2012. Dir: Christopher Nolan. Starring: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway. ●●●○○
Last week I admitted to being lazy, this week I'm going to admit to being a coward. I've been holdign back on my The Dark Knight Rises review because my opinion may be unpopular. So here we are, three weeks too late, I didn't much like the closing chapter to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. I felt it to be an ambitious, glorious piece of film-making sadly let down by an overstuffed, incoherent and dull plot. It is both an improvement and a let down compared to Nolan's previous work and I only hope he pares down his narrative fancies for whatever non-chiropteran project he works on next.
Seven years have past since the thrilling climax of The Dark Knight when Bale’s Batman took the fall for Harvey Two-face Dent’s murderous rampage and Gotham has radically changed. The Dent act, which allows draconian charging for organised syndicates has virtually destroyed the Falcone family interests and created a crime free zone, whilst an arrest warrant sits over Batman’s head. Bruce Wayne, with no crime to fight, has sunk into a deep depression, brooding over the death of Rachel Dawes and shut off from all society; an effort to create a cold fusion generator macguffin was thwarted when a Hungarian scientist pointed out how easy it was to turn it into a bomb and the entire R&D budget has been sunk in keeping the device, handily stored under the city, leaving Wayne industries close to insolvency, all in all things are not looking good for Batman.
Yet something under the city is stirring, gangs of youths are disappearing into the sewers, lulled by the promise of jobs still denied to the Gotham underclass. A few switched on cops led by aging Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and angry young pup (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are imagining the worst and wondering when the bat signal will once again need to be turned on. Even sophisticated jewellery thief Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) knows enough to spout warnings of a war coming, an inexorable tide that will bring the rich and powerful of the city tumbling to the streets. Yet even Kyle isn’t completely prepared for the changes, because it’s no campaigning Victorian with concerns about social harmony, nor is it the financial meltdown the real world has experienced, Gotham has a more substantial foe, international terrorist and towering brute Bane (Tom Hardy in a mask) is about to reveal himself as Gotham’s reckoning.
Two paragraphs of exposition on and I’ve yet to mention other key characters brought forward from previous movies (Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy) and new batch (Marion Cotillard, Matthew Modine, Tom Conti, Ben Mandelsson) all of whom almost have story arcs of their own to get through, even if the arc precludes the possibility of character development. Inevitably many of actors get shafted in the screen play, we've seen plenty of Morgan Freeman's witty and taciturn technogeek, and not just in this trilogy, but Marion Cotillard who really should make an impact in order to justify her ropey romance with Bale and her third act journey, yet Miranda Tate is always a cypher to the audience, seemingly there only to give the fanboys something to shout about at the end.
Instead of the supporting cast Nolan turns the camera back on the Batman, returning to the story of a scared orphan falling down in order to learn how to get up, an angry child emotionally scarred by his parents untimely death and his battle to clean up the streets. It's thematically linked to the first film in that examination of Bruce Wayne's psyche and the surrogate parental relationships formed with butler, Alfred, and Liam Neeson's Ra's al Ghul and the infamous League of Shadows.
Against this most introspective of comic book hero's it takes a really special performance to steal the limelight, and alas Tom Hardy's Bane whilst superficially fulfilling the flipside to Wayne - a man who started with nothing intent on destroying the world order rather than protecting it not to mention the yin and yang of their masks - is given so little to do about from a couple of rousing, only just decipherable speeches and a chance to pummel the Batman. Indeed Bane is able to build an army and mount a revolution yet the audience aren't given a chance to understand what makes his men follow him, not just into battle but also to a sacrificial alter.
When considering the film I find myself constantly returning to Bane, his plan and his motives. Each time I confuse myself more and more, did Bane want to stir up a revolution to overturn corrupt capitalist society, or was the whole thing a ruse to get Batman so riled up he crawls out of a hole? Doesn't Bane and his key accomplices know the bomb will explode? Did Nolan not think it would be interesting to see the results of Bane's tyrannical overthrow, or was a montage of the rich being thrown out of their hotels enough to satisfy? It's not even as if the politics of the film hit the zeitgeist, Bane doesn't represent the 99% as he's pushing not for equality of opportunity and social justice but another kind of inequality. Even the attack on Gotham's own stock exchange isn't to break the bank but to make some high value transactions of his own. It's the filmic equivalent of Robespierre and Idi Amin keeping the masses in place by routinely executing the old order and redistributing wealth with reckless abandon.
