ST. GEORGES DAY (Frank Harper, 2012)

Posted on March 17, 2013 by MoodyB

st georges day

Starring: Frank Harper, Craig Fairbrass (obviously), Vincent Reegan, Sean Pertwee, Jamie Foreman, Ashley Walters – Hang on! I see a pattern emerging here!

You may like this if you liked: The Football Factory (Nick Love, 2004), Rise of the Footsoldier (Julian Gilbey, 2007), Essex Boys (Terry Winsor, 2000), anything cockeney…

Micky Mannock (Harper) and Ray Collishaw (Fairbrass) are notorious gangster cousins who are pretty much at the top of the food chain (naturally). However, Ray wants to go straight and build some golf course in the Med so they decide to do one last big job to set them up for life. Despite Ray’s reluctance, Micky agrees to a deal with some nasty generic gruff voiced Russians. Anyone reading and has seen a film of this genre before will be surprised to hear that things go wrong. Now, these two beloved cockney rogues owe these nasty Russians £25million and nasty Russians being nasty Russians, they want their money back or may well kill people if they don’t. So what are these cheeky cockney geezers that we apparently care about going to do? Some ridiculous heist that involves going to Berlin to steal some diamonds that will cover their debt and set them up for life. This also involves travelling via Amsterdam just to show naked women, and then in Berlin the heist will take place during an England Vs Germany match on 23rd April, which is of course St. Georges day. Genius! Meanwhile their every move is watched by two apparently ruthless policemen: Nixon (Foreman) and Proctor (Pertwee) who apparently have an insider infiltrating this little gang of loveable rogues.

St. Georges Day is a debut effort written and directed by eloquent and softly spoken Shakespearean thespian Frank Harper, famous for his roles in The Football Factory and Lock. Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Guy Ritchie, 2008), and let us not forget his scene stealing performance as the bank robber in Kevin and Perry Go Large (Ed Bye, 2000).  I thoroughly enjoyed Dexter Fletcher’s (who is, of course, briefly in this) directorial debut Wild Bill last year, so maybe this could be another enjoyable treat. He seems to have persuaded all his mates to be in it, the only ones missing are Danny Dyer and Tamer Hassan; maybe they were performing Hamlet at the Old Vic during filming?

Well…

I will come back to term ‘enjoyable’ later if I may? First, a quick review:

It seems Frank Harper has certainly learnt a few things while starring in all these geezer films, in basically that he has cut and pasted all the clichéd plots from these and stuck them all together in what is an absolute narrative mess. This film received consistently horrific reviews, and I have to admit that they are all deserved. St. Georges Day is the most possibly generic and clichéd ‘cockeney gangster’ film you could imagine. Every cliché in terms of plot and characters is there to see in full clunky and embarrassing glory. I am not going to list them here, but anyone who watches this will be ticking them off in their head almost involuntarily. As for the dialogue, co-written by Frank himself, when there are lines such as “The Price is Right? This isn’t the game show you c**t!” or “Two words: Angry Russians”, it is basically Eastenders with swearing.

There is a also a very insular and quite racist approach to this film, such as the typical evil Russian gangsters and double crossing Dutch drug dealers. However, what becomes really embarrassing is Frank Harper’s deluded sense of patriotism that comes out within the script, there are many occasions where he compares their drugs operation and how they are going to sort out the mess they created to strategies deployed by Churchill and the British armies in both of the world wars. This is both insulting and rather embarrassing to watch; as we have to remember that these men are criminals despite whatever ‘moral code’ they follow. There are many voice-over scenes, usually with Frank Harper looking pensive on some riverside where he tries to justify to us why he is essentially a criminal. He often mentions things like ‘loyalty’ and tells us that he never killed anyone that “didn’t deserve it or would have done the same thing to him”. No Frank, you are criminals, you are not the good guys. Even the police are portrayed as bad guys for simply doing their job; does Frank really think we are that stupid? Also, it is worth saying that Keeley Hazell stars in her debut film role and is shocking, though let us face it, she is not there for her acting is she? She also plays Mickey’s girlfriend and there are many scenes where Frank Harper gets to kiss her. Hang on! Isn’t Frank Harper writer, actor, director and producer? Indeed he is. Oh, Frank, you dirty bastard! However, her character as ‘Peckham Princess’ (No, me neither) is beyond caricature, as with all the women here who are simply portrayed in a shamefully misogynistic way. However, this just adds to the list of generic narrow minded stereotyping like evil Russians, drugged up crazy Dutch people, angry Scottish people etc.

