fate as much as you should. And that, I must say, is the tragedy.
They are saying it’s the new English Patient. Well, that’s just plain absurd. And, don’t they know, that the English Patient gets worse and worse the more you see it? Ah well, I am resigned to the fact that Atonement will probably fulfil its own prophecy and sweep next year’s Oscars. But if Knightley wins best actress, repeating the Pathrow/Shakepeare in Love travesty, I shall be seriously displeased.
--------------------
Robbie: Why are you crying?
Cecilia: Don't you know?
Robbie: Yes, yes I know exactly.
Perfect Creature
Dougray Scott, Saffron Burrows, Leo Gregory, Scott Willis, Stuart Wilson
Dir. Glenn Standring
Scr. Glenn Standring
I really enjoyed this film. It’s a vampire flick, so that will put some people off immediately. And it’s been critically slammed by some. But, bugger them; this film is unique, dark, and quite scary – essential elements in a horror. It’s not perfect, but it makes for an interesting and entertaining trip to the cinema.
Largely filmed in New Zealand, Perfect Creature is set in an alternative New Zealand, known as Nuovo Zelandia, in about the 1960s. Though, it could be earlier or later, such is the nature of alternative realities. The premise – wait for it … - is that vampires and humans live in peace and harmony. Yay! Vampires, known as the Brotherhood, are actually the next step in human evolution. They are wise and peace-loving and revered much like high priests. They heal, protect and somewhat pity humans, those lesser mortals with too many vices and too much hatred. But, alas, the harmonious balance is threatened when one Brother (Edgar) begins to do, well, what we have come to expect of vampires – kill humans by biting their necks and sucking their blood. The horror!! The police and the Brothers join forces to track him down and stop his wicked ways.
It all gets complicated, but let’s just say there is a virus and a healthy serving of evil and some nasty scenes ahead. Mixed in with some tenderness between leads Dougray Scott (who plays Brother Silus) and Saffron Burrows (who plays police captain Lilly). There’s a lot going on in Perfect Creature – questions of race, genetics, and religion. It’ll have you pondering. Interestingly, I would say that it could have done with another 30 minutes or so. Running at just over 80 minutes, a little more development of relationships and story would have not gone amiss.
The acting is a bit hammy. Scott is good, but a little like a lobotomised mental patient at times. He’s excellent in the more tender moments. Burrows is great as Lilly, who is the object of desire for both Edgar and Silus, but in very, very different ways. Gregory, who plays the twisted Edgar, is just plain frightening. He’s a little over-the-top, especially when he over-annunciates his words, but solid in a necessarily flashy role. Very good performances also from Willis (as Lilly’s colleague) and Wilson (as Silus and Edgar’s father).
The real winner in this film is the way it looks and feels. You can almost smell the stench in the streets and feel the grime under your fingernails – this is a dark, soulless place and you get sucked right into the despair. The production value is superb for what is undoubtedly quite a low budget film. The sets are amazing and the action is compelling and believable.
I would heartily recommend Perfect Creature to those who have a leaning towards the horror/vampire genre – you know who you are … I was thoroughly entertained and interested throughout. It’s reassuring that such an age-old story has something new to offer.
Dir. Glenn Standring
Scr. Glenn Standring
I really enjoyed this film. It’s a vampire flick, so that will put some people off immediately. And it’s been critically slammed by some. But, bugger them; this film is unique, dark, and quite scary – essential elements in a horror. It’s not perfect, but it makes for an interesting and entertaining trip to the cinema.
Largely filmed in New Zealand, Perfect Creature is set in an alternative New Zealand, known as Nuovo Zelandia, in about the 1960s. Though, it could be earlier or later, such is the nature of alternative realities. The premise – wait for it … - is that vampires and humans live in peace and harmony. Yay! Vampires, known as the Brotherhood, are actually the next step in human evolution. They are wise and peace-loving and revered much like high priests. They heal, protect and somewhat pity humans, those lesser mortals with too many vices and too much hatred. But, alas, the harmonious balance is threatened when one Brother (Edgar) begins to do, well, what we have come to expect of vampires – kill humans by biting their necks and sucking their blood. The horror!! The police and the Brothers join forces to track him down and stop his wicked ways.
It all gets complicated, but let’s just say there is a virus and a healthy serving of evil and some nasty scenes ahead. Mixed in with some tenderness between leads Dougray Scott (who plays Brother Silus) and Saffron Burrows (who plays police captain Lilly). There’s a lot going on in Perfect Creature – questions of race, genetics, and religion. It’ll have you pondering. Interestingly, I would say that it could have done with another 30 minutes or so. Running at just over 80 minutes, a little more development of relationships and story would have not gone amiss.
