:: The Wendy House ::

During a conversation about films that are substantially at variance with the books that provided their original title and approximate plot and characters: 

Wendy:  W’thering Heights

Bros:  WUH,  Wuh-thering Heights

Wendy: yes,  that’s what I said W’thering Heights

Bros:  Wendy,  Wuh-thering has a U in it

niece & her friend: (snigger,  sniggger,  snigger,  hiding mouths behind hands and flashing smiles at each other and checking to see if we ‘adults’ notice)

Bros:  (shakes his head and tuts)

 Wendy:  (decides not to mention that Bros appears to have failed to count the double-u)

Sweeny Todd offers a gigantic range of different pies at the pictured local Reading Pie Shop and a very dark film, most distubing gory visual details, I had to look away on multiple occassions and I’m not that squeamish.

An excellent evening with Barry Norman.

Ratings explained

Barry recently spoke at Reading Concert Hall supplying interesting trivia about four classic films,  Casablanca,  Gone with the Wind, The Adventures of Robin Hood and Dirty Harry.  Trivia included casting preferances for key roles,  why directors and screen writers were changed and cast members reflections.  The ending of Casablanca was written while it was being filmed, writer and cast did not know how the film would end.  The Atlanta burning scene in Gone with the wind was made by burning all the old sets on the studio lot.  The Adventures of Robin Hood was filmed in California,  the lush greeness of the grass in the film was a special effect, painting the film. 

After an interlude Barry answered questions from the crowded concert hall audience.  Two charming silver haired ladies mustered all their deft to pass microphones amongst the audience. 

Barry’s answers to questions of the form ‘name your favourite [e.g. actress, director, film...  ]‘ and ‘I know a lot about obscure film trivia[e.g. what the most expensive never-finished film]‘  produced a recognisable, normally unarticulated,  analysis of recent cinematic trends including:

• praising the decade of the 1970’s as the last decade that produced a substantial proportion of films aimed more at a thinking audience,  Easy Rider as an example, rahter than at the mass audience of cinema attendess,  18-25yrs, that seek light entertainment.  
• mentioning that the 6 main film distributers that supply the UK are US distributers that naturally prefer to promote their own, US, products.   The distributer for Cyrano De Bergerac called him to thank him for repeatedly mentioning the quality of this French language film because it helped get distribution in the UK.
• TV programs that review films are prone presenting available celebrity interviews, current film promotions, at the expense of balanced critical analysis.

Words of wisdom from my outrageously expensive and handsome young product-dispensing hairdresser:

Legend, even with Will Smith in it, it’s just another zombie film

The film ‘Becoming Jane’ pulls together themes from Jane Austens novels and rewrites them as-if they were experiences happening directly to Jane and her family.  

A generous perspective might describe this as a creative pastiche highlighting Janes classic storylines littered with powerful quotes that interweaves elements of her own life story. 

A less generous interpretation might be that the film cobbles together crowd-pleasing dialog into a script that lacks the powerful character insight, detail, and well paced plot developments of Janes own writing.   

Ratings explained

irritants:

• Jane as vibrant and very physically pretty girl by current beauty standards.  Janes modern style of self expression does not convincingly fit with the proprieties of the time captured so beautifully in her own writing.  
• The film’s premis that Jane wrote only about that which she experienced first-hand.  The implication is that she did not have the imaginitation or capability to construct storylines beyond her immediate experience.
• Jane as wooed by virtually every batchelor with whom she converses.  Virtually no situational relationship development demonstrated over time all relationships are portrayed in brief encounters with implied chemistry (or lack of it) with the slight exception of the main love interest.  Slight.  We are required to believe that deep love evolves across a couple of encounters and conversations. 

fun bits:

• spotting quotes from Jane’s books.
• working-out which characters and actions were inspired by which book characters.
• aesthetics of the sets,  costumes and characters.
• some novel unexpected character developments.

The film ‘Colour me Kublic’ is a light entertainment comedy treasure.  Recommended for John Malkovitch fans,  Stanley Kubric fans,  Carry-on film fans and British TV/film fans.

Ratings explained

The film follows the last few years in the life of Alan Conway who managed to maintain his lifestyle by pretending to be Stanley Kubrick in Britain while knowing relatively little about Stanley.  The reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are very varied.

some strengths:

• Ludwig Van,  plus:  the sound-track is a cleverly constructed pastiche of sound tracks from Kubrick films.  People familiar with the soundtracks use in the original film will spot visual references to the films,  often comically played.  The quality of this visual and musical treatment is probably attributable to the Director,  Brian Cook, was Kubricks first assistant director for 25yrs and writer Anthony Frewin’s long time working relationship with Kubrick. 
• Cult quality cast:  John Malkovich as lead and some fabulous bit and cameo parts by actors who,  arguably, are already cult figures int heir own right.  These are some of the obvious people,  I suspect there were a few more uncredited special appearances:  Honor Blackman,  Leslie Phillips,  Robert Powell,  Richard E. Grant, Peter Sallis, Jim Davidson,  Lynda Barron
•  Humour:  3 main styles,  Carry-on,  Farce and self-referential.  The Carry-on humour is immediate,  the farce is immediate,  the self-referential often requires knowledge of Kubrick’s films or British culture.  At one point Malkovitch as Conway, as Kubrick, talks about casting Malkovich in his film.  This kind of toying with self-referentialism really tickles my fancy.  The humour also pays homage to Carry-on films by littering the dialog with naughty inuendos.  The Carry-on film reference is explicitly mentioned by Lynda Barron who then fabulously goes on to call “Kubrick” “Cuteprick”. 
• Voice of Wallis:  Peter Sallis is most well known outside Britian for plaing the voice of Wallace (Wallace and Grommit).  Peter has one line in the film: “I am Stanley Kubrick“.  The line is in a chair-collapsingly hilarious scene that references a scene in Spartacus.  
• Jim Davidson:  plays an aging North England working-class, gay, comedian.  There are times when type casting with some built in irony (gay) is shere genious.

some areas for improvement 

• today I am too pathetic to envision any way of improving this.   Check out the Rotten Tomatoes reviews they suggest things like exploring the role of celebrity in society and focussing on character development.  For me,  the film worked fine without these things.