Now, I will return to the phrase ‘enjoyable’, and though I may well be contradicting what I have previously just said, but I must confess that I found St. Georges Day extremely enjoyable. This does come with a proviso though: If you take St. Georges Day with a pinch of salt, and when you see a cast list like that (maybe with the exception of Charles Dance – maybe a marketing ploy?) how on earth can you take this film seriously? I went into this film expecting ridiculous nonsense and was not disappointed; I must confess that it frequently made me laugh. It is obvious that Frank Harper thinks he is making the Citizen Kane of British gangster films. St. Georges Day takes itself so ridiculously seriously; this almost makes it even funnier to watch. You never laugh with it, but frequently at it and because of this I will confess that I actually really enjoyed it, though certainly not for any of the reasons dear old (now I am afraid to say officially an auteur) Frank Harper would want.

In summary: Predictable, clichéd, crap. This is the definitive British gangster film in that every cliché and caricature is there to see, all put together by the chunkiest script imaginable. However, this may well be (unintentionally) one of the funniest British films of recent years.

2/10, but 10/10 for the comedy!

Posted in All Film Reviews, British Films, Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

LINCOLN (Steven Spielberg, 2012)

Posted on March 17, 2013 by MoodyB

lincoln

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, John Hawkes

You may like this if you liked: Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, 1962), Che: Part Two (Steven Soderbergh, 2008), Downfall (Oliver Hirschbiegel, 2004)

America 1865: Abraham Lincoln has just been re-elected as president and after years of bloodshed, the civil war seems to be reaching its conclusion. President Lincoln however is still determined to achieve an amendment through the House of Representatives to banish slavery for good. However, if peace is achieved, President Lincoln knows that these Southern states that they have been fighting all this time will never vote for it when reinstated. The President now faces a race against time to get this bill through and make sure that enough members vote for it, and some members will not be easily persuaded. The President is torn, as an early peace would potentially save more bloodshed, but he knows how crucially important the abolishment of slavery is in the country’s future.

Firstly, let’s face it, anything that can be said about Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance has already been said. The fact is that he is one of the best actors of his generation, if not of all time and his tendency to be a picky bugger when it comes to taking film roles is to be respected, well maybe apart from Nine. His performance here is as committed as ever and utterly spellbinding, you do genuinely believe you are almost watching a reincarnation of the man himself on screen. One of the things that enhances the power of this performance is the very effective depiction of Abraham Lincoln’s physicality. He was 6’4” tall with long arms and legs, and Spielberg uses this to great effect as in every scene he always towers over everyone as I am sure he would have done in real life. It is also credit to Spielberg for not simply depicting Abraham Lincoln as a saint, his weaknesses and moments of self doubt are portrayed just as clearly as those that made him such a great man.

I came into this film with a couple of fears: Firstly all I seemed to hear was praise for Day-Lewis’ performance but very little else mentioned, a great performance does not necessarily make a great film. Also, for someone who knows only the basics of this period of American history like me, would this leave the film feeling alienating?

Well, the film does actually boast a huge array of well known names in its cast such as Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Sally Field, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley among others. Despite the nature of this being a protagonist driven narrative, all these characters get their own individual moments to shine and all the actors excel with excellent performances. It is a credit to Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner that Day-Lewis does not appear in every scene, leaving other very important characters in this moment in history the chance to shine and for us the viewer to be made aware of their own very important individual contributions. It is fair to say that the dialogue is littered with constant wannabe Oscar speeches, however given the moment in history and the talent saying it, this is forgivable.