The acting is a bit hammy. Scott is good, but a little like a lobotomised mental patient at times. He’s excellent in the more tender moments. Burrows is great as Lilly, who is the object of desire for both Edgar and Silus, but in very, very different ways. Gregory, who plays the twisted Edgar, is just plain frightening. He’s a little over-the-top, especially when he over-annunciates his words, but solid in a necessarily flashy role. Very good performances also from Willis (as Lilly’s colleague) and Wilson (as Silus and Edgar’s father).
The real winner in this film is the way it looks and feels. You can almost smell the stench in the streets and feel the grime under your fingernails – this is a dark, soulless place and you get sucked right into the despair. The production value is superb for what is undoubtedly quite a low budget film. The sets are amazing and the action is compelling and believable.
I would heartily recommend Perfect Creature to those who have a leaning towards the horror/vampire genre – you know who you are … I was thoroughly entertained and interested throughout. It’s reassuring that such an age-old story has something new to offer.
Monday, October 15, 2007
La Vie En Rose
Marion Cotillard, Sylvie Testud, Gerard Depardieu, Jean-Pierre Martins
Dir. Olivier Dahan
Scr. Olivier Dahan & Isabelle Sobelman
La Vie En Rose tells the story, from childhood to stardom to death, of Edith Piaf. Piaf was one of France’s most celebrated and beloved singers. Her speciality, the tragic ballad, reflected her equally tragic life, which is the focus of this film. Her early death, at the age of 47 from liver cancer, has ensured her status as an icon in France. A perfect biopic this is not. But to get a sense of who Piaf was and what made her sing in that haunting way, see this film. See this film also for the amazing performance of Marion Cotillard, as Piaf, who completely becomes this tenacious and talented lady of the stage.
The French certainly know how to lay it on thick. From the opening scenes, this is a story of loss and tragedy and redemption and glory. With some prostitution thrown in for good measure. Piaf’s early years were anything but typical – abandoned by her mother, dumped on her grandmother who ran a brothel, taken on the circus trail by her contortionist father, suffering from poor health and a bout of blindness along the way. When fame did find her, she was a rough-as-guts young woman who had to be taken in hand to be made the star she was to become.
The story-telling in La Vie En Rose is a little jarring. Jumping from present to future to past and back again, the audience must keep their wits about them to stay on top of the storyline. But, in a way, this film is about getting a sense of who Piaf was and what made her the great singer she became. It is less about telling a linear and tidy story. In fact, the war years are overlooked completely which may annoy some moviegoers. Also, the great love (which was to become the great tragedy) of her life is introduced rather abruptly and, for a time, I was at a loss as to who he was.
The reason these flaws are not fatal to the film, however, must be accredited to Cotillard who truly puts in the performance of a lifetime. Playing Piaf from late teens through to her eventual death, Cotillard embraces this role fully and becomes the funny, little, rough-around-the-edges icon. Piaf is not always likable. In fact, in some scenes, you want to reach into the screen and give her a clip around the ears. But Cotillard always plays her with compassion. Also, her performances on stage, mimicking the style of Piaf, are a sight to behold. The final number (No Regrets, her signature song) is a heart-breaking and moving scene. If you don’t cry, you aren’t human.
Cotillard is fortunate to be surrounded by a great cast. Other standouts include Manon Chevallier and Pauline Burlet (who play Piaf at 5 years old and 10 years old respectively), Gerard Depardieu as Louis Leplee, the man who first discovered Piaf and gave her a stage to sing on, and Sylvie Testud who plays Piaf’s best friend, Momone.
This is not a perfect film by any means. But it is an emotional and compelling telling of a larger-than-life figure, whose unmistakable voice will always be remembered. I would recommend.
Dir. Olivier Dahan
Scr. Olivier Dahan & Isabelle Sobelman
La Vie En Rose tells the story, from childhood to stardom to death, of Edith Piaf. Piaf was one of France’s most celebrated and beloved singers. Her speciality, the tragic ballad, reflected her equally tragic life, which is the focus of this film. Her early death, at the age of 47 from liver cancer, has ensured her status as an icon in France. A perfect biopic this is not. But to get a sense of who Piaf was and what made her sing in that haunting way, see this film. See this film also for the amazing performance of Marion Cotillard, as Piaf, who completely becomes this tenacious and talented lady of the stage.