Thank God for Anne Hathaway, from the moment she appears on screen her cat-burglar (geddit???) steals every scene, by turns vulnerable, playful and vindictive, she's the proof Nolan could help create significant, rounded female characters (sorely missing from most of his back catalogue).
Technically this film delivers in spades. Wally Pfister knows how to use IMAX cameras like no-one else in the business, there were times I was as giddy as a school-girl watching the camera work. Lindy Hemmings costumes, always a highpoint of the series once again impress, from the stylish duds of Gotham's partying rich to Gary Oldham's cardies and from the utilitarian suggestion of cat to Anne Hathaway's suit to Bane's coat, which I fully expect to see everywhere this winter.
Overall though I have to say it doesn't matter how much I try to big up the successes in The Dark Knight Rises, the bar was simply too high to climb. Flawed and unwieldy this is not the closing episode any of us wanted and I can really only recommend it to fans of the Batman.
Thursday, 9 August 2012
The Dark Knight Rises
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
One Day
2011. Dir: Lone Scherfig. Starring: Anne Hathaway, Jim Sturgess, Patricia Clarkson, Rafe Spall and Ken Stott. ●●●○○
One Day is a beloved book. David Nicholl's 2009 romantic novel spent an age at the top of the best-selling lists, won the 2010 Galaxy book of the year and inspired dozens of books clubs to cluck over the changing fortunes of Em and Dex. I hated it, but it succeeds at what it tries to achieve.
The 2011 page to screen adaptation has crashed and burnt on the international box office, taking just $21m so far in global sales and failing to even achieve the number one spot in the UK. Fans of the novel have nitpicked over every details, loathing the cuts and despairing of Anne Hathaway's accent. I liked it, but it fails to hits it's goals.
I say all this to illustrate the massive gap between the written word and cinematic art, between our expectations of literature of film, between each patrons empathy and understanding of the characters and situations presented. Or one man's meat is another man's poison.
The central conceit of the novel is that it follows our soulmates over 20 anniversaries of their first meeting, catching up with their trials and tribulations by presenting their thoughts on each St. Swithin's Day between 1988 and 2008. In the novel there is political and cultural parallels to the death of yuppieism and disillusionment with New Labour which are jettisoned for the film and replaced with sly commentary on changing fashion and technological advances (curiously though Emma local swimming baths remain freakishly unchanged for the majority of the films running time, no neo-facist supergym identity or slide concessions there).
Although plenty of experience of romantic comedy staples will ensure all readers/viewers are keenly aware Em and Dex are meant to be together they both drift aimlessly away from each other for the majority of the novel, delving into increasingly unsuitable relationships and experiencing alternating highs and lows of personal and professional success. Only in the final reel when Dex has had fatherhood thrust upon him and Em finds hidden layers in confidence through her children's novels can either character grow up and admit to the mutual attraction and the necessary compromises and strains in any relationship. In the novel we get an insight into the motivations of the central couple, experience their inner monologues each year to feel their yearning, and yet oddly it's only in the film that I fully appreciated the relationship had to wait for 17 years before it had a ghost of a chance of succeeding, that until then it would have failed.
That success lies in the casting of the central couple. Anne Hathaway has form playing the intelligent girl refusing to trade on her looks (Devil Wears Prada, to some extent Love and Other Drugs), and indeed she doesn't disappoint, underplaying the caustic Em and allowing the vulnerability to shine through. (To address the elephant in the room the accent was fine, inconsistent but only in a "I have a regional accent that I'm ashamed of" way which worked in the context of a de-politicised movie but would not have been the accent of the Trotskyite anti-war demonstrator we have in the novel). Sturgess too is on top form, humanising the frankly ghastly Dexter, a character I despised in the novel, his haunting eyes remind us through the 'Largin' It' period of ultra-excess that underneath the coke-snorting swagger there's a little boy who's lost his ability to communicate with real people.