 If you appreciate good dialog,  good acting in the storytelling of social-political change based on real events that can produce heated post-viewing discussion then you will thoroughly enjoy this film; “Amazing Grace“. 

Ratings explained

The film is part of the UK celebration of 200 years, 25th March,  since the Abolition of the slave trade (slavery was still legal) in the British Empire.  America was no longer a part of the British Empire at this stage and continued to trade in Slaves as did European powers such as France, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.  The film follows the lead abolitionist’s,  William Wilberforce’s, efforts.  The title comes from a song whose original lyrics are attributed to John Newton a repentant master of slave trading ships and influential adult in William Wilberforce’s life.  For me the film compares favourably to, can be classed with, the classic play ”A man for all seasons“.  

Strengths:

• Story.  This is a story worthy of being made into a film.  It stands without explosions,  sex-scandals,  profanity,  nudity.  So few films nowadays are sufficiently brave to leave these components out of the screenplay.  What does it include?  Horror,  suspense, tension, pathos, wit, conversation as an art-form and fabulous scenery (parliament buildings, big wooden sailing ships etc).
• Cast.  For shere breadth of talent including Michael Gambon, Albert Finney, Ioan Gruffudd, Ciarán Hinds, Rufus Sewell, Benedict Cumberbatch, Bill Paterson, Sylvestra Le Touzel, Jeremy Swift, Youssou N’Dour.  The talent is doubley worth mentioning for their lack of conformity to the current Hollywood standard of ‘beautiful’.  If you need a dosage of current-standard pretty boys and this is not the film for you.  Hoorah!
• Scene details.  For example the unusual card-tables for the parliamentary card-clubs,  the kitchen crockery and utensils in the background of the kitchen scenes.  Ioan looked wonderfully sickly and ill in many of the shots where he is supposed to be so, no holidng back on under-eye darkness,  sweat,  and unsightly body contortions. 
• rhetoric.  The parliamentary rhetoric was wondertful, pressumably this was taken from original transcripts of parliamentary sessions.  The jibes are typically cheeky,  sarcastic,  cutting and yet the serve to reveal the weaknesses of the recipients position beautifully.  The rhetoric is not constrained to witty come-backs it includes some,  by no means all, of the arguments for Britian continuing to engage in the slave trade.  The less positive reviews of the film on Rotten Tomatoes describe this tendancy as ‘Speechifying’ and ‘Talky’.  I like Speechifying when it isn’t lengthy dull monolouges and I didn’t notice any lengthy dull monologues in this film. 

Areas for improvement:

• slavery arguments: given the film focus I was slightly suprised by the low-profile given to some of the topical arguments for slavery.  For example,  if evolutionary theory was mentioned in the debate I missed-it.  The notion common in Britain that people were born to a natural status,  aristocracy,  working-class,  black (US = People of color) divined by God was not mentioned.  This seemed odd,  I would have liked at least some passing reference to these beliefe systems more clearly evident within the film.  The nearest reference to the notion that every person is born to a position in life was the reaction of the opposition to a petition of the people,  why should they take notice of a petition of the people?  The portrayal simply makes them look arrogant,  evil,  as viewers we are not lead to understand that it was a common belief that people were born with different capabilities,  different values to society.  I would have valued a little more clarification of the depth of impact of the American Independance and French revolution on the priorities of parliament.  Though I suspect this would have made the film even longer and more ’speechifying’ which would have irritated more viewers that aren’t me.
• slave trade is not slavery:  The film does not make it clear to the viewer that Slavery was still legal in the British Empire for a further 30 years.  This blog article by Louis Proyect points this out and provides an informative persepctive on a worthy storyline not tackled within this film.  The blog article includes details of  people portrayed in the film and cites a poem written by William Wordsworth dedicated to one of them.   Louis makes a convincing point that William Wilberforce being portrayed as the lead role was perhaps not a good choice:

Every other abolitionist figure is subordinate to him, which is of course detrimental to the film since they are far more interesting than this bible-thumping prig.

• shift girl focus from love interest:  Barbara Wilberforce (Romola Garai) wearing pink lipstick and lip gloss just didn’t ‘feel’ right though I realise the ladies of the day did have access to powders and creams that they used to change their lip colour.  Her wig was also suspicously perfect and an unusual colour (redhead).  She sported the modern fashion for a voluptious top lip,  though not Scarlett Johansen proportions.  It was challenging to discern her talent from the odd accessories.  Hannah More is present in some scenes and even has some lines,  I was disappointed that her role was not more significant.  The cynic in me thinks the small contribution her role in the film might be because she was not young,  beautiful and married.   I visited Hannah’s birthplace while in Bristol last week:

Highly recommended to people who enjoy independent films with all the components that make it a classic cult film.  In an outstanding directorial debut for Lee Daniels he demonstrates a level of maturity that can take many good directors decades to reach.