The French certainly know how to lay it on thick. From the opening scenes, this is a story of loss and tragedy and redemption and glory. With some prostitution thrown in for good measure. Piaf’s early years were anything but typical – abandoned by her mother, dumped on her grandmother who ran a brothel, taken on the circus trail by her contortionist father, suffering from poor health and a bout of blindness along the way. When fame did find her, she was a rough-as-guts young woman who had to be taken in hand to be made the star she was to become.
The story-telling in La Vie En Rose is a little jarring. Jumping from present to future to past and back again, the audience must keep their wits about them to stay on top of the storyline. But, in a way, this film is about getting a sense of who Piaf was and what made her the great singer she became. It is less about telling a linear and tidy story. In fact, the war years are overlooked completely which may annoy some moviegoers. Also, the great love (which was to become the great tragedy) of her life is introduced rather abruptly and, for a time, I was at a loss as to who he was.
The reason these flaws are not fatal to the film, however, must be accredited to Cotillard who truly puts in the performance of a lifetime. Playing Piaf from late teens through to her eventual death, Cotillard embraces this role fully and becomes the funny, little, rough-around-the-edges icon. Piaf is not always likable. In fact, in some scenes, you want to reach into the screen and give her a clip around the ears. But Cotillard always plays her with compassion. Also, her performances on stage, mimicking the style of Piaf, are a sight to behold. The final number (No Regrets, her signature song) is a heart-breaking and moving scene. If you don’t cry, you aren’t human.
Cotillard is fortunate to be surrounded by a great cast. Other standouts include Manon Chevallier and Pauline Burlet (who play Piaf at 5 years old and 10 years old respectively), Gerard Depardieu as Louis Leplee, the man who first discovered Piaf and gave her a stage to sing on, and Sylvie Testud who plays Piaf’s best friend, Momone.
This is not a perfect film by any means. But it is an emotional and compelling telling of a larger-than-life figure, whose unmistakable voice will always be remembered. I would recommend.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Stardust
Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro, Mark Strong, Rupert Everett, Sienna Miller, Kate Magowan, Ricky Gervais, Ian McKellen (voice)
Dir. Matthew Vaughn
Scr. Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn (based on novel by Neil Gaiman)
While it’s *not* the new Princess Bride (as one reviewer had the balls to claim), Stardust is a funny, magical, delightful movie. If you enjoy fantasy – if you can suspend disbelief for the length of an entire film – you won’t be disappointed by this gem of a film. There has been criticism over a lack of marketing, but often that is a good thing – lower expectations often make for a more satisfying and surprising cinematic experience.
Based on the 1998 illustrated novel by Neil Gaiman, Stardust is the story of love and magic and fallen stars and witches and kings and ghosts. I won’t rave too much about Gaiman (trust me, I could go on for several days about his genius), but let me just say that the movie has remained quite faithful to the book and retained the humour and magical fantasy that Gaiman is renowned for. Stardust begins in the small English village of Wall, so named because it is surrounded by a wall separating it from the magical realm. Tristan, half human and half not-so-much-human, declares he will retrieve a fallen star for the love of Victoria, a pretty (I suppose) but conceited young girl in the village. The fallen star turns out to be a woman and Tristan is not the only person who is after the star’s power – we have witches seeking to eat her heart to ensure eternal youth and a couple of princes seeking to be king. Let the adventure begin.
There is much fun to be enjoyed in Stardust and much wonder to wow you. Scenes on the lightening pirate ship had me nearly rolling in the aisles – let’s just say that De Niro is delightfully cast against type. The ghosts of murdered princes always amuse. The film looks lush and lovely. The special effects are competent – they are not going to necessarily amaze you, but they’re not noticeably bad. Everything and the kitchen sink is thrown into this tale – I was compelled throughout. It’s not the Princess Bride, as I noted, but it’s an entertaining diversion and will leave you smiling as you leave the cinema.
I was dubious about the casting initially. I am not a fan of Claire Danes and was worried about how she was going to pull off an English accent. I was delighted De Niro featured but suspected his performance would be clichéd. And Charlie Cox in the lead – well, who the hell is he?! In the end though, the casting was inspired. I won’t talk too much about De Niro’s performance because it might spoil the film for you. Let’s just say one word – genius. Pfeiffer, as head witch Lamia, is brilliant. I’m glad to see her back in some quality films giving quality performances. Gervais is, well, Gervais. A small role which is a little pointless. Funny, yes, but he is just himself as usual. The line-up of deceased princes (including Rupert Everett, Spaced star Mark Heap, Jason Flemyng, and David Walliams) are fantastic – great dialogue, perfect timing. Mark Strong as Prince Septimus is delightfully unlikeable. As is Sienna Miller, who plays love interest Victoria. Danes, as the fallen star Yvaine, gives a solid performance – yes, her accent does slip now and again, but she is spunky and funny and not too bad at all. I’m still not a fan, but she didn’t ruin the movie which she had the potential to do. The real find here is Cox – he is delightfully naïve, with good comic timing; not too handsome but cute enough to carry the film. Very clever casting indeed. And, just as an aside, the actress playing Una (Magowan) is absolutely and uttering the most naturally beautiful women I have seen on screen in quite some time.