Rafe Spall is also deservedly picking up plaudits as Emma's long term boyfriend Ian, a failed stand-up with a manic desire to please and an instinctive shuffling presence. Although like in the novel there's little explanation to why the couple ended up settling for each other as both seem to be aware there's no future in the relationship. Ken Stott also does a fine job as Dex's father, stand-offish and decidedly British the one to one he has with Dex at the end is knowing and full of acceptance of their shared experiences.
Why then, if the performances are generally so good, does this film fail? It's purely because Nicholl's has adapted it from his highly acclaimed book. Being keenly aware of the fans delight in seeing their favourite scenes and hearing their favourite quotes he over-indulges their fantasies retaining the idealised language and packing in the most delicious incidents. And whilst pronouncements such as "If I could give you just one gift, do you know what it would be? Confidence. That or a scented candle." or "I love you, Dex, so much. I just don't like you anymore." are just as delightful on the screen as you would hope the average five and a bit minutes per year gets exhausting. By messing with the timelines and reducing the number of visits, as sacrilegious as that sounds, might has eased that tension. Really what was the point of playing "Where are you Moriaty?" without any understanding of the rules or context of the game, except to please the hardcore fans, and when a year is reduced to three strokes in the pool you have to wonder why it was worth even putting up the graphic.
Spoilers in the net paragraph - I couldn't think of another way of explaining my dislike of one one plot element.
I also have a big problem with the ending of the film, no not 2006 with it's crushing inevitability, but the storyline that links 05 to 06, given the lack of time spent on Em's maternal ambitions and the weight of the final conclusion it seems like a faked pass in very poor taste.
Spoilers over now.
Lone Scherfig directs with the same crisp detachment that she made An Education but without the purposeful plot of her previous films more was needed to keep the audience engaged.
Overall whilst One Day is nice enough and a passable way to spend a lazy afternoon it can only really be considered as a disappointment to the legion of book-lovers to whom this adaptation was squarely aimed.
Friday, 8 April 2011
Bird in Paradise (Out this week - 08/04/11)
It certainly isn't a classic week, with the box office clash between 2 animated behemoths, neither of which are in any way aimed at me, and a selection of horror, low-rent sci-fi and Bollywood entries packing them in. Personally I doubt I'll be bothering with the cinema this weekend - far too busy - however because it's tradition the film of the week will be Rio.
Rio
It's unlikely to turn many heads or to be remembered as we draw to the years close, but this colourful CGI creation could provide adequate laughs for the small ones. Jesse Eisenberg is a nervy Maccaw unable to fly, Anne Hathaway the only female of the same sub-species - sounds like justification for arranged marriages. The supporting cast includes Jamie Foxx.
Runs like a Gay Excitometer: ●●●●●○○○○○
Silent House
Haunted house picture from Uruguay, supposedly based on a true story, and filmed in one continuous take. I would question from the trailer whether the title is accurate, as the house in question seems to be harbouring a vast amount of noise.
Runs like a Gay Excitometer: ●●●●○○○○○○
Mars needs Moms
The Robert Zemeckis produced mo-cap 3D comedy which may end up being most predominantly remember for crashing at the US box office bring down Zemeckis' plan to remake Yellow Submarine and providing the tipping point for the collapse of 3D predominance. Joan Cusack is the Mom the Martians want.
Runs like a Gay Excitometer: ●●●○○○○○○○
Rubber
Inventive horror which gives sentient life to an abandoned car tyre out for revenge. Oddly I saw a similar short several years ago which had a romance storyline and I do wonder if these are related? I also wonder if the surreal starting point can be maintained for over 20 minutes?
Runs like a Gay Excitometer: ●●●○○○○○○○
Thank You
Moralistic romantic Hindi comedy about a group of lads serial womanizing behind their wives backs ho suddenly get a dose of reality from the independent women. I expect the pathos and laughs will be evenly dolled out and that everyone will be happy when the credits roll.
