The Last Goodbye

Firstly, I would just like to say that this is the hardest review I have ever written and probably will ever write. It took me a good few days to organise all my thoughts into a coherent opinion, and then I started worrying about writing a review which would still please people, before just giving up and getting down what I wanted to say, possible backlash aside. And I thought I had everything I wanted to say, and then I went to see it again, and a few of my views changed, so I've had to rehash some stuff. So anyway, that is my apology as to why it took me a whole week to get this out, but of course it was going to take some time. And also, it's massively long. You may want to get some refreshments and get comfy before starting this.

Do I have to put a spoiler warning? Surely you've all seen it by now, and if you haven't then you should have read the books anyway so kind of know what's going to happen. If neither of these things applies to you, then what are you doing here?

So, the conclusion to the world's most lucrative film franchise arrives, and it has already broken records around the world. Most of you may as well skip this paragraph, but in case you didn't know (and if you don't then please get off my blog, you uneducated sods), the final film sees our illustrious heroes continuing their search for Voldemort's Horcruxes in their quest to rid the world of his insanity. Expect tears aplenty as some of Hogwarts' favourite characters don't necessarily make it though the epic final battle.

I'll go through this chronologically first. The opening of the film may very well be my favourite of all of them, showing a school nothing like the Hogwarts from previous films, being watched over by Snape, Death Eaters, Dementors and the faithful teachers staying to protect the students who are seen marching diligently and silently in disciplined order. It's very effective, done overlayed with Alexandre Desplat's terrific score, which actually makes you kind of emotional before the film has even properly started.

It then cuts to directly where the last one left off, with Harry, Ron and Hermione recovering at Shell Cottage from their escapades at Malfoy Manor, and continuing their search for the Horcruxes. They quickly plan an ambitious break-in to Gringotts, the wizarding bank, with the help of Griphook the goblin. I have to say that the first part of the film with the break-in does feel a tad slow, not in the sense that no action occurs, because there isn't really one bit in the entire film where there isn't something going on, but in that it seems a little... lackluster. It's as though they know the epic battle is coming and so don't put their full effort into it in a rush to get to the climax of the whole series. However, that scene was pretty much exactly how I pictured it in the book, so I wasn't disappointed per se, it just didn't have that little spark for me. And, it has to be said that Helena Bonham-Carter, playing Hermione playing Bellatrix (confusing much?) was fanstastic, but more on that later, because I have a whole lot to say seperately on the acting.

(sexy!)

We then finally get back to Hogwarts after being away for a whole film-and-a-bit, and the happiness is short-lived, diving straight back into the drama. There is an amazing scene between Alan Rickman's Snape and Maggie Smith's McGonagall, where the two fight it out in an effort to control Hogwarts and defending Harry. I think the subsequent scene of the teachers and Order of the Phoenix putting the defensive spells on the school is one of my favourite, it builds such a sense of anticipation, and it's actually quite emotional knowing what's about to happen to the school, i.e. getting completely destroyed.

I have to dedicate a big chunk of this post to the acting in the film, which is genuinely the best I've ever seen it. I think it is actually the best part of the film, as terrific as all the effects are, as it really brings the human side of the story out, and after ten years (of films, even longer for books!) and eight films, we have all become to invested in the characters that I am relieved to say they have been portrayed brilliantly on screen. I said while I was actually watching the film that Alan Rickman deserves at least an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Snape, who brings audiences of all ages and genders to tears when his backstory is exposed. Rickman has a great deal to do with the fact that Snape has been voted best Potter character several times. There honestly isn't anyone better to play him, and I cried for roughly an hour after his demise. Seriously.

It also has to be said that after severely underusing them in the past few films (actually, pretty much from the second film onwards) some of the other characters get to really shine. Smith clearly has a whale of a time bringing forth the badass side of McGonagall we all knew was there, and she is honestly so cute doing it, something I never thought I'd say about a woman of her age. In this film, she is in my top five characters, she is genuinely superb. Helena Bonham Carter also has to be credited for her performance (performances? I don't know if you would classify it as two), again with her deliciously insane Bellatrix and also as Hermione as Bellatrix after some Polyjuice Potion. She really got all of Emma Watson's mannerisms down, to the point where you nearly forget that is actually isn't Emma Watson herself doing it.

And the main three... well, you can see how they have all actually developed into decent actors. It may have taken some time (Emma Watson, I'm looking at you), but they really are all brilliant here. All three of them get the chance to show true emotion at some points, and it really rubs off on the audience. As ever, Rupert Grint is not really given enough screen time in my eyes (though I may be biased); it seems like the only times he is ever central is after the whole Ron/Hermione moment, whereafter they are seemingly glued to each other's sides. Still, he of course gets all the best one-liners ("That's my girlfriend, you numpty!") and provides the very-needed comic element which does relieve some of the heightened tension. It's nice to see after all this time that all three of them can truly hold their own when it comes to acting, and there was no sign of Emma Watson's infamous eyebrow anywhere I could see. Dan Radcliffe should be especially proud of what he has achieved in this film, where he is very much the dominant role, being the absolute centre of attention as opposed to other films where he maybe wasn't emphasised as much as he should be in the titular role.

And Neville. Ahhh, Neville. He finally gets his moment to shine, and Matt Lewis gets to showcase his acting on a scale he hasn't before. I have often discussed with my friend Lucy (http://twitter.com/#!/lucybarratt_) how we would love to see the whole series rewritten with Neville as the hero because we do not feel he gets the recognition he truly deserves, and his heroic status is for some reason much more epic than Harry's. He really is the hero of the hour, and also has some of the funniest moments (note: goading Death Eaters who cannot cross the bridge for fear of being dissolved, and then finding that those protective enchantments have broken. Hilarious).