Ratings explained

The conversational style is akin to french films.  The plot is intricate and innovative akin to English gangster films.  The New York settings and characters are colourful.  I experienced the film as a blend between Nikita, Terminator and Lock Stock and two smoking Barrels with a touch of Pulp fiction thrown in.  If you like those 4 films,  you will probably enjoy this one.  Cuba Gooding Jr as the inscrutable lead and Helen Mirren as the, red, Rose provide weighty lead performances.  Music fan’s will enjoy the parts well executed by Macy Gray and Mo’nique.  The film has a sombre mood throughout with diverse music from a french sounding piano accordian through a classical Cello solo backing a poignient moment to soul music,  all literally setting different tones.

The unusual plot unravels at an even pace that is easy to follow and gripping in its twists and turns.  Helen Mirren takes a role that is not a role commonly given to a female.  There are seamingly surreal, or real life, touches like a Zebra roaming the night-time shots of a mansions garden,  Jessie at ladies night, that add amusement if they capture your eye.  Careful product placement Wild Turkey bourbon and social-cultural indicators, red nail varnish, chain smoking, drinking build the atmosphere.  Stylistic lighting with shifts between realistic outdoor colours and colour-themed indoors shots or fuzzy-edged back-lit romatic outdoor shots.  

“the only mystery I never solved was why my heart couldn’t let go of you“

This film is highly recommended for people who enjoy a stylistically conveyed, strong period-set script of a clever mystery drama including a love story.  This film successfully fits into all these genres with an additional unique angle that fits none and takes it beyond any specific genre.  Not a good film for people who like giggles, fast action with explosions, blood and gore, or plots handed to you on a silver platter.  The rotten tomatoes reviews generally align well with my experience. 

 ratings explained

Description without plot-spoiler

• The illusionist official website.
• Cast:  Rufus Sewell, Edward Norton; Jessica Beil; Paul Giamatti; Eddie Marsan.  Well acted. Edward Norton uses his talent for inscrutability very effectively in the role of the illusionist,  you can read into his behaviour that which you expect.
• Genre:  period costume drama, mystery, social commentary, love story.  The plot is not a standard Hollywood format unravelling in a pleasingly unpredictable path.
• Sets:  outstanding European venues including steam trains, theatres, palaces, country parks, mountain ranges.
• Music:  Philip Glass.  the modern music, referencing period genres works extremely well with the nature of the film, period with novel storyline detail.
• Female roles: only one notable role for a female.  The love lead,  now there’s a surprise.  Jessica Beil’s character is written with the standard ‘modern’ perspective on a period female-character expressing her control in a modern manner yet still managing to be a victim of the patriarchy.  The character is poorly written.
• chic flick?:  possibly,  not being a chic it’s difficult for me to tell.  It’s not a puke-inducing pinky film of dominantly girl-cast with bland males seeking them out.
• Photography: captivating, stylistic yet not intrusive camera work with a strong tendancy to using high contract sepia tones and fuzzy-edged backlighting.  Expertly interwoven visual effects including animations.

Not my cup of tea. 

Only recommended if you like film’s that have

• focus on ‘Justice outside the law’ with some plot-unnecessary blood and gore.
• Beautiful desolate desert scenery (Australia).
• An impressive UK cast
• Nick Cave’s charismatic writing 

I choose this for the latter 3 of the above reasons.  The writing at a conversational level had all the ingenuity, subtlety, and economy I’d expect from Mr. Cave.  Awesome.  But this was a film,  not a collection of conversations.  Multiple good dialogs and character scenes are not enough to constitute a film, however well acted and located.  I didn’t understand this film. :-(     

 Ratings Explained

Captain Stanley’s (Ray Winston) early words set the tone of the whole film for me:

“Australia,  what fresh hell is this“

While the film is undoubtedly a high quality execution of whatever it is meant to be the film said nothing to me,  was unnecessarily violent,  had no humour.  I’m left wondering why so much talent was directed into making this film.  Rotten Tomatoes gives the proposition a good review.  I’ve found many good reviews that focus on details of music, scene, or character.  All of them failed to provide me with any strong insights into why I should watch this film. :-( 

(edited to try to make the into images)

Recommended for reflection on what it means to be in love, to be part of a modern family, to come of age in America.  It is a tragic love story:  love of country;  love of familiy; romantic love.  The film gets a bad deal from Rotten tomatoes.   The mood of the film reminded me of a cross between Wim Wenders film Paris Texas and The Badlands.  Laughter is light on the ground.  The film’s humour is mainly situational and very subtle.  Not recommended for people who want to have their films explicitly detail the key points or fast action,  this film ferments well with thought and gently touches on modern life indirectly.  For me this was a journey worth taking. :-)

ratings explained

The scenes capture how I see much of North America.  The suburbs,  Freeways,  colours, donuts, diners, telegraph poles, guns, power lines, paranoia, friendliness, loneliness, cynicism and optimism against an ever present sense of neglect, decay and madness. The sound track is provided by a single acoustic guitar and gentle male, or, female voice.  It’s slow,  like the pace of the film. The tune and singer fade in and out setting some peaceful, happy and sad moments.

Edward Norton’s character, Harlan,  has short, clear, answers to every question. His uncomplicated answers have a romantic dream-like quality,  you want to believe them,  you want to believe he believes them.  He’s straight-forward polite, respectful of others yet somehow niaive.  He’s easy to love.  He say’s he’s skilled in ranching.  Was Harlan ever a cowboy?  Is he pretending?  Does it matter?  He appears to be unemployable in any other skilled job.  Harlen’s way of thinking and dialog is a treat throughout.  One moment shot me.  During his first swim in the Pacific Ocean he looks out towards the horizon: 

that’s about as close to forever as I can imagine.