That was the first fear resolved, now the second: There is no denying that Lincoln is effort and you are certainly required to concentrate, especially as it is dialogue heavy throughout which certainly includes plenty of political jargon. However, after 15 or 20 minutes when it is established who everyone is, what their place is and what everyone is trying to achieve; Lincoln is a deeply involving and thoroughly gripping political drama. Abraham Lincoln’s desperate bid to persuade people of great power to vote with him is gripping and compelling, even though we all know what the end result will be. What also adds to the involvement of the drama is that Spielberg lets characters that face a real life conflict when deciding how to vote have the screen time for us to genuinely understand their conflict and not just portray them as simply against Lincoln therefore bad people. This is a film which treats the viewers as intelligent people who clearly understand that in such a dramatic situation, things are never simple or straight forward. Anyone expecting the dramatic visual set pieces of previous Spielberg period dramas will be disappointed as this is a dialogue heavy film. It is definitely true that is not the most cinematic of films, and perhaps feels a little more like a television drama at times, but this is not a criticism as though the film is dialogue heavy, the narrative for me moved along at a quick pace as there is always something happening. Even John Williams’ usually dominant music is very minimal.

It is not until the final 20 minutes after the result we all know happens that Lincoln feels cinematic with sweeping music and dramatic outdoor scenes. However, for me it this last 20 minutes that severely lets this film down and does not need to be there at all, almost undoing all the good work in the preceding two hours. This may well sound like I am criticising Spielberg for basically being Spielberg, but the final 20 minutes is overblown cinematic schmaltz and sentimentality which is completely different from the dialogue heavy tone of the previous two hours. For me, this just did not need to be there, this is a film about a moment in history and one man who played a major contribution to that, it is not an arse licking biopic of Abraham Lincoln’s life. However these last twenty minutes feel exactly like that. I of course do not want to spoil the ending, but we all know what happens afterwards to the President once peace is agreed. How this is portrayed here is embarrassingly cheesy, adding nothing to the compelling political drama we have just spent two hours watching. It almost feels like we have forgotten that we are watching a Spielberg film, The Beard has realised this and decided to remind us, and maybe trying to please the academy to make it a hat trick at the same time, very disappointing Steven!

For the first two hours Lincoln is a compelling and deeply involving political drama about an extremely important moment in history. An amazing central performance is also complimented by excellent supporting performances. It does require effort but this is amply rewarded, especially if you leave twenty minutes before the end.

8/10

Posted in All Film Reviews, The Best of 2013 | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

LE HAVRE (Aki Kaurismäki, 2011) viewed on 10/3/13

Posted on March 17, 2013 by MoodyB

le havre

 

Starring: André Wilms, Blondin Miguel, Jean-Pierre Darroussin

You may like this if you liked: Night on Earth (Jim Jarmusch, 1991), The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (John Madden, 2011), The Kid with a Bike (Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne, 2011).

Le Havre tells the story of ageing shoe shiner Marcel Marx (Wilms), an ex Parisian bohemian who lives a modest life. One day two things happen to him, he meets an African boy who arrived in Le Havre as a stowaway, but evaded capture from the authorities. Marcel takes it upon himself to take the boy, called Idrissa in and try to help him get to England. While this is happening Marcel’s loyal wife has to stay in hospital to be treated for cancer and Marcel must adapt to looking after not only himself, but Idrissa.

These days it seems that French films predominantly fit into one of two categories: Smug, over long and preachy, such as Rust and Bone (Jacques Audiard, 2012) or Little White Lies (Guillaume Canet, 2010). Or they produce deeply involving but simplistic stories containing the most genuine heartfelt emotion such Amour (in French, therefore French) or The Kid with a Bike (see my previous reviews). I am happy to say that Le Havre falls in the latter group. In fact the story here is one of pure simplicity and the tone of the film contains nothing but genuine optimism towards the theme of human compassion. That is it, this film has no ulterior motive or no gimmicks, and it is a very simply and extremely involving story based around that one simple theme. However, this film is not just a tribute to human compassion, but contained within it are tributes to the history of cinema that are quite simply a joy to experience. When I say that, the use of music as well the way certain scenes are lit pay a respectful tribute to films of the 40s and 50s throughout the narrative. Throughout the film is a sense of timelessness, as it is never completely clear at what point in time this film is actually set, but that proves irrelevant as these these presented are universal and timeless.