This is not a perfect film and perhaps not as memorable or quotable as it could have been. But I was entertained and delighted throughout. Stardust looks great and feels magical. Not for everyone’s taste I imagine – I know many people who would rather set their head on fire than watch a fantasy movie. But if you’re partial to a bit of fairy-tale, this movie is for you.
---------------------
Narrator: A philosopher once asked, "Are we human because we gaze at the stars, or do we gaze at them because we are human?" Pointless, really... ”Do the stars gaze back?" Now *that's* a question.
Dir. Matthew Vaughn
Scr. Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn (based on novel by Neil Gaiman)
While it’s *not* the new Princess Bride (as one reviewer had the balls to claim), Stardust is a funny, magical, delightful movie. If you enjoy fantasy – if you can suspend disbelief for the length of an entire film – you won’t be disappointed by this gem of a film. There has been criticism over a lack of marketing, but often that is a good thing – lower expectations often make for a more satisfying and surprising cinematic experience.
Based on the 1998 illustrated novel by Neil Gaiman, Stardust is the story of love and magic and fallen stars and witches and kings and ghosts. I won’t rave too much about Gaiman (trust me, I could go on for several days about his genius), but let me just say that the movie has remained quite faithful to the book and retained the humour and magical fantasy that Gaiman is renowned for. Stardust begins in the small English village of Wall, so named because it is surrounded by a wall separating it from the magical realm. Tristan, half human and half not-so-much-human, declares he will retrieve a fallen star for the love of Victoria, a pretty (I suppose) but conceited young girl in the village. The fallen star turns out to be a woman and Tristan is not the only person who is after the star’s power – we have witches seeking to eat her heart to ensure eternal youth and a couple of princes seeking to be king. Let the adventure begin.
There is much fun to be enjoyed in Stardust and much wonder to wow you. Scenes on the lightening pirate ship had me nearly rolling in the aisles – let’s just say that De Niro is delightfully cast against type. The ghosts of murdered princes always amuse. The film looks lush and lovely. The special effects are competent – they are not going to necessarily amaze you, but they’re not noticeably bad. Everything and the kitchen sink is thrown into this tale – I was compelled throughout. It’s not the Princess Bride, as I noted, but it’s an entertaining diversion and will leave you smiling as you leave the cinema.
I was dubious about the casting initially. I am not a fan of Claire Danes and was worried about how she was going to pull off an English accent. I was delighted De Niro featured but suspected his performance would be clichéd. And Charlie Cox in the lead – well, who the hell is he?! In the end though, the casting was inspired. I won’t talk too much about De Niro’s performance because it might spoil the film for you. Let’s just say one word – genius. Pfeiffer, as head witch Lamia, is brilliant. I’m glad to see her back in some quality films giving quality performances. Gervais is, well, Gervais. A small role which is a little pointless. Funny, yes, but he is just himself as usual. The line-up of deceased princes (including Rupert Everett, Spaced star Mark Heap, Jason Flemyng, and David Walliams) are fantastic – great dialogue, perfect timing. Mark Strong as Prince Septimus is delightfully unlikeable. As is Sienna Miller, who plays love interest Victoria. Danes, as the fallen star Yvaine, gives a solid performance – yes, her accent does slip now and again, but she is spunky and funny and not too bad at all. I’m still not a fan, but she didn’t ruin the movie which she had the potential to do. The real find here is Cox – he is delightfully naïve, with good comic timing; not too handsome but cute enough to carry the film. Very clever casting indeed. And, just as an aside, the actress playing Una (Magowan) is absolutely and uttering the most naturally beautiful women I have seen on screen in quite some time.
This is not a perfect film and perhaps not as memorable or quotable as it could have been. But I was entertained and delighted throughout. Stardust looks great and feels magical. Not for everyone’s taste I imagine – I know many people who would rather set their head on fire than watch a fantasy movie. But if you’re partial to a bit of fairy-tale, this movie is for you.
---------------------
Narrator: A philosopher once asked, "Are we human because we gaze at the stars, or do we gaze at them because we are human?" Pointless, really... ”Do the stars gaze back?" Now *that's* a question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)