I read in another review (I think it was the Total Film one: http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-2) that it's a credit to the series how so many huge actors turn up for the final film when they only have a line or two, sometimes only a word, in which to portray their characters who we have so fallen in love with. And I absolutely agree. They could have quite easily not bothered and the plot would not have been drastically changed by any means, but the film wouldn't have been the same without them all there, so it really is a testament to the film franchise that they all took the time out of their schedules to come and be on screen for only a few seconds, and on behalf of Potter fans everywhere I thank them for making the film feel as authentic as possible.

It is impossible to talk about the film without talking about the effects. They are simply stunning in this film, and during the battle scenes you find that you don't even think about them, that they seem completely natural, as if it's normal to have 20-foot tall giants and animated stone guards walking around. When a film truly transports you into the world in which it is set, where you don't even think "Wow, these effects are amazing" and instead don't even think about them whilst watching because they seem so realistic, that is when it has truly succeeded. On the other hand, don't bother with watching it in 3D if you haven't already. After three minutes you forget it's even in 3D and not in a good way. After seeing it in both 3D and 2D, the former just seems to redundant. It doesn't add anything to the experience, except it makes wiping away tears a little bit harder.

Now onto the really negative bits. It actually pains me that there are enough of them that I have to mention them and I can't just skip over them. Firstly, the amount of detail they left out is actually unacceptable. Being the shortest film in the whole series (how?), I don't understand why they have left out bits which are quite important, for example Dumbledore's whole backstory with Grindelwald and the Deathly Hallows, and Lupin and Tonks' son (only very briefly mentioned which will confuse people who haven't actually read the books - not that I sympathise). I'm sure fans wouldn't have minded, since this is the very last one, if the film was longer - even another half an hour of footage wouldn't make it the longest film in the series. That irritated me. Also, not enough was made out of certain deaths. As much as it killed me just to see him lying on the floor, I wanted to see poor Fred die, which actually surely would have made me commit suicide in the cinema from sheer depression. We glimpse the number of bodies in the Great Hall in another moment of extreme emotion, but it feels like more could have been done to mark momentous deaths.

On the plus side, things which first time round severely umimpressed me actually were much better on second viewing. The epilogue, for example, made me cry with laughter the first time round, and not in a good way. I thought it was ridiculous and really wanted it to end with the scene before, which ended on a really lovely shot of the three main heroes together among the destroyed remains of Hogwarts. Watching again, however, I could fully appreciate how sweet it was, and it was nice to have a bit of closure and see them grown up, even if I still think they look disgusting (Ginny especially). Also, the much-anticipated Ron/Hermione kiss. Since the major catalyst for it happening in the books was cut from the films (S.P.E.W.) I had no idea how they could do it well. And first time round I thought they didn't. I was actually fuming that they did not do that justice, but again, after repeated viewings, it does actually seem quite sweet, even if I don't understand it (they get drenched and therefore must amorously embrace? Ok...). It wasn't as bad as I thought it was, that is the best I can say. Still slightly disappointed, but what can you do?

As ever, I am writing this review whilst listening to the soundtrack, and it is one of my favourites in the whole series. I cannot imagine the pressure Alexandre Desplat (Deathly Hallows Pt 1, The King's Speech, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) must have felt when scoring such an epic film, when the music is so integral to the film, but he did it very well. I know a lot of fans wanted John Williams (Philosopher's Stone, Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban) back, but I don't think he was entirely necessary, and Desplat really did very well. 'Courtyard Apocalypse' is a track which plays during a scene which displays the devestation of the battle and shows the emotion of the fighting going on; it is the music of a spectacular piece of cinematography which shows the impact of the action very well. I applaud his score, I think it's very good and captures all the emotion of scenes brilliantly. If you can listen to a score  by itself and still feel the emotion of the film, it is truly a good one.

I think the true success of this film is that even through the action-packed battle scenes, the human element is still there, and the little moments are what make it truly magnificent. Sure, director David Yates and the whole production team clearly have a great time blowing everything to smithereens and causing absolute carnage in the action department, but it's the more subtle moments that come out top. The wounded being tended to by the teachers and Lavender Brown being mauled by werewolf Greyback remind us of the war aspect, that people still get injured and die but that the survivors stick together and protect the vulnerable. Harry accepting his fate and going to meet death, walking to Voldemort with his lost loved ones by his side is truly a tear-jerking moment and a reminder of the loss he has faced in his life, taking the focus momentarily off the suicide mission he is on. And Snape's whole story is, again, deserving of awards. I like that the film doesn't tone it down for the children, and you really do see the gore (e.g. Voldemort having just killed dozens of goblins and then walking through their blood); it makes it that much more convincing and emotional. A film that can make you feel that many emotions and have them so very genuine is a film which has succeeded.

Verdict: Maybe not the best critically (that accolade is still held by Prisoner of Azkaban), the film does what it needed to do and sends Harry off in style. It is a fantastic production which lets the audience bid farewell to the franchise and, in a lot of my generation's cases, their childhood. I apologise for the overuse of the words "emotion"/"emotional" and, as always, for my excessive use of (brackets), but this time I really feel it was needed.

**** (it kills me that my morals keep me from adding the one more star I want to award it.)

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NYt1qirBWg ("TOGETHER!")

My favourite track from the score: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJYQf9Yl3Ao&feature=BFa&list=ULyz2DtYcDuvg&index=2 (it gives you a taste of what the rest of it is like.)

Also, I couldn't post without adding this. Thanks again Lucy for introducing this to me.

And, another thing which gives me nightmares to think about: http://www.lovefilm.com/features/detail.html?section_name=newsletter&editorial_id=30288&cid=lfnl361tf1t&brand=lovefilm

Mutant Fan And Proud!