This is not to say that this film is not without its realism, Marx and his neighbours all live a humble life bordering on poverty. The plight of Idrissa is unenviable and there is an honest depiction of a refugee camp just outside Calais. However, the theme of Le Havre is not that life is simply good, that would be naive. It is how these characters deal with life and the situations that it presents. Of course it would be so easy to fall into to the trap of patronising and borderline preachy cliché here, but this never happens due to the genuine feeling of honesty depicted throughout the narrative. Every character is presented very honestly with all their flaws quite clear to see, but it is their ability for natural compassion that drives the narrative forward. By the time Le Havre reaches its very satisfying conclusion where there are no loose ends, it is difficult not to feel that not only have you been entertained, but also enlightened.

Posted in All Film Reviews, World Cinema | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

My personal definitive top 10 of 2012

Posted on March 13, 2013 by MoodyB

the hunter

 

Yes I know it is now March, but it has taken me this long to see everything due to having to wait for the retail release or my local independent cinema to show it. The criteria for this are any films released theatrically in the UK within 2012. For my own personal criteria these were films within 2012 that had a lasting profound effect on me, in that there was some part of them that stayed with me in my mind. They had some element of originality and a very unique distinctive quality that I simply cannot describe (yes I know that sounds extremely pretentious.) For example, The Expendables 2 (Simon West) or Avengers Assemble (Joss Whedon) along with countless other blockbusters were enjoyable and tremendous fun in their own ways, but pretty much instantly forgettable text book tick-the-boxes genre pieces.

1. The Hunter (Daniel Nettheim)

2. Amour (Michael Haneke)

3. Shame (Steve McQueen)

4. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Nuri Bilge Ceylan)

5. Michael (Markus Schleinzer)

6. The Kid with a Bike (Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne,)

7. Berberian Sound Studio (Peter Strickland)

8. Samsara (Ron Fricke)

9. A Royal Affair (Nicolaj Arcel)

10. The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson)

Posted in The Burford Top 10s | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ARGO (Ben Affleck, 2012) viewed on 10/3/13

Posted on March 11, 2013 by MoodyB

argo

 

Starring: Been Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman

You may like this if you liked: The Town (Ben Affleck, 2010), Donnie Brasco (Mike Newell, 1997), Inside Man (Spike Lee, 2006)

In 1979 the US embassy in Tehran, Iran is invaded by revolutionaries, taking all those that work there hostage. Six embassy workers manage to escape and take refuge at the home of the Canadian ambassador. Several months later, it is only a matter of time before the Iranians realise that there are six members of staff missing and then find them with unthinkable consequences. The CIA decides they have to get them out of there, but with very few options ‘exfiltration’ expert Tony Mendez (Affleck) devises an extremely risky plan. His plan is to set up a production company producing a fake science fiction film called Argo, using his Hollywood contracts. Mendez will pose as associate producer and fly into to Iran to do a search for ‘locations to shoot’ and pass the six embassy workers off as Canadian members of the film crew. However, with the Iranians closing in on discovering the truth and the US government having doubts about the operation, Mendez faces a race against time to get them out safely.

I must confess that when I saw the trailer for this I thought it looks like an enjoyable enough, but generic and conventional typical Hollywood thriller. Argo looked to me as a film to rent, but not to watch at the cinema and the expense that entails. All of a sudden, the hype seemed to get bigger and bigger, with constantly excellent reviews. However I had missed my chance to see Argo at the cinema, and then of course all the awards came along. There was a one of chance to see it again at my local independent cinema, but that showing was completely sold out. So I had to wait for the DVD release. Sometimes films can be overhyped, putting expectations sky high and only leading to disappointment. I am pleased to see I personally feel that the hype is justified. Foe me, Argo is an extremely enjoyable and well made old fashioned style thriller.

I particularly enjoyed Gone Baby Gone, and The Town was also a good watch. Argo poses a much bigger challenge to Affleck as a director with different story strands, various contrasting locations and trying to create a sense of tension while holding all this together. I have to say I thought this is all handled extremely well. There is very rarely a dull moment as the pacing is excellent and the film constantly grips with something always going on as what is happening in Tehran, CIA headquarters and Hollywood is all held together extremely well. The scenes in Tehran are extremely well made, feeling claustrophobic and containing a real genuine sense of intensity and edge. There is also a genuine and authentic feel of what these various places would be like 1980. What is produced is an excellent thriller proving that Hollywood can produce genuinely gripping and intelligent thrillers instead of the generic and forgettable crap it usually does.

