Review: The Artist

Much as I'd like to be able to protest otherwise, I'm not actually much of an artistic, cultured person; I'm more...Northern. I do read a lot, and I've been known to enter a theatre, and I like Shakespeare, but I also love Harry Potter, consider The Full Monty one of the best films ever made and rarely wear anything besides jeans and a t-shirt. Thus, I only went to see The Artist because I thought I SHOULD, rather than because I actually WANTED to. It's been nominated for a bunch of Oscars, everyone's talking about it, it's a modern classic, blah, blah, blah. Silent movies are way past old - nobody ventures away from ovens to cook over a fire do they? So why go back to an outdated method of movie-making?

And here's where I eat my words.

Whilst I didn't think that The Artist was perfect, the fact that it was silent was virtually irrelevant - you barely noticed it, and when you did it was in a deliberate, clever sort of way. Even the plot appeals to the modern viewer -- set in the late 1920s, silent movies are starting to fade out of fashion as the new-fangled Talkies begin to take over Hollywood. George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), a silent-movie megastar, refuses to adapt with the times, and falls from grace in a frankly spectacular fashion through his refusal to let go of the 'artistic' silent movies and make way for the 'puppetry' of Talkies. As he falls, his biggest fan Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) rises - from an extra in a Valentin picture to Hollywood's sweetheart, the speed of her progress matched only by that of George's descent.

Whilst the plot got a bit laborious towards the end, the artistry with which the film has been made is extraordinary. Real love and devotion has gone into this movie, and it's easy to see. The performances are all exemplary, the settings are wonderfully nostalgic and the atmosphere is gloriously old-fashioned. The Artist is - more than anything - an homage to the past. I'm far from a connoiseur of old movies, but even I could see the Errol Flynn in Jean Dujardin's laugh, the Gene Kelly in his tap-dancing and the Audrey Hepburn in Berenice Bejo's coy smiles.

I think this film is remarkable because it's so different, rather than because it's particularly groundbreaking. But there's nothing wrong with that, and I'd thoroughly recommend The Artist to anyone, however dubious they are.

The Green Mile

So the other night, my flatmate and I decided to watch a film, and she said she wanted to watch The Green Mile. I, after making a couple of feeble it's-too-long, I'm-too-tired excuses, gave in and stuck it on.

This is the second and a half time I've watched it, the first being with my mum when I was about fifteen (very poor choice for a mother-daughter girl's night, has to be said), the second I don't really count because it was with several friends and nobody was really paying attention (I hate it when people do that). So it's not like I don't know what's going to happen. It's not like any of it comes as a surprise.

And yet, I still felt my heart pumping, toes curling, legs tensing and tear ducts working overtime at all the appropriate moments. Generally speaking, if I watch a tearjerker with other people, it doesn't make me cry. Generally speaking, if I watch a tearjerker that I know is a tearjerker, it doesn't make me cry. Generally speaking, if I watch a tearjerker I've seen before, it doesn't make me cry. 'Generally speaking', doesn't really apply to this film. I cried like a baby.

And I think it takes a very special kind of film to hit you with that level of emotion several times. This is the only film I've known that has left me emotionally exhausted at the end of it - it's so long, and intense, and touching, and horrifying, and generally compelling.

It's not a film you could (or should) watch over and over again - it's going to be another few years, at least, before I go there again. But it is one of the most touching stories ever filmed, and if you've never seen it I have to tell you that you must - it's a film like no other. And take tissues.

Review: The Three Musketeers

I wrote this for my student newspaper, and thought I'd give you (yes, all of y- well, you, Roz) all the benefit of my opinion as well. :)

It’s never good when the guy selling you tickets at the cinema casually says, “It’s rubbish, by the way.”

This was particularly disappointing as I’d been looking forward to seeing the swashbuckling adventure with Logan Lerman, Matthew MacFadyen, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Milla Jovovich etc. for months. With a cast list like that, and a story that’s been retold so many times, I didn’t think you could go far wrong.

But…well, you can. At the end of the day, this is pretty much one of your standard expensive Hollywood movies; OTT effects, far-fetched plot, horrendously predictable script, overly-camp acting (of which Orlando Bloom in particular was very guilty). You can sympathise with the try-too-hard acting though; it must be pretty difficult to deliver a good performance with a script this dodgy. At several points in the film, it almost felt like you were playing a game of ‘finish the dialogue’ – every other line was some schmaltzy, predictable cliché about love, honour or courage.

However, that said, I did actually enjoy it. This film knows exactly what it is, and it’s not pretending to be a thought-provoking, intelligent drama – it’s just a fun adventure movie. Visually, it’s pretty spectacular – the sets and costumes all look great, and when the special effects aren’t being ridiculous (flying ships in the seventeenth century…really?), they’re very impressive. There are plenty of pretty faces to look at, and the stunt co-ordination was excellent – usually in five-minute sword-fighting sequences I tune out completely, but something exciting happened every ten seconds in these fights, so they really kept your attention.