It’s been eleven years since the first X-Men film, and therefore eleven years since the last decent one was seen on the big screen. Thankfully, First Class gives a breath of fresh air to a franchise that has seriously deteriorated since the start.

First Class is a prequel set in 1962 telling us the story of the origins of the X-Men, back when Charles Xavier (still with hair and the ability to walk!) was a charming post-graduate from Oxford and Erik Lehnsherr was a Bond-esque assassin intent on getting revenge on the man who killed his mother and experimented on him as a child in a concentration camp. They meet and discover what at first appears to be a kindred spirit in one another, becoming fast friends and uncovering a common enemy in the psychopathic and sadistic Sebastian Shaw, the man Erik had been seeking all his adult life. Gathering a group of young mutants, they set out with the government to stop Shaw and his Hellfire Club from starting World War Three during the Cuban Missile Crisis and killing pretty much every human alive in the process.

Firstly, it has to be said that the acting in this film is unmatched in any of the previous films. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan were Charles and Erik until James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender came along and made them look awful by comparison. McAvoy is incredible as the young Charles who makes the most of his telepathy to seduce women, going through life being quite smug about his ability. He is far cry from the asexual, consistently serious and borderline dull Charles we know from the first three films; in this he is much more fun to start off with, and then we begin to see McAvoy portray his serious side whilst remaining charming and interesting at the same time. McAvoy’s performance makes me laugh, admire, and even cry at one point (really, I did. You’ll understand when you see it, I won’t ruin anything), and I honestly didn’t believe that I could respect him as an actor more than I already did, but I certainly do after seeing this.

Fassbender also is excellent, playing the tortured soul, both physically and mentally, hellbent on seeking revenge on Shaw. He brings a vulnerability to Erik not seen in previous films, as he is still adjusting and developing his power and we see the real torment of his childhood only hinted at in the original film. Like McAvoy, Fassbender portrays Erik in an entirely different way to what we have already seen, not the calm but sinister Magneto in the original series but an angry man just determined to get revenge on those who hurt him as a child. He also, however, brings traces of the later series to his performance as the film progresses; towards the end, we can see some of the mindset that Magneto has in the first films, rather than just the personal vendetta that occupies his character for most of the film.

The other successful performance in this is the one by Kevin Bacon, because you absolutely hate his character, Shaw, from the very start. From experimenting on a young child prisoner to influencing the government to start a war with Russia, he is incredibly sinister from the outset, with no reasoning other that to ensure that only the more worthy mutants exist on earth. However, he completely steals every scene he is in by exuding such calm power over other characters.

Not a lot can be said for anyone else really. Other characters aren’t really that developed, which I suppose is a flaw in the film, though with strong rumours aplenty circulating about another two prequel-sequels after this then I am not too worried about this. I stated in a previous post that I was unsure about the female casting in the film, and this opinion didn’t really change a lot. However, despite what some critics are saying, I thought that January Jones was quite good as the cool Emma Frost/White Queen, the perfect sidekick I thought for Bacon’s Shaw. I actually look forward to seeing more of her in the next films. Jennifer Lawrence and Rose Byrne still failed to impress though. Lawrence’s Raven/Mystique just seemed moody and jealous of Charles’ relationships with others, and any romantic interest in Nicholas Hoult’s Hank McCoy/Beast completely disintegrates relatively quickly. Her one line that appears to be becoming a catchphrase (which I do not approve of) "Mutant and Proud" (see the blog title!) even gets annoying after a while because of the fact it's overused so much. The way she ended the film also annoyed me, but again I won’t ruin it by saying why – all I will say is that the audience won’t relate to her as a character and her motives aren’t really explained, which is frustrating at the end. Byrne, playing the only human main character, Moira McTaggart, seemed to spend most of the time being in awe of the mutants she is working with, and her romantic interest in Charles seems very unnecessary in the film. I know fans of the franchise would be disappointed that she is not Scottish as she is portrayed in the comic books and will miss that international aspect, but that really isn’t important when she isn’t really necessary in the film except for establishing a link between the mutants and the government. With so many other bigger characters in the mutants, she seems to be overshadowed and doesn’t really have a lot to do.

Other performances were acceptable. Nicholas Hoult, playing Beast, was very sweet, up until he completely insulted Raven, and then the audience kind of lose a bit of respect for him. However, his acting throughout is very good, and up until he makes that faux pas, we do feel quite sorry for him, being the one who is picked on all the time for his mutation. The other mutants, like I said, weren’t really explored very much and so there was quite limited screen time for them to prove themselves as worthy characters to the audience. However, most of what I saw I did like. Lucas Till’s Alex Summers/Havok and Caleb Landry-Jones’ Sean Cassidy/Banshee look like they could have a bromance going on in the next films, and their screen time together in certain scenes during the climactic battle are quite good – they seem to have good chemistry going on there.

The cameos in the film have to be applauded. Though they only last for a couple of seconds each, fans of the series will get a kick out of seeing them. Hugh Jackman’s seven seconds on screen was better acted than I have seen in the first four films of the series, and it genuinely made me laugh. He is also the first person to drop the F-bomb in the series, which was also amusing. Rebecca Romaijn also appears briefly, as Mystique tries to seduce Erik and, after being rejected for being too young, shape-shifts into her older self. No, their appearances didn’t bring anything to the story and their sole purpose was to give fans a kick, but they were definitely still worth having in there. The only thing I missed was Stan Lee’s signature cameo as some random member of the public, which we didn’t get this time and was therefore a little disappointing.