Sometimes its not clear if he lives in the real world or an idealistic fantasy, if he’s lost a grasp on reality,  if he ever really had one. 

Outstanding moments included:

• the conversation in the bath because of the innovative approach to filming, the dialog and set.  
• Harlan’s visit to his parent’s home.  No music.  No speaking. The silence heightened the impact on me.  
• Reflexism.  Using a film set of western ‘My Darling Clementine’ to playfully create a western story within this western story.  This provided temporary, subtle, light relief as the tension builds.   

An extremely well constructed film in every technical level, acting, camera-work, lighting, script, direction etc.  A classic, not popularist, film.  

Highly recommended for raunchiness, innovative characters, plot, attention to visual detail that conveys the period as dark, lavishly dressed, wigged and ill-washed.  The biograhpy of this poetic raunchy athiest provides the plot with twists, turns and endings more fabulous than stories concocted to please a mass audience.  The scope and detail of the script is worthy of its topic.  The language is used to good effect.  Every sentence is worthy of inclusion in the film, no redundancy.  I laughed,  I cried,  I winced, I disliked characters, I wanted to befriend characters,  I admired characters,  I was reviled by characters.  This film was a fulfilling experience for me.  The production credits the audience with intelligence :-) :-)  

ratings explained

The film opens with a young adult John Wilmott (Jonny Depp),  Second Earl of Rochester, making a self descriptive prologue directly to us, the viewers, in a classical stage play style.  He sneers as he knowing describes himself, his knowledge of how we will experience him. Willmot is wonderfully objectionable, spiteful even, with the engaging cleverness worthy of a witty poet and playwrite.  He is spikely cynical throughout:

“the moral of the incident is that any experiment of interest in life will be carried out at your own expense,  mark it well“

“all men would be cowards if the only had the courage“

The film is birightly bawdy.  It sprays a wealthy variety of recognisable,  yet obscure words, that mechanistically describe sexual acts.  The context and delivery of obscure phrase’s makes meaning clear,  for example a phrase delivered by a prostitute/actress describing copulation with a wife:

“shooting good chisum up the lawful“

Sad cynicism pervades the film, life is conveyed as tough and yet the lyrical words thrown in pain are beautiful,  bring poignancy to the struggles of the players.  Sepia tones,  mud, smoke, puss, music played on period instruments, dark lighting rich language and costumes sink us deeply in the period.  The tone and pace of the dialogue moves like a symphony. 

Examples of bawdy cycnicism expressed by the female characters:

“I believe that men are hurdles that must be negotiated…   …you could buy my slit for a pound a night sir…” (Elizabeth Barry played by Samantha Morton)

“when a gent sees the spirit and not the eyes and the tits,  then the gent is in trouble… …don’t make me care for you, I’d rather you came your fetch over my face than leave me with that lump of caring” (Prostitute/Actress)

The temporary relief from cynicism and life is through plays, acting, Drama.  Dreams.  The relationship between John Wilmott and his prodigy actress, Elizabeth Barry, hints at a deeper more profound, mutually beneficial relationship.  The relationship between John and King Charles II (John Malkovich) is similarly more profound.  No single quote captures the subtlety and power of these threads of hope and optimism, each peaking at a different point in the film,  beautifully balanced.  John Malkovich’s is exceedingly well cast, delivering few and powerful lines with quiet gravitas. 

The film ends with an epilogue that invites the audience to take a slightly new slant on all that they’ve seen.  It asks a question,  I wonder what your answer will be.  My answer was  ‘no more or no less’

Excellent production.

Not recommended for people who grew-up with the English TV series.  Most of the core themes that gave the TV series cross-generational appeal have been squished.  For example,  Dougal’s sarcasm and addiction to a white ’sugar-like’ substance,  Dylan’s narcolepsy, Brian’s ‘Speed’, Ermintrude’s ‘flights’ etc.  Standard good children’s story for people not familiar with the TV series, only the graphics and vocal cast are above par

ratings explained

Renamed from the original name “The Magic Roundabout”.  Perhaps the US distributers think that the US English speaking audience have difficulty appreicating film titles with more than one word?  Why not call it ‘The Magic Carousel”?  Are the people responsible for translating UK to US English underestimating the intelligence and imagination of the US audience.  Using the title Doogal,  rather than the orginal character name Dougal is another example of a translation with dubious value.  The IMDB provides a lively discussion on the renaming and recasting of this film. 

Highlights:

• Visual treat: the detailed graphics in the varied spectacular scenes with creative ‘camera’ angles are a real visual treat, very high quality.
• Super-powered ‘bling-bling‘:  the idea is outstanding,  I want some!
• Lord of the Rings references:  in visuals,  scene structure and explicitly in dialog.
• flatulent moose. A new character with fairly obvious accessible appeal to all ages.
• child-friendly goody-bady story:  The classic goody-baddy storyline is fairly easy to follow…. 