Runs like a Gay Excitometer: ●●●○○○○○○○
Tomorrow, When the War Began
Aussie invasion movie, with a group of teens returning from a camping/wild drinking party to find their neighbourhood turned into a guerilla-type war zone and they form a resistance army to protect the home town. Probably not realistic in the slightest, apparently this is the first in an intended trilogy.
Runs like a Gay Excitometer: ●●●○○○○○○○
Vanaam
Tamil remake of Vedam - no I hadn't heard of it either - which follows five different narratives until they merge into one terrifying climax. The trailer implies plenty of action, and lots of characters crying.
Runs like a Gay Excitometer: ●●●○○○○○○○
Roommate
Or Single White Female for the college crowd, only not as inventive or interesting. This house share horror someone topped the US charts for a week earlier in the year, but do not expect similar returns in to UK, it's actually been screened to critics hear and they're making their opinions heard.
Runs like a Gay Excitometer: ●●○○○○○○○○
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
20 for 2011: 10 - One Day
Moving into our top ten we have literary adaptation One Day.
After the critical and commercial set back that was Love and Other Drugs Anne Hathaway is in dire need of a rom com success story, and this could just be it. Set over a period of 20 years David Nicholl's self adapted screenplay follows Emma (Hathaway) and Dexter (Jim Sturgess) on every St. Swinthins day as their lives intertwine and the romance they should have had drifts apart and together again. It's a delicious concept about fate and patience and making the best of what you have - both of them get involved in hideously inappropriate relationships along the way.
Unfortunately I recently read the novel and by the end I simply couldn't care about the characters. The traits Nicholl gives them to make them rounded or more realistic are just about enough to ensure both of the leads are irritating. Hopefully the screen version has managed to tidy this up - I hope so for Anne sake.
To my shame this is the only film in the 20 most anticipated directed by a woman, An Education helmer Lone Scherfig. Sarah Polley's Take this Waltz and Catherine Hardwicke's Red Riding Hood just missed the cut. Should I have included anything else?
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Love and Other Drugs
2010. Dir: Ed Zwick. Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway, Oliver Platt, Hank Azaria and Josh Gad. ●●●○○
If the thought of seeing lots of Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway in the buff was what attracted to you to Love and Other Drugs then I have to say you won't be totally disappointed, there are boobs and bums all over the place, but not once does the flesh on screen seem gratuitous, indeed it's a film focussing on a relationship that (initially anyway) is based purely on the sexual connection and - forgive me if I'm unnatural - generally you're naked when you're having sex. The fact that I'm talking about the nudity at this point is rather odd, the film has been marketed heavily on the premise that Jake and Anne are naked a lot and this may well have clouded what this story is all about.
Here is where I agree with the marketing team, you can't isolate one strand that the film is about because it tries to be so many things it ens up falling over trying to please itself. It's a sex comedy, an expose of the pharmaceutical industry and Love Story rehash all in one; and that simply doesn't all gel together.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays Jamie Randall, master salesman and legendary lover, who meets bohemian waitress Maggie Murdock (Anne Hathaway) and whilst he's climbing up the greasy pole of pharmaceutical sales just around the introduction of Viagra she's coping with early onset Parkinson's disease (not that you can tell apart from the odd finger wiggle). They both start off not wanting a fully fledged relationship because they're both terrible afraid of bing abandoned but of course one develops and then they must learn to cope with the way things are.
Most of the satirical parts work well, Gyllenhaal and Oliver Platt as his supervisor, have a wonderfully crass on-screen chemistry and you they are scenes when you truly wonder how far these companies will go to ensure their product is prescribed. Enter Hank Azaria as a horndog doctor whose medical ethics extend to lying to patients, accepting bribes and prescribed whichever drug that the company will guarantee him getting laid. He has a nice speech about integrity later in the flm, utterly wasted in the background of a pajama party. In fact these sections come across as a medical Thank you for Smoking and perhaps had director Ed Zwick, who's TV experience with comedies such as "thirtysomething" and "My so-called life" has proved very useful.
The other sections don't work nearly as well. Hathaway simply doesn't convince as a Parkinson's patient, as a reluctant lover or even as a waitress. There's also a scene with real sufferer's talking about their illness which frankly belongs in another movie.