I honestly can’t write this review without mentioning the accents of the characters. It seemed like more than half of them were using a different accent to their normal one, which I didn’t mind for the most part – I doubt I would have even picked up on them if I didn’t already know about them. McAvoy did his posh British accent wonderfully, and Hoult was actually quite impressive in his American role. However, I have to comment on Michael Fassbender. He started off so well, quite convincing as a… European, I guess. I don’t really know what accent he’s meant to have, but Ian McKellan uses a British one despite Erik’s German origins, so we’ll go with that. However, it seemed that two-thirds of the way through he just gave up on trying to maintain it, which I really don’t understand. Surely they didn’t film it in chronological order, so I don’t understand why it appears on some days he could do an accent well, and on others he just casually reverted back to his natural Irish accent. Even in the trailers you can hear it, which I’m sure they would have wanted to avoid. What I also don’t understand is how no-one in the whole production seemed to notice and correct him. I have to say though, that instead of being annoying or distracting, it was actually rather amusing, as it seemed to come out during important, serious scenes. And actually, it was rather distracting, but it was thoroughly entertaining, so he is forgiven. Saying all that, I have to credit him for his multilingual skills – he speaks fluently in German and French several times – which he showed off during the film.

The special effects and action sequences are to be applauded too. There is some pretty impressive stuff, from Erik pulling a submarine from the ocean using his powers and Mystique changing her appearance regularly to Emma Frost transforming into diamond form and Azazel (a member of the Hellfire Club who happens to be red. And an alien, so therefore not really a mutant) teleporting rapidly whilst killing soldiers. The climactic battle is very well done, though with everyone fighting each other – it does get a little confusing, with mutants against humans, humans against mutants and mutants against mutants… - it’s a little too chaotic. One of the very few things that actually really got on my nerves though, was Beast after he changes into Beast form. With all the special effects which are very convincing, I couldn’t understand why Nicholas Hoult looked like he was wearing a child’s rubber Halloween mask and costume. It was thoroughly disappointing, and you would think that with all the money they put into special effects in this film they would be able to improve it a little, but no. I didn’t think I’d have to say this, but in this respect The Last Stand actually beats this, insofar as Kelsey Grammer’s Beast was a lot more realistic.

Basically, to sum up, despite it’s teeny tiny flaws, the film is brilliant, and it’s absolutely refreshing to see an X-Men film that is actually worth watching, repeatedly. The new cast and director (Matthew Vaughn, Stardust, Kick-Ass) are exactly what the franchise needed to pick itself up after the shambles of The Last Stand and the hideous Wolverine prequel. This earns my first five star review.

*****

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrbHykKUfTM

Pirates Of Anywhere But The Caribbean: On Stranger Plotlines

Well what the hell was that?

Here is where I would usually put a summary of the plot, but to be honest I don't really know what it is. Cap'n Jack's back doing what he does best: screaming, jumping around rooms, doing that weird jerky thing and embarking on a quest for something mystical. All standard. What I don't understand is anything else. I thought it couldn't get any worse than the third one, but at least that had a purpose, even if it was a jumbled pile of meaningless plot. This one seems to exist just for the fact that they wanted a sequel, and it appears that they threw together a script in about 28 minutes.

There's firstly the setting. As you probably deduced from the title, they don't go anywhere in the Caribbean, defeating the whole title of the franchise; basically, they go on a jaunt of western Europe. Actually, not even that, just Spain and London. Which was my first niggle. There was never any explanation as to the fact they were casually in England in the first place.

Then there's said quest. I didn't understand it. Other than the feared Blackbeard, nobody seemed to have any motive to find the Fountain of Youth other than "well he's looking for it, so I might as well too". Not a reason. The film seemed to take an overly long time to establish the plotline, and Blackbeard, who's supposedly the main antagonist in the film, doesn't appear until a good 45 minutes in. Even then his appearance leaves you with more questions than it answers.
If you aren't familiar with the stories of Blackbeard or the Fountain of Youth, basically it will be very hard to understand. I didn't even get why he could magically control his ship standing still, just with a few hand gestures (it actually made us think "why does he even have a crew if he can man the ship himself without any effort?). And the whole search for the Fountain of Youth doesn't even make sense: Blackbeard wants to find it so that he won't die in the next two weeks, as has been prophecised, but the Fountain doesn't give immortality, so it seems kind of redundant. Basically, the whole quest seems to be there just to give the characters something to do instead of getting drunk and sleeping with prostitutes, which actually would have made for a more entertaining film.
I don't like any of the new characters, really. Penelope Cruz was useless and there was absolutely no chemistry between her and Depp. The only thing that was amusing was the Spanish music that played every time she was on screen, in case we hadn't deduced her nationality from her accent. Then there's Sam Claflin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey (stupid name), slated as the new Orlando and Keira, who were so unbelievably one-dimentional all I could do was laugh at the absurdity of their supposed romance. He was pathetic and needed to man up, and he was also ridiculously flaily for no apparent reason, whereas she was a mermaid-when-in-water-but-a-woman-on-land who just seemed to have one facial expression (mildly worried) and had a total of about 3 lines in the whole film. We were only entertained by them because of their ridiculousness, and they were actually one of the most entertaining aspects of the film... if you laugh at and ridicule them the whole way though.

There are also so many plot holes. The actual Fountain is never really explained, and when the unnecessary Spanish (who we are lead to believe for most of the film are more redundant enemies) come to destroy it, they don't do a very good job. There is one mention of zombies in the entire film (apologies to those who got excited about that from the trailer) and then they are never addressed again, and no explanation is given over that either. Basically, like I said, many questions are raised and almost none of them are answered, which is one of the reasons you will come out feeling immensly dissatisfied.