Is it going to win Oscars? Definitely no. Would I watch it again? Most likely, yes. It’s not a work of art, but it’s easy to watch, it doesn’t work your brain too hard, and it’s plain old good fun. Also, I really fancy about four of the actors, so I'm slightly biased.

Basic summary: if you’re a fan of swashbuckling, predictable, fun, exciting, cliché remakes with a great cast and a ridiculously far-fetched storyline (which I pretty much am), then you’ll love it. Otherwise, best avoided.

Rating: * * * (good)

Review: The Full Monty

I warn you, I'm now at University and so a) have limited access to DVDs and b) can no longer afford cinema (HEARTBREAK), hence the massive gap in posts.

Anyway, on the upside, this means I have a whole new plethora of people to force my favourite films on, because I know it's good for them, even if they don't. Last night's conquest (oh...yeah, rephrase), I mean convert, was my flatmate Lizzi, who was sat down, plied with wine and forced to watch one of the absolute best films of all time - The Full Monty.

For the deprived who have never seen this glorious film, it's set in Sheffield - once the biggest UK provider of steel but, at the time the film is set, having just had most of it's factories shut down. A group of ex-steelworkers get sick of playing cards at the jobclub and, after the Chippendales visit the city, realise that there's a fair bob or two to be earned in stripping, even as a one-off. When the main character - Gaz - is told he has to fork out £700 to keep joint custody of his son, the 'thought' becomes a 'plan', and the 'plan' becomes arguably one of the best British comedies of all time.

You have to see the film to realise why it's so funny - a witty script combined with the superb comic timing of Robert Carlyle, Mark Addy and the gang are pure comedy gold. And not only is it funny, but there are moments of real hearwarming...ness.

It's just amazing, I cannot say enough good things about this film. It's easily in my Top Ten Films Of All Time, so if you ever get the opportunity to watch it, do, and if you have never had the opportunity, create the opportunity.

Basic summary: a laugh-out-loud, well-written, touching and generally brilliant British classic.

Rating: * * * * * (excellent)

Review: Jane Eyre

It's been quite a few years since I read Jane Eyre, which I thought would be a good thing - the story isn't that fresh in my mind and I wasn't going to sit there picking minor faults with the adaptation. In all fairness, there's not much leeway with a story like Jane Eyre, and they were very loyal to my memory of the book. Interestingly, the majority of the story was told in flashback, which - whilst being quite an interesting technique - for me, lost some of the tension that reading the book had. The script was pretty good - nothing special but nothing atrocious - and visually the film was quite beautiful; I'm not sure which stately home they used to Thornfield, but it was a cracking choice, and the costumes (minus a straw hat here and a Little Bo Peep bridal gown there) were good. Some very odd choices were made with the hair...I'm assuming they were trying to make Mia Wasikowska less attractive by giving her an appalling wig with an overly-intricate bun and stupidly curtain-ish bangs. It still didn't make her look plain - just slightly odd.

So on most counts, this adaptation of Jane Eyre was fine. My standard groan that Jane Eyre and Mr Rochester are supposed to be unattractive was founded - at one point Rochester asks Jane if he finds her handsome, to which she replies, "No, sir," - at which most women would reply, "WHY?!?!" But, handsomeness aside, Michael Fassbender was a very convincing Rochester - charmingly rude, broody and forceful, he turned in a good - if not a great - performance. Mia Wasikowska, however, less so. Her performance was much better than in Alice In Wonderland, but I think it's fair to say that isn't saying much. She's clearly attended the Kristen Stewart school of acting, where one facial expression is deemed adequate for every possible emotion. When St John Rivers tells her she looks miserable, my friend whispered, "How can he tell?" There was also a combined flaw of slow-script meeting Wasikowska's going for what might have been naivety, that ended up making Jane look just plain stupid on a couple of occasions.

So, all in all, it was just alright. Nothing to offend, nothing to amaze. In my eyes, the BBC's adaptation of Jane Eyre is considerably superior, despite being five years older.

Basic summary: an averagely intriguing gothic tale of romance and secrets, with nothing to blow you away but perhaps worth a quiet, mindless evening in.

Rating: * * (average)

Review: One Day

I love Anne Hathaway, I really do. I thought it was her performance (amongst others) that lifted The Devil Wears Prada from being very average to a good film, I thought she was hysterical in The Princess Diaries and cannot wait to see her as Catwoman in the new Batman film. The problem is, in One Day she was just completely miscast. As a Northern girl, I was really looking forward to seeing who would be cast as the Leeds-born heroine, Emma Morley, and was surprised and a little miffed to hear it would be Miss Hathaway - reading the book I felt a real affinity for the podgy, Yorkshire, bespectacled, opinionated Emma, and have never felt anything of the kind for the stunningly beautiful, stick-thin, American Anne Hathaway.