You wonder if the whole thing would have worked better if Maggie was just a girl disgusted by the industry who slowly taught Randall the error of his ways? (And yes I know it's based on a true story but surely they could have ignored that part for the sake of dramatic cohesion).
Overall I would say this is part of a good movie, interesting to get an insight into drug culture and miles above any other romantic comedy I've seen this year, but messy unfocused and stretched too far to work.
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Alice in Wonderland
2010. Dir: Tim Burton. Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway and Crispin Glover. ●●●○○
Back on the 5th March the 2010 year of film really started, sure I had seen 8 films in cinemas already, but Alice in Wonderland was the first of my top 20 films for 2010, it was among the elite that had sparked my attention before the year had even vaguely begun. I am sad to say that it was also the first minor disappointment from that list.
Effectively this is a sequel to Lewis Carroll's well-loved children's nonsense novels in which Tim Burton - notably backed by Disney - returned Alice (Mia Wasikowska - Defiance) to a Underland torn apart with civil strife. With Alice recast as a saviour to the populace, forever destined to slay the Jabberwocky.
It all begins with an utterly pointless and ill-conceived bookend involving a snotty suitor proposing to Alice in front of a crowd of unpleasant toffs. Naturally these segments are there to show how our heroine fails to fit into the real world, and how she grows in confidence to be able to confront these caricatures by the end of the film. It's a dreadful idea but at least it's mercilly quick.
Running away from the problem leads Alice to fall back down the rabbit hole, having forgotten her previous visit she falls into the same mistakes (drinking, eating, leaving keys on tables etc.) as the last time, only without the buckets of tears. Of course she meets all the characters we know and love from the books, including the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), The Red and White Queens (Helena Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway) and The Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), as well as a host of British establishment actors in the other roles (Matt Lucas, Michael Sheen, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Imelda Staunton).
This being a 3D kids film there then follows a few chase scenes, some silly jokes and pointy things being pointed at the camera to prove the 3D works. There are some moments of mild peril - crossing the moat or the final confrontation - but on the whole these are pretty tame due to the target audience.
It's hard to know whether it hit the right balance, in excess of $300m in the U.S. receipts seems to indicate it got it right, even when adjusted for 3D premiums. Personally I would have liked to have seen a much scarier version - I think kids can take a lot more fears than we give them credit for - maybe even to the level of Pan's Labyrinth or Tideland both of which clearly owe a debt to Carroll's work. Perhaps a little less action would have been preferable as well. I've found that following too many chase sequences together can be really boring.
On the plus side the design, as you would expect from a Burton film, is fantastic with Art director Stefan Dechant (Avatar) proving once again that he can master an imaginery world. Colleen Atwood's (Silence of the Lambs, Big Fish) costumes were also first class, although frankly I would have been surprised if she hadn't pulled it off here.
I would also like to congratulate two of the performers who really stood out for me, and I don't include Johnny Depp whose performance was utterly baffling. The first was a triumph of casting in Barbara Windsor as the Dormouse, capturing the fierceness of the animated character (even if it wasn't in keeping with the origins). The second was Helena Bonham Carter, who clearly relished in every moment of her screentime, some of her line readings were absolutely delicious ("I do like a fat pig to keep my feet warm", anyone?) and i would glady watch the film again just to see her.
Overall I would say this was a missed opportunity, but enough moments work for it to be worth a visit.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Valentine's Day
2010. Dir: Garry Marshall. Starring: Ashton Kutcher, Jennifer Garner, Julia Roberts, Jessica Biel and Jamie Foxx. ●○○○○
I'm thinking perhaps the rating is a little harsh. Valentine's Day, for all it's many faults, did not make me angry. I did not consider asking for my money back, nor was I shouting at the screen at the iniquity of it. Unlike one film I went to see this year I was not seething afterwards. However it is a really bad movie - utterly inedt - to call it amateur would be an insult to amateur productions.