One thing I have to give credit for is the action sequences. Well, most of them. The first sword-fighting scene between Jack and Cruz's character Anjelica went on for far too long, and was slightly reminiscent of his first one with Orlando, which, instead of being pleasantly nostaligic, seemed like they couldn't be bothered to come up with new choreography. Other than that, though, they were quite entertaining. My favourite would have to be the one where the mermaids basically completely overpower a shipfull of men, though I didn't understand why they resembled vampires. But anyway. The others were pretty much standard: all stylised, all predictable, but fun to watch.

Basically, to sum up, this film had no purpose. It didn't even feel like a Pirates film, as only three of the original characters are actually in it; even with the iconic music playing and Depp's crazy Jack Sparrow, this film just didn't feel the same. Yes, it was shorter than the third one (though it doesn't feel like it), but there was just no point to it. I think the best bit of the whole film was when Barbossa declares right at the end that they are going to Tortuga, the legendary pirate port that brought so much fun to the first films - we cheered at this. And then we don't see it.

My friend and I were talking the other day about how hard it must be to promote a film when you know how bad it is, and I felt particularly sorry for Geoffrey Rush. Considering the last film he appeared in won 4 Oscars and he was nominated for one (The King's Speech, in case you've been living under a rock), I don't know how he can put his name on this film and not feel ashamed. Even Johnny, who by now must be getting tired of the same act (I know I am - Jack Sparrow just doesn't have the same fun quality it once did and is getting a little old), is surely bored of the whole thing and should really stop before this is what he becomes most remembered for instead of the great actor he actually is but cannot show in these films. It has gotten to the stage where Depp has to carry the films by himself, and now he struggles. Even his disintegrating charm and wit cannot make it acceptable.

Verdict: I wouldn't waste money going to the cinema to see it. Wait until it's on television, and even then make sure you watch with a couple of friends, like I did, so that you can laugh and mock it instead of turning off. I hope to God this is where it ends, though based on the fact it's still quite a money-spinner, I'm guessing it's not. This franchise is one which has well and truly crashed and burned.

** (and that's because I was feeling generous)

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5AqJww06bw
Kathryn (who came with me to see this muck) and I were discussing how there should be an Oscar for best trailer, and we think that this should definitely be up for it. But don't be deceived by the brilliance of it - it showcases the highlights of the film well, but then the promise of a good film is by no means delivered.

The Sports Fairytale

At the weekend, Cinderella Man was broadcast, and since I hadn’t seen it but had heard good reviews about it, I decided to sit down and give it a go. Needless to say, I seem to be developing a taste for boxing films (The Fighter, Rocky) and Depression-era films (Water for Elephants), so having both sounds like a winning formula. And suffice to say, I wasn’t disappointed.

Cinderella Man is the true story of boxer James J Braddock, a fighter in Depression-era Jersey who, after failing in his sports career first time around, is given a second chance to escape the breadlines and labour at the docks and to support his family, fighting his way back up to the top. It’s essentially a feel-good story, and I understand why so many people have been inspired by his rags-to-riches tale.

Firstly, I have to say that yes, it is a boxing film, but like many boxing films out there that isn't what it's all about. This is the story of one man trying to overcome financial hardships and provide for his family, with themes of loyalty, lifelong bonds and suffering. Of course there is boxing in it: I'm not a fan of the sport in real-life, but in films it always seems to have so much more emotion because you understand the backstory for their involvement, rather than just observing people punch the crap out of each other. That is essentially what this film is - the boxing merely provides a backdrop for a story which inspired many and truly touches people, both then and now.

Now, I wasn’t really sure what to expect from Russell Crowe in the main role: for one, I haven’t really seen him shine as an actor before, and this didn’t seem like the type of role where he would excel. He doesn't look like a boxer, and he doesn't really seem like someone who can fully pull off the domestic husband role; I have to say though that I was impressed with the balance he gave to it, portraying both a family man and determined sportsman with an impressive level of emotion. He surprised me in a very good way, and it's a shame that he can't be more consistently good in other roles that can be as strong as this one.

Renee Zellweger, for me, lets the film down. I am never really impressed with her acting, and this role didn’t really change that opinion of her. I could see her trying to convey emotion, but it failed, essentially. She was wooden and not that believable as a woman who makes the unbelievably hard choice of sending her children away so that they can actually eat, or as someone whose husband fights murderous boxers for a living. Towards the end of the film, I thought her performance was over the top in such a way that made her look ridiculous and, in fact, like a petulant toddler. In another actress’ hands, I could see this role being portrayed a lot better; it certainly calls for an actress better suited for dramatic roles, and her casting is one of the only criticisms I have.

The highlight of the film for me was Paul Giamatti. I really respect him as an actor anyway, and he was Oscar-nominated for this, which he completely deserved. He held the film together as James’ long-time trainer, Joe Gould, whose dedication to James is heartfelt. It’s a demonstration of bromance and loyalty at its most emotional. One scene which shows the real state of his home life was heartbreaking, and shows the reality of just how many people were affected by the Depression. He plays Joe in such a dry way, but made me laugh many times throughout whilst also bringing an intense vulnerability to the character. The chemistry he and Crowe had was surprisingly good, and I really believed that they had this long-standing bond and understood the relationship between them.

Other aspects supported the film too. Ron Howard (Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon) was directing, so obviously it wasn't going to be disastrous by any means, but he uses some very clever cinematography to show various different aspects of the film - one technique I liked was the flash of x-ray when a particularly brutal punch was delivered in the ring, implying serious injury, or the various motion techniques that highlighted certain aspects. The music also added effectively to the drama. Thomas Newman (The Shawshank Redemption, The Lost Boys and frequent Pixar contributor) uses gorgeous instrumentals to really emphasise the emotion of the scene, or to build tension - I especially liked the climactic music which really supports the mood of the audience.