Lowlights:

• Characters ‘dumbed-down’:  For those familiar with the TV series these characteristis were dumbed-down or simply REMOVED!  Brian doesn’t zoom, not once!!!!  The ‘Speed’ connection is lost.  Dylan isn’t narcoleptic,  he’s merely ’sleepy’.  His Narcolepsy could have been used to great comic effect.  Dougal isn’t sarcastic,  worse still he’s gained a sickeningly soppy overt affection for Florence.  Dougal does like ‘Candy’,  not specific to the Cocaine-like ’sugar’. Ermintrude doesn’t fly or have a flower in her mouth.  Ermintrude does like singing, badly. Mr. MacHenry is not there dealing the drugs. Zebedee is referred to as a ‘Wizard’.  Generally they’ve filtered out many of the extreme characterisations that made the characters outrageously fun for adults. 
• No blue cat. Dougal’s historical and natural (cat) nemisis did not feature in the storyline.  Why create a totally new baddy rather than leverage and develop the pre-existing characterisation?
• Negative modifications of the female roles:  Florence is not portrayed as the voice of sensible authority.  Florence has a minor role in a frighteningly typical ‘woman as damsel in distress’ format. She’s a victim with not real sense of character beyond loving her dog.  Erminturde is similarly recast as a ‘love object’ that aspires to success in the celebrity world.  If I am to believe the magazines,  aspirations towards celebrity are acceptible for a female. The program producers could easily have built a witty different, legitimate aspirational model for Ermintrude.  They didn’t.  All the action confrontation scenes involve the male characters.  Ermintrude’s contribution to the groups success is through using her voice and dexterity.  Acceptable girly qualities.  Both qualities are the source of humour, ridiculed.
• Voice recasting:    Unfortunately for me the US version has many voices re-cast.  No Tom Baker (Dr. Who), Robbie Williams (pop star), Joanna Lumley (Absolutely Fabulous), Ray Winston (Sexy Beast), Lee Evans, or Jim Broadbent.  While these voices are not American most are known to the American audience they are all highly professional recognisable performers.  It’s a sad choice to replace them.  

Note:  This review was written without having seen the original UK version. 

P.S. Thankyou to all the wonderful people who turned up at the Panama Hotel tea room yesterday,  such a pleasant suprise,  your company was thoroughly enjoyed and I didn’t have a single Cinderella moment!

Do not read this film review if you are likely to find a one-sided, negative, critique of this popular cultural icon offensive.  For those interested in reading less offended, more detailed, analyses of the film this UK website provides some interesting analyses.

Sleepless in Seattle?  Puking in Puget (Sound)

Icky, Icky, ICKY.  It prompted a Wendy tantrum,  small inanimate objects flew,  cats hid.  Evidently this film was extremely popular.  This review is intended to redress the balance of the Wendy-perplexing popularist view.  :-( :-(     

 Ratings Explained

I could write pages of analysis on this film.  For your readerly sake and sanity I’ll constrain myself to 3 points and assume that you are familiar with the film.  There are, unfortunately, too many more that I could make.

Key characters:

• Male = Tom Hanks = recently widowed father of one son, Architect
• Female = Meg Ryan = Magazine writer (? I can’t remember and none of the plot reviews I’ve read reference her job,  after all it can’t be important,  she’s only a woman),  engaged to a rich man

Three points of Analysis:

1. Role reversal would undermine the social acceptability of the plot.  If a man (rather than Meg Ryan) was investigating a widowed woman (rather than Tom Hanks),  while engaged to another woman, following them,  writing them letters, considering a stronger emotional attachment to the ’stalked’ woman than thier fiance, lying to their fiance, how would we value that man?  Is this movie saying that it is okay for women to stalk, lie and be unfaithful?  Is it acceptable for a woman to behaive like this?  Is it acceptable for a man to behaive like this?  I’d argue that irrespective of gender this behavior is unacceptable.  That the film places a woman in this role suggests that the film makers, and potentially viewers, can accept that a woman if deceptive,  unfaithful,  conniving etc.  I consider this a slander.  That it appears acceptable, through the popularity of the film, is more than disappointing.
2. Widowhood legitimises male singleness.  Why not divorce?  Divorce is more common than widowhood.  Widowhood gives the Tom Hanks character a ‘he’s a good guy’ status.  Divorce could potentially undermine this status because a substantial proportion of the audience would have first-hand expereince of divorce,  would know that mistakes were made, imperfection is implied, blame is hidden and not fully understood by outsiders.  Using widowhood was a strong strategic ploy to provide the Tom Hanks character with a good, clean history that we could trust,  it gains audience sympathy without raisng any questions of potentially realistic imperfections.  He is portrayed as unblemished.  Why wasn’t the female put in this ‘above and beyond question’ good person role?  I was disappointed that the Tom Hanks role was placed in a socially unquestionable position while the female role was not.
3. Humour at the expense of portrayed stereotypes of women.  One of the most offensive scenes involved Tom Hanks,  a male friend and his wife disucssing a so called  ”chick movie” (An affair to remember).  The woman describes the plot with emotion and empathy and difficult to understand dialog.  Her husband then explains that the non-understandable description is because the film was a ‘chick movie“.  They then parody her expressiveness while descibing what can only, pressumably,  be a ‘not-chick movie’,  ‘The Dirty Dozen’.  It is pressumably ok to classify films as ‘chick’ and ‘not-chick’ movies,  it is okay to demean this woman’s inarticulate expression as a ‘chick’ thing,  obviously you can’t expect articulate expression from women,  to top it all she laughs at their woman demeaning humour.  Pressumably because she’s a good sort who understands that to be a woman is to be inartiuclate, over emotional and the butt of Jokes.  What a terrific gal.  I nearly puked.  Some internet searches confirmed my suspicion that this film is considered a ‘chick-flick’ itself.  I guess I’m just not a ‘chick’,  I am very definitely a human being and a female,  just not part of this bizarre patriarchal consipiracy that appears to define women as ditsy, unreliable,  seekers of ‘true’ love, with bundles of humility when they are the targets of derrogatory humour.

After having forced myself to watch all of this film I had to consume 4 pots of Tea before I could let myself loose on an unsuspecting public…. …and even then there was some risk involved…

Movie Monday!