Let me explain: Valentine's Day follows an inderterminable group of LA'ers as they make their way through the romantic entanglements during the feast of St. Valentine. Naturally, as is always the case with large cast dramas, they all interlink on at least a superficial level (sometimes the level of co-incidence is unbearable) and they all have different feelings or experiences that relate to love. When taken as a whole we, as an audience, are meant to better understand the meaning and consequences of that four letter word. This movie ultimately wants to be an American Love, Actually and at this it fails spectacularly.
If you read on, please not this review has many many spoilers...
Why? Well I re-watched Richard Curtis' film to try and understand why one is charning, if lightweight, and the other is charmless. Here are the reasons I can find:
1. Passage of time. Whereas Love Actually (herein referred to as LA) takes place over a month Valentine's Day (VD, chuckle chuckle) crams the entire process within approximately 18 hours. Characters therefore have no time to consider things and grow, relationships don't develop they just happen. For instance Ashton Kutcher proposes to girlfriend Jessica Alba before breakfast, but they've split by the end of the working day. On hearing his wife has had an affair Hector Elizondo is so cut up it takes all of three hours to forgive her.
2. Thematic consistency. At the beginning of LA it sets up the airport arrival gate as a place to see love, then ends by showing that. In VD there doesn't really seem to be any flow. Events just happen at random. The only difference between the beginning and the end is that the scenes are shorter and the cuts quicker.
3. Demographics. I'm not so concerning about the ethnicity of the protagonists, as LA was virtually all white too (and this could have been easily fixed) but I did notice how beautiful everyone was. Essentially if you're not thin, silky haired and young you're doomed to spend VD alone. Where were the people like us? With a few extra inches on the waist and a few more grey hairs that we once had? I know Hollywood is always obsessed with beautiful people but when they're being paraded one after another it gets too much.
4. Unhappy endings. There shouldn't be many, but in a multi-character drama some stories will end badly. In LA Laura Linney and Andrew Lincoln do not get to experience a fulfilling and complete love. VD doesn't dare to give any major characters anything other than the type of happiness they want. Nobody really ends up alone (except for Patrick Dempsey's cheating doctor but he does deserve it for being a love cheat). This is dramtically uninteresting.
5. Set your jokes up. All of the jokes in VD are one line zingers (and nearly all of them appear in the trailer). Lines like "Young Love, full of promise full of hope ignorant of reality" are OK but it's nothing compared to the set up and then pay-off of Kris Marshall stateside holiday or even the goofball pidgeon Portuguese that Colin Firth launches into in LA. By slowly developing towards a punchline then the jokes will be funnier and we will remember them better - trust me.
6. Make it for adults. Why make a film about love and sex and make it PG-13? Why why why. It limits the jokes and the situations. If a scenario is meant to appeal to adults make a film for adults to enjoy and not one for kids.
7. Believeability. If you're going to have a situation that doesn't seem very likely make it completely off the wall (such as a Prime Minister caught kissing at a school nativity or a faded rock star having a Christmas number 1). Don't have a florist which appears to employ over 15 people (I've been to lots of florists and I've never seen one with mre than 3 staff) - and on that why were there Nuns buying flowers on VD? I would also like to object about the Football stars coming out, but more on that later*.
I could go on.
There were some minor elements I enjoyed. Jessica Biel is a surprisingly nice comic actress and I hope she gets a decent film to show that off in (was Nailed ever completed?) and Hector Elizondo stood out for me (his reaction to Emma Roberts annoucement is priceless).
The flowers were also generally gorgeous and well chosen to go with the giver and the given, so thanks to whoever sourced those.
In spite of not hating the film with so much wrong with it all I can do is give Valentine's Day, a well deserved 1 out of 5 rating.
*Please see next post.
Saturday, 16 January 2010
20 for 2010 - Love and Other Drugs
Getting ever closer to the top spot with the 3rd place Love and Other Drugs.
One of the reasons, oh go on then it's the main reason, that I want to see Ed Zwick's latest film is residual love for Brokeback Mountain. Here we have Jack and Lureen Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway) reuniting; only this time they will actually fall in love - no beards necessary. Both of the two have proven themselves capable of a wide range of roles and I suspect both have fans who would be prepared to watch them sit and read the phone book.