Overall, a film I would definitely recommend to anyone who likes action and drama films, or period films, or biopics... pretty much anyone. Catch it if you can. The performances, for the most part, are strong and the story is an inspirational one which will stay with you for a long time.

Verdict: Somewhat predictable, even if you don’t know the story before watching it, but inspirational, heartfelt and emotional. Strong performances lead this film, and even if boxing isn’t your thing, give it a go and get involved in the story of one man just trying to gain a better future for his family.

****

Watch today or tomorrow on iPlayer (I watched it twice in three days I liked it so much): http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dcq8h/Cinderella_Man/

Lourdes: Why?

Over several weeks we have been forced to sit through the absolutely ridiculous film known as Lourdes. I'm sure you can tell just from the tone of that first sentence how this review is going to go...

This French film follows a woman suffering from severe multiple sclerosis searching for a miracle that will cure her of her delibitating condition, and the effects on the people around her when it supposedly happens.

That all sounds fine, on paper. Dull, but acceptable. Not on film. At 96 minutes, it's relatively short as far as films go. but it felt mind-numbingly long. They could have quite easily have cut about 25 minutes of footage where the main character merely stares ahead, and nothing else happens. There are long periods of the film where literally nothing happens, and we are just watching characters sitting around waiting for something. There are chunks of the film where there isn't even any annoying French dialogue, which would have at least given us subtitles to read.

From what I gathered, they tried to put a little of everything in there: we have comedy, with the morally-corrupt volunteer girls working there, sleeping their way around the married men; romance, where some random man that the main character knows from previous pilgrimages (though he doesn't remember her, clearly, in another unintentionally funny moment) suddenly takes an interest in her when she can walk again.

There's also the religious aspect of it. Yes, there was obviously going to be lots in there, but I really don't appreciate having the Catholic faith shoved down my throat. Watching the film made it seem even more like a cult than it already is. It just seemed ridiculous throughout, and the film actually didn't present it in a very good light, making it seem as though they had no idea what they were talking about (the answer to most questions raised by the pilgrims seemed to be "God works in mysterious ways" - not a real answer!).

To be honest, I laughed through most of the film - if I hadn't, I'd have cried at the appalling film-making. There was never an explanation given for the mute old woman who was just randomly there all the time, and that just made her appearances even more hilarious, as she turned up at the most inopportune moments (she follows the would-be couple up a mountain for some reason as they're about to get it on) or wheeled the main character around with no explanation given. The slag volunteer provided endless entertainment, though she was incredibly irritating, especially towards the end with her attempt at singing.

The ending was incredibly annoying - the main character falls over while dancing and then everyone questions whether she is actually the recipient of a miracle, or if it was brief respite from her condition. Then she sits down, is filmed for another five minutes doing nothing but watching the rest of the people at the function dancing, and then it ends. I am not a fan of ambiguous endings usually - I like to be told what's happened, otherwise it's not fully satisfying. But this was particularly bad, because it wasn't even that ambiguous. So she tripped over and then sat down - that is cause for people to gossip over her condition? I didn't understand. And her new man ran off like a shot as soon as she fell, not to be seen again. That was funny. But other than that, awful.

All in all, I don't really understand how this won any critical acclaim, even if it was just in France. It even won the Vienna Film Festival's Best Film prize! They can be sure that I will never be attending that festival if that's the best film there.

Verdict: Basically, don't waste your time. It takes more effort to read the film and understand it than it's worth, and essentially I feel like it's taken away about 30 hours I will never get back.

*

The 80s Film That Time Forgot

Once again, thanks to my contributor Kathryn! And everyone should see this film by the way. You must. Your life is incomplete without it.

The 80’s film that time forgot

Mannequin (1987)

Director: Michael Gottlieb

Starring: Andrew McCarthy, Kim Catrall, James Spader

An out of work sculptor falls in love with a mannequin. Seriously, what more could you want from a film?

Jonathan Switcher (McCarthy) gets fired from every job he attempts but when he sees a mannequin in a shop window that he previously made whilst working at a factory  his life changes forever. After inadvertently saving the life of the store owner he manages to get a job at there as a window dresser and seems to develop an unhealthy attachment to his creation. Then, as luck would have it, Switcher is saved from looking like a total pervert when his mannequin comes to life. But there’s a catch – he’s the only one who can see her in her non-mannequin form. Hilarity ensues.

What really makes this film so enjoyable is the support cast. James Spader (Pretty in Pink) is magnificent as Switcher's slimy boss who is in league with a rival department store, as is G. W Malley (Police Academy) as Spader’s security guard minion whilst Meshach Taylor is a store employee named Hollywood who seems to accept Switcher's mannequin loving ways rather too quickly. In fact, with everything that’s going on in the film it soon becomes easy to ignore the plot holes and Catrall’s acting. There’s even a montage of outfit changes!  In my opinion, one of the best films of the decade: Mannequin is unforgettable.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6gpndlepiM

And good news.... there’s a Mannequin 2.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1oy_TQ9tyE

Stop, Hammer Time.

Building on the apparent market available for comic-book heroes, Thor proves itself to be up there with the greats.

Thor, heir to the throne of Asgard, is banished to Earth after getting a little cocky and trying to commit genocide. After meeting Natalie Portman and her team of useless and unnecessary scientists who are conveniently in the middle of the desert where he appears, he slowly, and often comically, adjusts to life on Earth. Meanwhile, his brother Loki, after learning a life-changing secret, goes a little loopy and overthrows his father for the throne, sending a giant robot to kill Thor on Earth, who is powerless to stop it without the use of his magic hammer...

Sound confusing/ridiculous/brilliant? (delete as appropriate) It should. And it is.