Spivs is highly recommended for people who enjoy action films that tackle topical and socially unacceptable issues in direct ways.  It has some subtle humour and emotional swings built in,  This is not a film that drives smiles.  It does capture, and move, your emotions with subtle and powerful effect. The online reviews I found were more harsh than my experience, they may more adequately reflect your experience.  Here’s the BBC review. :-)

ratings explained

A London based film, Spiv has the mood of a classic London based Gangster, or wide-boy,  films such as ‘The long good friday‘, Layer Cake,  Lock Stock and two smoking barrels.  It tackles fundamental, international, human rights issues.  There is a reasonable review posted on “Eye for film’.  The review doesn’t adequately acknowledge the disturbing topic matter of the film: humans, children as a commodity for trade in Western capitalistic culture.  Life and sex as something that has monetary, tradeable value. 

Beautiful lighting and attention to photographic details.  For example,  during the opening credits we see the Spiv dressing.  Smart 3-piece suit, classic style with the last button of the waistcoat undone.  Inbetween the calm attention of his dressing we see and hear loud scenes from racecourse. We swiftly move to the spinning a yarn.  We watch the Spiv talk in one screen frame while simultaneously viewing the story he is recounting in an inset.  This technique of multiple frames is used sparingly,  to good effect.  The ending is clever and leaves enough to feed your imagination.  It’s more of a turning point in a story than a ‘wrap up all major themes’ ending.

For Anglophiles there are some excellent scenes of London,  Docklands,  Victorian red-brick terraced streets, slummy high-rise flats, gray skies, the London underground.  Jack Dee plays a significant bit part as a builder called ‘Nige’ with impressively powerful perception and subtlety.  Summary?  This is half way between a well constructed art film and a socially conscious film.  It doesn’t hit the heights of either,  it does meld the experiences well.  It is worth watching if either genre moves you.

Introducing ‘Movie Monday’.  Future film reviews will be published on Mondays.

A poignent, amusing, well scripted, directed, cast and acted insight into the Queen’s life. Recommended to people interested in the process of manipulating ‘media spin’ and people curious about the British Royalty. :-)

ratings explained

The Queen,  a recently released film covering the Spring to Autumn of 1997,  a brief 4 months in the reign of the current British Monarch.  The significance of the months include the election of the first Labour government in decades, the death of Princess Diana and its immediate aftermath. The film has two official websites, a UK based ‘The Queen’ site (2k) and another official ‘The Queen’ website (3k). 

Highlights:

• Excellent package.  Well directed,  excellent screenplay with Hollywood style ’soundbites’ taken from original speaches and cooked-up for the film. An outstanding performance by Helen Mirren.  A fabulous cast including Sylvia Simms as the Queen Mother.
• Alistair Campbell is just as offensive as I’d always imagined him to be.
• British car industry remnants are still evident with the Prime Minister in a Rover and Royalty dashing aound Balmoral in half a dozen Land Rovers.  Unlike film’s like ‘The Layer Cake’ where modern British gangsters product-placed drive German, rather than classic British, cars.
• Witty.  Despite the drama and distress the film is laced with poignent humour and light relief.  Phew.
• Diana’s life not disected.  Limited material or investigation into Diana’s life.  The film is definitely not a ‘who done it’ or questioning the Royal families relationship dynamic with Diana during her life.  Naturally it touches on this but not excessively or tediously.  This is a non-trivial achievement given the popular interest in Princess Diana.
• Period film-footage: this was used very effectively to build atmosphere and convey the shere scale of the crowd scenes. The live shots of the big-screens erected in hide-park to cover the funeral,  the shots of the flowers laid outside the various palaces.

Lowlights

• Breadth of appeal.  Not interested in the current British Royal family and political dynamics?  Then this isn’t the film for you.  I can’t imagine this film having a broad appeal,  but I could be wrong.
• personally powerful details omited.  On the day of Diana’s death all the Radio stations played sombre music with all day.  The only ‘talk’ was an announcement every 30 minutes that Diana had died.  This was particularly impactful for me travelling on a 6hr journey on a foggy, rainy August day after an emotionally and physically tiring weekend in a car with only the Radio for company.
• Too respectful.  The satirical portrayals of The Queen mother in classic period TV shows like Spitting Image highlighted her enjoying a tipple of Gordan gin and gambling.  I noticed no subtle references to this satiral image.
• 14 point stag: one theme in the storyline was a bit too soppy, with unclear significance to me.  The Queen has a ‘moment’ with a 14 point stag.  The stag is killed in an hunt with an unclean shot by an amatuer hunter,  The Queen visits the corpse of the stag and passes her comliments to the hunter.  Maybe this storyline was a comment on how she expressed her respect of death more openly to an animal than to her ex-daughter-in-law.  Maybe its an  indication of capability for respect and consideration.  I wasn’t sure.  The stag scenes were somewhat surreal.  For me they didn’t work.

Maybe you can point out more of the low-lights,  I’m having a bit of trouble seeing them

A disturbing and bleak look at sexual, emotional, relationships within modern American college life 

rating: :-)

I don’t know any Americans that would enjoy this movie.  I could be wrong.