There other reasons to get excited. For starters Ed Zwick may be best known for his bombastic historical dramas, but lets remember he cut his teeth producing television dramadies like "thirtysomething" and "My So-Called Life". This experience will be extremely helpful in adapting Jamie Reidy's bestselling memoir about his life as a drug salesman during the advent of Viagra.
Which leads nicely to the fact that this is a film about drugs and sex. With lots of viagra jokes. There must be some laughs to be had in there.
There's also a top notch supporting cast, with Hank Azaria, Judy Greer and Oliver Platt among many others.
Although saying that the main reason I'm anticipating this so much is still Jake and Anne. (Especially Jake)
Monday, 11 January 2010
20 for 2010 - Alice in Wonderland
If the combination of "Tim Burton" and "Reimagining" makes you shudder then turn away from my number 7 - Alice in Wonderland.
There are few directors and subjects that go together as well as Tim Burton and Lewis Carroll's delightful nonsense novel Alice in Wonderland. The twisted logic of the original stories sit easily with the gothic sensibilities of the man behind Edward Scissorhands and Sleepy Hollow.
Taking an original slant on the story the films takes up with Alice (played by Mia Wasikowska) some ten years after her previous trips behind the looking-glass, previous trips which she, curiously, can't remember. Running away from a society where she feels seperate and unable to fit in she once again follows a White Rabbit (Michael Sheen).
The totally CGI Wonderland is filled with strange and incredible characters ranging from the gentle (The Dormouse) to the pshychotic (The Red Queen, played by Burton's missus Helena Bonham Carter). Allying herself with Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter and Anne Hathaway as the White Queen, Alice must overthrow the Red Queen and end her tyrannical grip over Wonderland society.
It's the first time Burton has delved with CGI to this extent, so it's going to be fascinating what he makes of it, and the 3D seems to be acutely aware that it's job is to throw things at the audience. The trailer makes this abundently clear.
The strong, mainly British, cast also makes this a potential delight. How often will you get the chance to see Alan Rickman, Stephen Fry, Christopher Lee and Matt Lucas in the same film.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
2009 in Review - Best Actress
In the other three categories there are fillers - I will admit that. I have only seen 42 films, so there have been performances that probably should have been put aside for greater achievements. I don't think that is the case for Best Actress, in fact I could have easily done a top ten with tremendous performances.
1. Maria Heiskanen - Maria Larssons Eviga Ogonblick(Everlasting Moments). By far the most moving performance I saw this year was by a little known Swedish actress in a art-house release that I almost missed at the cinemas. Playing an abused wife, who falls in love with another man but does nothing about it, she ripped my heart in two. 
2. Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married. We may have seen Anne's boobs in the past but this was the film where she truly performed as an adult. Playing the destrutive sister of the titular bride, Anne was a torrent of self-pity and rage with an undercurrent of pure guilt. Excellent.
3. Sasha Grey - The Girlfriend Experience. A deeply unsettling and naturalistic performance where all we see are the layers a professional hooker places around herself. Throughout the film we see them falling apart, and the impact that has on the understanding of your own identity.
4. Michelle Pfeiffer - Cheri. The second courtesan of the list, with Pfeiffer playing someone who knows her best days are behind her and enters into her final doomed love affair. No-one does brittle like Michelle, and the look into the mirror at the close of the film tells us everything we need to know about her future.
5. Abbie Cornish - Bright Star. We end with more doomed love affairs - this time separated by society and by death. Abbie's Fanny Brawne is unafraid to announce her passions to the world (and to do some first class sulking) and this confidence is striking in the final performance.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Anne Hathaway
Happy Birthday to
Anne Hathaway
27 today
Anne has a lot to prove in 2010. After her Oscar nod for Rachel Getting Married last year the next couple of films - the excreable Bride Wars, straight to video Passengers - were a major disappointment. Coming up are romantic ensemble piece Valentine's Day, Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (pictured) and a second pairing with jake Gyllenhaal in Love and Other Drugs. If she doesn't knock it out of the park in at least the thrid one I'll be transferring my affections elsewhere.