I was a little puzzled at first as to why Kenneth Brannagh, renouned more for his Shakespearean theatre work than summer blockbuster skills, was directing, but I have to say he did a surprisingly good job. The cinematography and special effects are brilliant, and I can see why it would be appealing to see this in 3D, but to be honest, it was just as good in 2D. You find yourself lost in the mythical world of the gods and wanting to move there just for their awesome Rainbow Bridge, guarded by the sinister Idris Elba, one of the most likeable characters in the film.

The most interesting part of the film are the scenes set in Asgard and Jotunheim. Compare Earth to the stunning CGI, and it looks incredibly drab, especially as the Earth-setting is a town which essentially has three buildings and residents who are all rednecks or S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. Sif and the Warriors Three provide a little extra humour in the serious moments in Asgard, making a suitable posse for Thor, and they are characters I would want to see developed in any sequels. The scene where they walk down the street in their warrior gear to confused onlookers is one of the funniest moments in the film.

Chris Hemsworth proves, after a memorable turn as George Kirk in 2009's Star Trek, that he is leading-man material, and the prospect of him in the upcoming Snow White and the Huntsman is appealing. He plays pretty much every emotion in the film, from besotted to mourning, very convincingly, with some hilarious moments as Thor adjusts to life on Earth after his banishment. The action sequences are amazing.

For me, my favourite part of the whole film was Tom Hiddleston's Loki. He is one of the few villains I have seen who I end up wanting to win over the hero, and I genuinely feel so sorry for him. He has an intense vulnerability about him, and having lived in the shadow of his pompous and arrogant brother his whole life, I think he's fully deserving to be a little wrathful towards him. And really, his only threats are killing his father, who quite frankly deserves it, and Thor, who can handle himself anyway. Make up your own minds, but he, in my opinion, is the best character in the film; they should just make a film about him, and I would be so happy.

The problem I found with the film was that there was not enough character development in regards to the humans. Natalie Portman's Jane's only purpose appeared to just be a chauffeur/love interest with a ridiculous job which I still can't work out. There was no chemistry between her and Hemsworth, and it seemed like they were only interested in each other romantically because the other was a novelty. Kat Denning's other-girl-whose-name-I-can't-remember-but-that-doesn't-really-matter seemed to only be there to point out the very obvious fact that Chris Hemsworth is not bad to look at, and to Taser him. Her attempts at comedy failed spectacularly to the point where it wasn't even so-bad-it's-funny, but just cringey. And the only benefit of Stellan Skarsgard's professor was to get drunk with the titular character and then appear in a scene related to the upcoming Avengers film that the studio cleverly decided to place post-credits so that you will miss it if you don't know it's there. I did, and I'm still quite resentful about it. To be quite honest, if the humans weren't needed for plot development, they wouldn't have been missed. They didn't bring anything to the film of any worth. Harsh, yes, but true.

One thing that annoys me about the promotion is the way they are hyping up Anthony Hopkins' role. Yes, he is a brilliant and highly respected actor, but why he appears on all the posters and not Loki, the main antagonist, is beyond me. All he seems to do is reminise about a fight that happened thousands of years ago and then sleep for the rest of the film. He does manage to pull of that gold eyepatch though. If you ever need one, that's the way to go - disabled bling.

I don't usually say this about films, but it just didn't seem long enough. They could easily have had an extra twenty minutes in which they could have developed the humans a little more, or added in some extra Loki, both of which would have improved the film to a certain extent.

Overall though, the film brings in some brilliant action, special effects and great acting from the characters who matter. This is not by any means a superhero movie to be compared to the likes of more serious franchises (read: Batman), but of course it won't be - for one thing, it doesn't have Chris Nolan involved. But I quite like that. It doesn't take itself too seriously, and is enjoyable fun, lighter than Batman but not as fluffy as, say, Fantastic Four. I'd put it on a par with Iron Man in comparison for other superhero films, which isn't a bad thing at all. If you are planning on seeing the Avengers film next year, this is a must see.

Verdict: A couple of hours of enjoyable fun. The special effects and Loki are reason enough to go and see it, and definitely a must-see for anyone planning on catching the Avengers film.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHBnrJowBZE

****

Review: Brigadoon

Many thanks to guest blogger Kathryn, my pre-21st century contributor! Show her some love at www.twitter.com/kathrynlynch_

Brigadoon (1954)

Director: Vincente Minnelli

Starring: Gene Kelly, Van Johnson, Cyd Charisse

A whimsical tale set in a mysterious village in the Scottish highlands, this film is a piece of cinematic genius.

Despite having a slightly unbelievable plot, the stars involved shine in their roles. Gene Kelly is the tap dancing New Yorker searching for love whilst Cyd Charisse is Fiona, the object of his affections praying for a miracle, and Van Johnson is the cynical best friend being dragged along for the ride.

The film begins with Tommy Albright (Gene Kelly) and alcoholic pal Jeff (Van Johnson) discovering said village after having lost their way in the Scottish highlands. A couple of misunderstandings, prolonged glances and musical numbers later and Brigadoon is on its way to becoming one of your favourite musicals ever. A wedding, a kidnapping, a tragedy, time travel, a magical priest, sheep... this film has it all.

Whether or not you’re a fan of musicals, Brigadoon sets itself apart, not least for its unusual repertoire of dance numbers. Fans of hard-hitting dramas should steer clear, but for those who can appreciate entertaining nonsense, Brigadoon will not disappoint. 

For a teaser, see this video. It will stay with you for a long time...

Bonnie Jean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJPmW2LYhDo

My First Review is a Special One

In advance, I would just like to say that these reviews are going to be my personal opinions. You may not agree with them, you may not like what I say, but this is what I think, so suck it up and deal. It's not going to stop me from posting.