I know that when Renee Zellweger was cast as Bridget Jones a similar fuss was made - what about the accent? What about being a bit overweight? What about looking like a NORMAL PERSON, not a Hollywood siren? The difference is that Renee Zellweger not only perfected the accent, she gained a lot of weight and somehow made herself look normal, winning round everyone that criticised her casting. Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, certainly cannot hide her beauty behind a pair of glasses and a bad wig - and nor can she do the accent. Admittedly, a regional Yorkshire accent must be much harder than the standard RP English voice, but she absolutely murders it; occasionally she nails the flattened vowels and glottal stops, but more often than not then slips into posh, clipped pronunciations, and once or twice wandered dangerously close to what seemed to be Welsh.

In her defence, Anne Hathaway does have a way with the one-liners, and certainly makes Emma a likeable - though not as ballsy as her literature counterpart - character. However, it is Jim Sturgess in the part of Dexter who really shines. Sturgess has the arrogant, public-school layabout absolutely nailed, and he somehow manages to make you feel sympathy for a son who loses his mother, irritation with an annoying TV presenter, affection for a lost boy who needs his friend, exasperation with a repeatedly daft lush and attraction to a very charming ladies-man. There are so many layers to the character of Dexter that I actually felt Sturgess portrayed better than the book described. He evoked all the right emotions in all the right places, and had me in absolute floods of tears for the entire final fifteen minutes of the film. It would have been so easy to hate Dexter - and you do, for a while - and so hard to make the audience feel the sympathy and affection that (in the end) he deserves.

The plot itself follows these two characters from their first meeting on 15th July 1988, through the next twenty years, always finding them again on the anniversary of their first fumbled night - St Swithin's Day. I initially thought this meant the characters themselves meet up every July 15th but it doesn't - the viewer is simply shown every July 15th, whether Emma and Dex are together, apart, friends, in dramatic circumstances or living through everyday tedium. It's actually much more interesting that way, and it's a real experiment in characterisation to see what happens to these two friends over twenty years.

The chemistry between Sturgess and Hathaway, I thought, was actually very good. More important than the staggered, eventual romance of the two (for me) was their friendship, and they played it beautifully. I liked the way the book had been adapted (often risky when the author writes the screenplay), staying true to the story but cutting out one or two of the more unappealing sub-plots.

Basic summary: A touching, funny depiction of romance, growing up and - most importantly - friendship. It falls down here and there, but One Day essentially a sweet and endearing rom-com, with a little more to it than the churned-out American chick flicks.

Rating: * * * * (very good)

Review: Captain America

When I heard about Chris Evans being cast as Captain America, I'll admit I was somewhat put-out. Not only did I find it hard to think of him as anything other than a cocky, womanising man-child, but I also felt there should be a one-superhero-only clause in every Marvel actor's contract. It's not exactly a secret that Evans played Johnny Storm in both Fantastic Four films, and my attitude was kind of: "Come on, mate, give someone else a turn."

That said, I think Evans did a great job in the role and take back all my cynical comments. I always thought that Hugo Weaving was an excellent choice to play the Red Skull (or really...any baddie would do), and I was pleasantly surprised at Hayley Atwell's being cast as Peggy Carter -- it's pretty rare that an American film company and American writers decide to turn an American character British. It has to be said that her hourglass figure and chiselled bone structure fits remarkably well in the 1940s background. Tommy Lee Jones also did an excellent job as the grumpy, no-nonsense army leader, Stanley Tucci is invariably brilliant at everything he turns his hand to (be it gay fashionista, shiver-inducing paedophile or kindly doctor. THAT is talent) and Toby Jones is always good value as the bad guy's snivelling sidekick.

Anyway, enough about the actors. The story, it has to be said, followed the Spiderman/Daredevil formula of an Average-Joe guy from a somewhat difficult background being transformed into an impressive superhunk, facing a similarly genetically screwed-up baddie, getting the girl and saving the world. Interestingly, though, Captain America: The First Avenger does have a few differences. Most impressively was the CGI effect of having Chris Evans face superimposed over some short, skinny guy's body - the effect was surprisingly convincing, apart from a few moments of noticing that his head looked too big for his body. Another difference is that he is deliberately turned into a superhuman, for the purpose of the USAs fight against the Nazis (another staple of recent superhero movies). However, then the plot goes back to being a bit formulaic; his abilities are questioned and he is cast aside until proving himself in some massively unlikely but very heroic one-man assault on a top-security Nazi facility. Then he's made the boss, engages in some noble hijinks before a massive confrontation with the uber-bad-guy at the end. The bittersweet ending, though not surprising (clues are dropped from the very first scene), was a bit different, and though it was inevitable and unavoidable, it still depressed me.

Overall, though, I did enjoy the film. One of the things I've consistently loved about the Marvel films - largely the ones gearing up to be Avenger films - are the many references to other in-universe characters and concepts. Howard Stark is one such character, as is the brief appearance of Nick Fury in Captain America: First Avenger, along with the standard Stan Lee cameo that always gets Marvel fans excited.

Basic summary: a pacey, action-packed and exciting superhero movie; not much to surprise you, but plenty to enjoy. Generally good fun.

Rating: * * * (good)