It gets three smiles on the uncalibrated, unstable, Wendy scale because I found it starkley, morbidly, fascinating with some realistic themes.  A brave piece of work by the director because arguably it didn’t include a character sthat you, as the audience, were meant to build an affection or affinity with.  A risky strategy that was one of many reasons the Movie gets a panning on Rotten Tomatoes. The themes that I noticed were:

• unrequited attraction.  The film’s title is appropriate because it would be difficult to describe the story lines as being either love,  lust or obsessions,  but they were ‘attractions’.
• emotional and physical abuse directed at self (suicide, degrading behaviors) and others (rape, physical violence).  It seemed so ‘accepted’ by characters within the film as the way things are.  I suspect this may be realistic.
• fantasy. several characters in the film appear to build attractions to others based on a constructed, fantasy, understanding of what those people are like not based on what we as the audience see and hear they are like.   
• loneliness.  This was intertwined with the fantasy thread.  Lonely people using their imaginations to develop relationships into something ‘more’ than they are.  Some of the characters in the film were being drawn into, or seeking, a fulfilling intimate relationship.  Two characters towards the end of the film expressed this with the simple phrase “you don’t know me“. 

The film completely lacked humour, it did include character development.  Unusually,  the direction of the development was not aligned with an ideal or telling a moral story.  This was powerful.  We see the impact of ‘bad’ experiences tainting people,  we see unrequited ‘attraction’.  We never get really close to any of the characters.  Some characters I didn’t like at the beginning of the film and I still didn’t like them at the end of the film.  That’s realistic. 

The rape scene was profoundly disturbing,  not least because the victim appeared to accept it as if this was to be expected.  For that one message the film is worth watching.  I know too many girl’s (and boys) who have that attitude.  They blame themselves for not being ’sensible’ (e.g. I should not have got drunk) and remove any blame from the perpertrator because ‘he thought it was alright’.  Somehow they justify thier role as victims of sexual abuse, rape.  That makes me extremely angry.  This film has value for portraying what I see as a moral and legal crime without having any cumeuppance for the offender or any real recognition of the crime by the victim. 

Unfortunately that’s real.

Sweet Sixteen a Ken Loach film.  Recommendation for you:

For quirky me this rated:

Because the film doesn’t ‘travel’ well; despite the two lead characters never removing their baseball caps ;-)  I have an affection for Ken Loach’s story telling style and content having grown up on Z Cars and been moved in my early teams by his outstanding film ‘Kes‘.

Why not rate it higher for you?  The strong Scottish accents and colloquial language make much of the dialog inpenetrable for none-Scottish audiences without the aid of (provided) subtitles.  My year living in Scotland trained my ear to the language but I still had to focus to follow the dialogue.  The work is social realism,  a ‘kitchen sink’ drama.  Not broadly accessible.  A ‘niche’ movie.

It’s the story of a working class boy’s daily life.  Poverty in Scotland.  Realistic violence, crimes and liberal swearing. I cried. I knew people like this. I left them behind.  After leaving, cutting the chord, I heard the stories of their lives.  It draws a painful, clearly marked, downward spiralling journey that starts near the bottom.  Occassionaly punctuated with touching situational humour.  The pleasures of kinship and playfulness in daily life.  No sound track.  At one point the lead character, Liam,  listens as Chrissy Hind,  the Pretenders, sings ‘I’ll stand by you’ and later in a club “I go to sleep“.  Chrissy Hind was married to Jim Kerr the Glaswegian lead singer of Simple Minds.  Example of the simple powerful dialog:

Chantelle to Liam: “how can you care about them if you don’t care about yourself?”

Later

Policeman: “Do you know what iniative is?”

Liam: “Laughing at bosses jokes?”

Later

Liam to Chantelle:  “Open the door, give me a cuddle“

 Match point, well executed though lacking originality :)

Recommended for people who fit in at least one of the following categories:

• are fascinated by watching talented actors with unusually large top lips (Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Scarlett Johansson) deliver weak dialogue with buckets of sultryness.
• adore listening to plummy English accents.
• thrive on wathcing classy delivery of bit part’s by outstanding actors like Brian Cox and Penelope Wilton
• are committed Woody Allen fans, enjoying his style and pet obsessions irrespective of how familiar they are from his previous films.
• have not seen Crimes and Misdemeanors. Angelica Huston and Martin Landau did a good job originally. Is this a remake? l don’t think so. It’s difficult to tell.
• can’t help enjoying themselves when they see the gherkin or any part of it.

Excellent acting and camera work but way too familiar plot with some rather weak dialogue.  l wouldn’t watch it again.

Are all stunning,  scenery and animation are also top-notch.

But these excellent parts do not gestalt to a good film.

The Disney Narnia film storyline didn’t really work for me.  It covered the second book of seven in the Chronicals.  Why not start at the beginning?  

Tilda Swinton was outstanding as Queen Jadis. Jim Broadbent’s cameo role is also exquisite though not used effectively for plot development.  Tilda’s performance held my interest in the film. The other female characters were stereotypical ‘healing’, ’supportive’ and did all the blubbing in the film.  Yuck.  Somewhat uninspiring.  Even the two lead ‘boy’ characters appeared shallow and poorly developed thoughout the film.  James McAvoy who is often cast as a loveable rogue played a convincingly trustable Mr. Tumnus.  The sets and graphics (snow, animals) were extremely impressive but didn’t sufficiently make up for the lack of good quality character development.  Thankfully, these children do not feature in the other books.  I haven’t seen the BBC version of 4 of the books.

I wouldn’t recommend this film.  

Here’s a picture of my vintage (between 1 and 2 hundred years old) French Wardrobe instead.  It’s cheaper and almost as entertaining.  It slots together, no ’screws’ and I can climb in it with both my kitties.  It’s the only piece of furniture that I care about.  Care about furniture?  Not normally,  but a wardrobe that once contained other people’s clothes,  a doorway,  Norman arches,  Barley-twist, beautiful oak and quality craftsmanship.  Golly gosh,  it even SMELLS good!  Must have a cup of tea before I get toooooooo excited about my wardrobe….