However, Argo is not without flaws. There is a subplot involving Mendez’ relationship with his son. This may be here to try and add depth to the character, but they add nothing and just prove an annoying distraction from the main plot. Affleck himself is adequate but not amazing, which begs the question as to if he was not producer and director, would he be the one playing Mendez? Maybe Ben should decide to remain behind the camera, especially as he has a brother who is a very talented actor. Argo is of course based on a true story; the key word here is ‘based’ as this allows a certain amount of dramatic license. There were possibly a few too many clichéd ‘that was close’ moments towards the end, it surely could not be the case that these all happened. I understand the need for dramatic tension, but these sometimes feel a little clichéd and mechanical, detracting from what is already a naturally tense situation. There is also a really cringe worthy scene at the end involving an American flag in the background. I do not know if this was intentional, but it all feels a little Team America. However, these are minor quibbles with what is otherwise an excellent thriller thoroughly deserving of the awards it has received.

Argo is an excellent addition to a directorial CV that is becoming continuously impressive. Argo is a very entertaining and extremely well paced thriller that grips till the very end, demonstrating Affleck as potentially one of Hollywood’s up and coming directors.

Posted in All Film Reviews, Blockbusters | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN (Rupert Sanders, 2012) viewed on 7/3/13

Posted on March 11, 2013 by MoodyB

snow white and huntsman

 

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron

You may like this if you liked: The god awful Twilight films (2008-2012), The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Andrew Adamson, 2005), Red Riding Hood (Catherine Hardwicke, 2011)

Oh good, another retelling of the story of Snow White story, this time for the Twilight generation. In this version, the evil and evidently feminist queen Ravenna (Theron) takes over the reign of some random kingdom in some random fantasy world, killing the king after they have married and banishing his daughter Snow White (Stewart obviously) to a life in a prison cell. As Snow White reaches adulthood, Ravenna is informed by a 3D version of the talking mirror that it is Snow White as the most fairest in the land that is causing her to age, and to keep her immortality she must kill Snow White. Naturally, Snow White escapes and Ravenna sends a drunken and extremely moody (Scottish) huntsman (Hemsworth) to retrieve her and in return Ravenna will bring his wife back from the dead. After realising Ravenna will not keep her part of the deal, the huntsman reluctantly becomes the protector of Snow White. They join forces with eight dwarves (!), and the people of a small village to defeat Ravenna’s evil CGI army and Snow White must kill Ravenna (as she is the only one that can do it) to restore harmony to the kingdom.

In my view this was never going to be a masterpiece so I had low expectations but thought I would give it a go. Well, it has to be said that the plot is of course a little predictable, ticking off all the clichés as it plods along. The acting and clunky dialogue would not look out of place at a Christmas panto, except Stewart who is as comatose as ever. This film is also surprisingly slow, which unfortunately only leaves the stiffness of the dialogue even more exposed.

However, despite all these (expected) flaws, Snow White and the Huntsman is an enjoyable enough romp. First time feature director Rupert Sanders certainly gives the film visual flair with some very striking set pieces and beautiful but deadly scenery. The gritty and darker tone of this film means it is not suitable for young children, but it works extremely well. Though the likes of Theron and Hemsworth do ham it up to the max, this actually compliments the film extremely well making their characters extremely watchable, though I am not sure why all the male characters have to be Scottish. For me, one of the best moves was the casting of the dwarves, all played by well known talented British actors such as Ray Winstone, Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Nick Frost, Bob Hoskins. To fit in with the tone of the film they all have Lord of the Rings type names and are actually warriors, but they add good humour and heart, and are a good antidote to Hemsworth’s brooding and Stewart’s gormlessness making the whole story so much more enjoyable.