Anyway, since this is my first proper review, I thought I would make it a special one.

Water for Elephants.

Yes, the movie I have been looking forward to for over a year. I first read the book (amazing, read it if you haven't, it's my all-time favourite) about a year and a half ago, and I remember when they first announced they were making it as a film. I cannot even describe my joy when I found out the cast. Three of my favourite actors in a film based on my favourite book? It couldn't have sounded any better to me.

And then the pictures from filming came out, and it was everything I imagined it to be.

So months later, I find out I have to wait until the following spring before I can see it, and I'm a little bit pissed. But Fox are forgiven, because I'm still so damn intrigued.

Anyway, so two weeks ago I got my notification saying I could buy tickets for it, so I did straight away, for the first night of course. I had already got my mother interested and she read the book and loved it too, so she was coming along with me.

And then the call came on Tuesday morning. I won't go into the whole premiere thing right now, I may do a separate blog post later. But it was amazing. I cried, I laughed, I smiled so much my cheeks hurt by the end of the film. But I don't think I could have made a sound judgement on it, because I was too emotional. So I just accepted it as amazing the first time round, and reserved proper judgement until the next time. Which is where this review finally begins.

The film was pretty much everything I thought it would be.

I love the story, and I always held a little reservation about how they could put it into a film and have it still be as amazing as it was in the book. I had seen Francis Lawrence's directing before in I Am Legend, good film (let's not focus on that ending). Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography was bound to be amazing, since he worked on Brokeback Mountain. And the stars. Well, like I said, three brilliant actors involved, and the often overlooked Hal Holbrook, who made me cry as Old Jacob.

The acting was very good, in my opinion. Robert Pattinson showed he could hold his own in a cast which included three Oscar winners, and still stand out. His facial expressions were amazing, so brilliant at channeling his emotions. In my opinion, he has never acted better. And I've seen pretty much every film he's ever done. It didn't hurt that he was also pretty nice to look at as well. It showed in the film that he can also laugh at himself. I won't ruin the particular scene for anyone who hasn't seen it yet; all I will say is, remember the Storage Trunk ;) But he made me laugh, and cry a lot, so I think he did a pretty damn good job in it.

I also liked Reese Witherspoon. Was it her best performance? No (though she is an Academy Award winner, and her performance in Walk the Line was just about brilliant), but it wasn't her worst, and she was believable. I admit when I first heard she was cast as Marlena, I was a bit dubious. I never really imagined her to be that much older than Jacob, but now I really can't imagine anyone else. At times it seemed like she was just reveling in the fact that she got to wear pretty costumes and ride an elephant, but she looked stunning and graceful, and there are points where my heart just breaks for her.

I agree with what is being said about the chemistry between the two. It doesn't have that magic spark, and there's never really that much intensity. He is smitten with her from the moment he lays eyes on her, and she just seems as if she is being distracted by a shiny new toy. It doesn't seem genuine, and feels a little forced, but the two actors make it passable. I've definitely seen worse on-screen relationships.

Christoph Waltz was pretty much perfect for me. He's just like I imagined the paranoid schizophrenic August to be, and he plays villains so incredibly well. I think someone called him a "watered-down Hans Landa", which it pretty much is; no, it doesn't reach the brillance of Inglorious Basterds, but like Reese, I don't think anything ever will. That being said, I don't like the way Christoph is being typecast as the villain now (see: Green Hornet and the upcoming Three Muskateers) but he does do a spectacular job at it. He is genuinely terrifying at some points, and he is so horrific as a person that you can't help but hate him. But you love to do it. There were points when I was gritting my teeth at him and wanted to hit him so hard, but that's what's meant to happen, and he acted the part so damn well.

I have said before many times that I don't like the way they have toned it down to a 12 just to appeal to Rob's extensive fan-base of teenage girls. I much prefer the graphic, darker and grittier scenes in the book, but I have to praise Richard LaGravenese for staying true to the novel. In some ways it actually improved, as in the book I found myself wanting to skip ahead to the 1930s chapters, as nice as the present-day ones are, so I like the way LaGravenese has instead chosen to nicely book-end the film with the "Old Jacob" parts instead of constant interjections that break up the action. Which is something else I want to add. I absolutely loved the ending. I thought it was beautifully done, so emotional and just perfectly fitting. It's made me cry both times. It's cathartic.

I think Francis Lawrence did an amazing job in bringing this book to life. The cinematography was beautiful, the sets and costumes were stunning, and the acting was brilliant. Not to mention the elephant, Tai, who plays Rosie. She was wonderful, and I really did find myself so emotionally attached to her. She acted so brilliantly, and it was easy to see why the stars loved working with her so much. Which is another point: you could see that they were all so proud of what they had done, and how much they enjoyed working on the production, and that for me made it all the more worthwhile.

Another thing I have to add is that I am listening to the soundtrack as I write this. James Newton Howard (who I share a birthday with!) has done a fantastic job, adding in touches of 30s music with gorgeous piano pieces which really make the film more emotional. Just listening to the last track can bring tears to my eyes. Definitely in my top 5 of all time. Give it a listen if you're into that kind of thing.

So, basically, this has been, personally, my favourite film of the year so far. I had such an emotional attachment to it from the beginning of the production, and it lived up to my expectations. I really want people to see how good Rob is as an actor outside Twilight, and I really think this film shows that he has a long career ahead of him. What I was struck by was how wonderfully different it was to anything I have seen in a long time, though it may have followed the same basic structure (a struggle for love faced by obstacles with an ultimate triumph). I sincerely urge everyone to go and see it.

Verdict: A valient effort, a beautifully made film that may not win any awards for its acting or screenplay, but is very deserving of a wide audience and respect.

****