W Wardrobe-Worshiper

The film was enjoyable.  True to the main themes of the book containing some excellent directorial moments that are especially impressive given this is Joe Wright’s directorial debut.  

Working title ‘Pride & Prejudice’ Strengths:

• Convincing and entertaining portrayals of Mr (Donald Sutherland) and Mrs (Blenda Blethyn) Bennet.  The best I’ve seen.
• Fabulous sets and scene locations (e.g. the tree rest-spot on the way to Derbyshire).   
• Directional details used to clearly conveyed messages without ‘words’ or heavy reliance on acting skills. Particularly when conveying Mr. Darcy’s affection for Elizabeth.

Unlike the outstanding Capote, or Goodnight and Good luck, I was distracted from full immersion in the whole fantasy film-experience by irrtating trivialities.  This left me prefering the longer,  more captivating, 1995 BBC TV version. 

Irritating trivialities included:

• Tightly laced bodice in one scene that is incosisitent with the regency style. 
• General make-up inaccuracy:  Glossy peach coloured lip gloss.  Lizzie,  NO!  While lip gloss was available in white and red choice and use of colours was limited. HEAVY use of eye-liner by Bingley’s sister.
• Kiera Knightley’s posture and deportment was just POOR.
• Most characters appeared to be under instruction to make their hair look like it had never seen a comb.  Many of the hairstyles were ‘rigidly’ held in scruffy-in-place (hairspray?). 

The heavy advertising spin had overplayed the quality of this production which left me slightly disappointed.

As with all high budget period productions the ‘house’ film locations are stunning.  Here are the main locations used for the Working Title production:

• Netherfield Park:  Basildon Park
• The scene where Darcy proposes was filmed at the Temple of ‘Apollo’, Stourhead, Wiltshire
• Pemberly Exterior and some interiors:  Chatsworth house, including the sculpture gallery.  Chatsworth is actually mentioned in the book & is actually in the Derbyshire peak district where the fictional Pemberly is based. 
• Pemberly interiors:  Wilton house.
• Inn at Lambton:  Haddon Hall, Lizzie’s bedroom.
• Longbourne:  Groombridge place.
• The Rosings:  Burghly House, Stamford, Lincolnshire. Lady Catherine de Bourgh’s house.
• Meryton:  Stamford, Lincolnshire.

I spent many summer days in Stamford,  visited Burghly house once and Chatsworth half a dozen times.  Happy memories.  No real equivalent in Washington State….

W

Film summary details: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274558/

This is an outstanding Oscar winning film,  the best film I’ve seen this year….  ..definitely rated in my top 10 films.  It was an accidental discovery on live TV!  It captured and drew me in, for a plethora of reasons including

• Distinctive female central roles executed brilliantly by Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep and Miranda Richardson.  Miranda Richardson is a personal favourtie because
  • I’ve been likened to her portrayal of ‘Queenie’ in Black Adder III.
  • Her outstanding portrayal of ‘Ruth Ellis’,  the last woman to be ‘executed’ in the UK in ‘dance with a stranger’
  • Her amazingly versataille portfolio.
• An excellent screen script by David Hare.  David is a personal favourite of mine.  I’ve had the honour of being cast in plays he’s written.
• The value of life is questioned.  A worthy topic of consideration.  It’s profoundly distressing.  This may seem like an odd reason to rate a film as excellent.  I value films that take the audience on journeys they may not have the freedom or courage to take outside of the film.  Films that provoke thought,  manipulate emotions, heighten self and other awareness.  This film is fairly unique in its subject matter for such a famous cast,  yet the subject matter is accessible and potentially very recognisable.  I have very non-mainstream views on the value of an individual’s life that easily align with the decisons made by some people within this film.
• Philip Glass’s musical score.  Michael Nyman has been my favourite modern composer since I saw ‘The Draughtman’s Contract’  1982 and in subsequent Peter Greenaway films.  Michael is more internationally famous for producing the sound track for ‘The Piano’ starring Holly Hunter,  Harvey Keitel and Sam Neil.  I normally find Philip Glass’s work pales by comparison.  My introduction to Philip glass was a live performance of the Opera ‘The fall of the house of usher’.  It was tedious.  By contrast,  in this film Philip manages to convey time and mood fabulously.  It turned my opinion of his abilities around. 
• Clever yet easy to follow postmodern structure.   Few films have beautifully mastered interrupting and interweaving multiple interrelated storylines.  Notable other successes are ‘Pulp Fiction’ and ‘Memento’.   
• Its personal and relevant today.  These women were all profoundly beautiful.  I found myself wanting to stand up and defend them,  to celebrate their value, to break the pathway of their distress,  to rescue them.  But I couldn’t,  as the people around them couldn’t.  Fundamentally distressing.  This film caused pain.  I cried.  The outcomes felt inevitable and right for the characters.  Things haven’t changed that much.  The main themes of the film are evident today.  That pain exists.   It’s everybody’s responsibility to remove the pain.

Do watch this.

Don’t watch it alone,  make sure you are with someone who cares about you or can effectively share,  empathise or manage distress.  The film rating is too low,  this film is deeply emotionally disturbing,  it contains suicide and serious questioning of societal values. 

I made 2 mistakes.  Watching it alone and answering a phonecall 15mins before the film ended while crying silently and still deeply immersed.

I will be watching this film again.  I suspect I’ve missed many subtle nuances,  I want to use it to help be more aware and supportive in the lives I touch,  including my own.

W