Once we arrive to the final inevitable battle, this does not disappoint. Though Snow White’s dramatic change into a warrior woman is a little unbelievable and an apparently ‘rousing’ speech she gives to persuade the villagers to fight for her is extremely embarrassing both in dialogue and delivery. Once the action takes over it is very thrilling and extremely well put together.

Though no masterpiece, and riddled with flaws, Snow White and the Huntsman is an extremely watchable and enjoyable romp. The striking visuals and some great individual performances easily making up for the clichés and clunky dialogue and plotting, making this two hours worth investing in.

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

PUSHER (Luis Prieto, 2012) viewed on 6/3/13

Posted on March 11, 2013 by MoodyB

pusher

Starring: Richard Coyle, Bronson Webb, Agyness Deyn

You may like this if you liked: Pusher (Nicolas Winding Refn, 1996), Dead Man Running (Alex De Rakoff, 2009), Sexy Beast (Jonathan Glazer, 2000)

Frank (Coyle) is a London drug pusher, in debt but good at what he does and he lives a good life. However, when deal goes very wrong he is forced to destroy the drugs but now owes the supplier, dangerous gangster Milo (Zlatko Buric) a serious amount of money. However, with no one left to turn to, he is forced to resort to extremes to acquire all this money.

I never saw the Norwegian original from 1996 and but I hope it was a damn sight better than this. Firstly, it contains hardly the most original plot and so is going to have to do something a bit different to stand out against what is quite frankly an already overcrowded genre. Unfortunately, if anything it is even worse.

Usually films of this genre contain the old cliché of a protagonist who was perhaps born into this world and is desperate to get out, or maybe they are protecting a family member. We are usually given some reason to care about a protagonist who is essentially a criminal. However here we are given simply nothing, Frank is simply a criminal living a life by pushing class A drugs. As his life begins to spiral out of control surely it is only a good thing that he may get a bullet in the head as it means there is one less criminal on the streets of London.

Without a protagonist to really care about, the whole thing feels completely pointless and empty. This is a shame as Richard Coyle (though he will always be Jeff from Coupling to me) gives an excellent performance and has the potential to be likeable if his character was actually given some redeeming features. There are also some excellently crafted individual moments and the base heavy score provided by Orbital, though a little clichéd is used very effectively.  The whole plot plays out shoddily and predictably, covering most of the clichés along the way and all the usual London underworld caricatures. There is a slight twist at the end, though slightly unexpected, as we still do not really care about the protagonist it is very hard to have any emotional reaction to it. A predictable plot can be fine, if the action is slick and there is a likeable protagonist. However, for the reasons I have just explained the whole thing feels extremely pointless despite the action sequences actually quite well crafted.

If you are after a slick British gangster film, there are plenty of superior offers out there such as Sexy Beast as despite some individually good moments, Pusher is a completely pointless and empty waste of 90 minutes of your life.

Posted in All Film Reviews, British Films, Major Dissapointments | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

GAMBIT (Michael Hoffman, 2012) viewed on 6/3/13

Posted on March 9, 2013 by MoodyB

gambit

 

Starring: Colin Firth, Cameron Diaz, Alan Rickman viewed on 6/3/13 – The Burford Review

You may like this if you liked: Wild Target (Jonathan Lynn, 2009), Duplicity (Tony Gilroy, 2009), Fun with Dick and Jane (Dean Parisot, 2005)

Harry Dean (Firth) is an art curator who works for extremely an abusive and even wealthier art obsessed boss (Rickman). Having had enough of being treated like this, Dean hatches an ‘ingenious’ plan to con his boss out of millions of pounds by getting him to buy a fake Monet painting, which as curator, Dean will insist is genuine. However, the plan requires the help of a Texas rodeo girl (Diaz) due to some outrageous family connection she has to a lost Monet painting involving a distant relative who fought in World War II. Of course, so the film is not 10 minutes long a whole plethora of things go wrong resulting into many hilarious situations. Do you detect sarcasm? Well, read on and find out.

The combination of Firth playing a middle class scoundrel, Alan Rickman being very angry and insulting everyone and a Coen brothers script was a very promising premise. Unfortunately that is where it ends. Apparently this Coen’s script is 10 years old, well maybe they should have thought about a redraft in that time. Maybe if this film did not contain such potentially promising elements it would not feel like such a disappointment, but there is no escaping the fact that it is.

Is it truly awful? Of course not, there have been far worse films over the last 12 months for various reasons. There are occasionally funny moments and it is a watchable film to have on. At 90 minutes it just about manages not to outstay its welcome, and at 12A is a light hearted enough romp for the whole family to sit there and watch, though probably while having conversations amongst each other.

There are occasional mildly amusing individual moments, though these tend to be more at it than with it. The fact the humour tends to be slapstick based such as Firth walking around a hotel in his pants or constantly getting punched, or Firth just saying mild swear words in a posh English accent means that the jokes start to get very thin very fast. Of course Rickman is always very entertaining when he is angry and insulting people (though not when he is naked). Diaz herself has a good go, but is nothing memorable, while Firth is most definitely on auto pilot. Again, it is impossible to get away from the feeling of wasted potential as the cast, screenwriters and even the director do not seem to care, so ultimately why should we?

Basically, Gambit is a film that is not in my opinion as horrific a failure as some say, and light hearted enough to make it watchable and entertaining at the time. However, your only memory of this as soon as it finishes will be a naked Alan Rickman!

Posted in All Film Reviews | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

LIFE OF PI (Ang Lee, 2012) viewed on 5/3/13

Posted on March 9, 2013 by MoodyB

life of pi

 

Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall

You may like this if you liked: Into the Wild (Sean Penn, 2007), Stand By Me (Rob Reiner, 1986), Cast Away (Robert Zemeckis, 2000)

Life of Pi starts with an adult ‘Pi’ Patel (Khan) interviewed by a Canadian writer (Spall) asking him about an apparently amazing story he has to tell. Pi then tells him the story of the amazing sequence of events that happened to him as a teenager. The story begins with him living at his parent’s zoo in India, however due to financial troubles they decide to move the entire zoo by ship to Canada where he can sell the animals at a very good price. During a severe storm disaster strikes and the ship sinks and what then begins is Pi’s dramatic tale of survival marooned at sea on a lifeboat accompanied by only an orang-utan, hyena, zebra and a deadly Bengal tiger.

Though I am ashamed to say I have not read Life of Pi, I know it has always been regarded as one of the many ‘unfilmable’ novels. However with such a visionary director such as Ang Lee at the helm I was confident this would be in safe hands. Ang Lee has certainly directed films of a diverse range of genres, as well as several novel adaptations, that have been in many occasions extremely visual films. For example I personally thought that though Brokeback Mountain was an intimate story, it was an extremely visual film and some the beautiful shots in that film of the scenery added so much to the story and emphasized so many of its key themes. I have been told that Life of Pi is a novel extremely rich in imagery that works so much better as a description (hence, unfilmable), and so this novel and Ang Lee should be a match made in heaven.

In my opinion Ang Lee does not disappoint and this is very much his film. It is quite clear that every shot was made in painstaking detail with his heart and soul put into it. Life of Pi contains some of the most captivating and engrossing imagery you will ever see in a film that completely sweeps you away. Pi’s companion throughout the film, the Bengal tiger by the name of Richard Parker (explained why in the film) is yet another triumph of computer animation in film. Just like in Rise of the Planet of the Apes (Rupert Wyatt, 2011) these are characters truly brought to life. Though Richard Parker is of course a CGI tiger, there are so many almost human-like emotions contained within him that we feel a genuine attachment and affection for him.

However, though a deeply visual film Life of Pi is in no way style over substance, within these rich visuals are also some deeply emotive human themes throughout that keep the viewer gripped and involved till the poignant end. Kahn gives an understated performance as the adult Pi evoking many thoughts within us that question our beliefs and make us believe in the sometimes unbelievable. Newcomer Sharma gives a solid performance as the Pi we see throughout most of the film, being believable as someone who could survive in this situation and develop such a personal bond with an essentially wild deadly animal. The relationship between Pi and Richard Parker is the emotional centrepiece of this film which keeps us enthralled until the very end, they both become characters who we care about and the developments in their relationship is both compelling and involving.

Life of Pi becomes a very intimate and personal experience for the viewer in which we ask ourselves some poignant questions about what we believe in. The film covers many themes on belief and miracles; however it is never preachy and leaves enough ambiguity that shows respect for the viewer to make up their own minds in what they want to believe in. What is also a very impressive achievement is that Lee has created a film that has enough different elements to appeal to people of all generations. My only real criticism is that the film becomes a little too over sentimental and schmaltzy towards the end, losing a little sight of the bigger themes that play a huge part of the narrative, but this is an extremely minor problem and never hinders the emotional involvement.

Life of Pi is an unforgettable experience that successfully combines breathtakingly grand visuals as well as containing many intimate and involving themes. This is truly ambitious film making showing that Ang Lee’s Oscar was thoroughly deserved.

Posted in All Film Reviews, Blockbusters | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

LES MISÉRABLES (Tom Hooper, 2012) viewed on 5/3/13

Posted on March 7, 2013 by MoodyB

Les Mis

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway

You may like this if you liked: Dancer in the Dark (Lars Von Trier, 2000), Evita (Alan Parker, 1996), Les Misérables (Bille August, 1998)

Pretty much everyone has apparently seen the stage production of Les Misérables (though I am not one of them) so there is not too much need to dwell on the plot. Basically, in 19th century post revolution France a prisoner by the name of Jean Valjean (Jackman) is released from prison and breaks the grounds of his parole to start a new life assuming a new identity as a wealthy factory owner. As one of his factory workers Fantine (Hathaway) is dying, Jean who feels partly responsible for her demise vows to take care of her daughter, Cosette. Throughout this time Jean has been pursued by lifelong enemy and ruthless policeman Javert (Crowe). Jean and Cosette leave to start a new life together which takes the story to Paris with a grown up Cosette amongst the back drop of the June rebellion of which Jean unwittingly becomes involved in, along with Javert.

Musical films are a strange beast and sometimes work and sometimes fail miserably (no pun intended). The fact is that stage and screen are different mediums and for Les Misérables to work Tom Hooper was going to have to use the tools that a film can use that stage does not have at its disposal so it stands out and actually feels cinematic. In my personal opinion Les Misérables is a rousing success and cinematic achievement, and certainly indescribably better than the god awful completely spoken 1998 film. One of the major reasons this can stand out as a film is that the story and themes within it are very strong and what this produces on the screen is an epic and deeply involving story that is both grand and intimate.

For the more intimate and emotional scenes Hooper uses the tricks film has to offer by using extreme close ups and single takes to really convey the desperate emotion that these characters are feeling. For the more dramatic action sequences there is the feel of a rousing epic to compete against any classic epic film. Hooper’s attention to detail and obvious passion for this film is there to see throughout. His insistence that unusually the actors are physically singing on set is an inspired choice as when they hit those dramatic notes we feel and share their physical and mental pain. The performances are all excellent and really tug at the heart strings, especially Hathaway and Jackman. A lot has been said about Russell Crowe’s singing, in my view he was not that bad and certainly better than Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia. In my view none of them have amazing voices, but the fact is that they are first and foremost actors and here to act, it is probably the case that those performing Les Misérables on stage would struggle to give such a convincing performance on the screen.

My only real criticism of Les Misérables is that of structure and length. In the final third the structure of the film tends to struggle and feels a little disjointed.  At 158 minutes, it is still shorter than the stage version, but I feel the film would have benefitted from having at least another 20 minutes shaved off. With no interval the film does start to feel emotionally exhausting and there are many points in the final third where the story feels like it is dragging and there are in my opinion many of the slower scenes here that add nothing to the story. However, the rousing finale is extremely satisfying and involving. Also Les Misérables is not all doom and gloom as Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter provide effective comic relief as scheming Inn owners. However their characters are also integral to certain plot developments so they do not feel like are just there as add-ons.

Les Misérables is a cinematic triumph that is both deeply involving and spectacularly epic. It does require effort so if you are looking for something easy to watch it would be best avoided for that, especially as the final third drags in places. If you are willing to invest your time and effort into it, then it is a very emotionally rewarding experience.

 

 

Posted in All Film Reviews, Blockbusters, The Best of 2013 | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment