Category: Film

Cinema Sunday – just 2 films

Nowhere Boy
Nowhere Boy

The day after Boxing Day meant Sunday parking rates (i.e. free) so I headed into Glasgow to catch two films:

Nowhere Boy

A John Lennon bio-pic starring Aaron Johnson as the central character. Pretty much the whole world will know who Lennon was (he did claim to be more famous than Jesus at one point), but how much do you know about his childhood?

Plot-in-a-nutshell: a young lad with an adopted family in Liverpool starts to discover a lot more about his genealogical past – and a taste for rock and roll.

There are two major things that you’d expect from a Lennon bio-pic which are missing – music and any mention of The Beatles. In fact, two other members of the Beatles are also introduced as the film goes on, but their surnames are never used. The focus is well and truly on young John.

Going by the Wikipedia article, the film sticks closely to some form of documented reality but does differ compared to other details. Having said that, I suppose there will be many differing versions of events at the time.

This is most definitely not a film about The Beatles. To a huge extent it’s not even about music – John only gets his first banjo lesson about halfway through. If you want a movie about music then you’d be better off with the older Backbeat movie (or Still Crazy, which I love).

Nowhere Boy is a kitchen sink drama. A tale about growing up in Liverpool in the 1950’s, not being good at school and with a collection of forgotten memoirs buried at the back of the family cupboard. It’s also very well acted and scripted, though interest does slip partway through before picking up again.

Not what I was expecting, but interesting nonetheless.

holmes
Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes

From an adaptation of a “true” story, on to an adaptation of a fictional character. There has been outcry over the version of Holmes being introduced by Guy Ritchie for this movie. So how “bad” was it?

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Private detective and pit-fighter (I kid you not) Holmes gears up for one final case as witty, charismatic action buddy (again, no kidding) Dr Watson attempts to retire from the crime-fighting business.

First up, this is a marginally silly film. It’s got a great sense of humour, some cracking action sequences, wonderful chemistry between the leads, clever direction and absolutely beautiful sets and scenery. However… some of these departures, mainly from the characters featured in the Conan Doyle works, will understandably jar with hard core fans.

From a regular film fan’s point of view, I feel, it won’t matter. Robert Downey Jr is a very “cool” Holmes, though stands shorter than Jude Law‘s Dr Watson and is never seen wearing a deerstalker. Or smoking a large-bowled bendy-stemmed pipe. He does play a good version of Holmes, though. Quick-witted, often condescending, full of himself and so forth.

Dr Watson is where the problem lies for me, having read the books. The character from the stories was never much of an action man, partly due to a leg injury sustained in Afghanistan. Despite the limp he carried with him in the film, Law’s character has no problem bounding and leaping about. Generally in the written works, Watson is more of a biographer who sometimes follows Holmes around. Rarely is he as involved as the sidekick in this movie.

The thing is, ditch the “Holmes and Watson” tag (and the Adler one – she’s out of character, too) and wallow in the film as a standalone feature… and it’s pretty good. Ritchie has been let loose with a staggering budget as can be seen from the set pieces. I loved the backgrounds – even though they did look somewhat CGI – in particular the part-complete Tower Bridge (which the two chattering bints behind me decided after arguing was London Bridge).

If you liked Downey Jr in Iron Man (yay, sequel next year!) then you’ll have an idea of his Holmes. If you’ve seen earlier Ritchie films then you’ll expect the slow-mo scenes and the way certain segments are played through… and then rewound or fast-forwarded to explain them. A nice touch and not over-used.

It is a tad over-long, but it’s good Christmas fodder when there’s not a Bond film around. Closer to Lethal Weapon than canon Doyle (hey, that was clever…) but worth a watch.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold

Scented poo
A real stinker

This won’t be so much as a review as a warning. Don’t, for the sake of anything you deem holy, waste your money on St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold.

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Who cares? Really? I don’t.

I gave this film a chance and it bit me on the nads. The cast are awful. The girls aren’t even hot. The script’s pants. Even the make-up is rubbish – you can see that some of the younger girls have blacked-out, rather than missing, teeth.

The whole thing simply stinks.

Whereas ex-Dr Who Christopher Ecclestone was awful in the otherwise entertaining G.I Joe, soon-to-be-ex-Dr Who David Tennant is one of the few saving graces… no. The only saving grace in this otherwise atrocious waste of celluloid.

When the “funniest” moment in a film is Colin Firth‘s leg being humped by a small dog, you know a film doesn’t have a hope in Hell. Especially when the exact same joke (I believe) was used in the first film.

Utter, utter, utter, utter, utter crap.

St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Planet 51

Planet 51
Planet 51

Planet 51 was actually my first film of the day, and a great little cartoon it was too.

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Earthling astronaut lands on alien planet where he’s treated much as E.T. would have been in 1950’s America.

It seems that computer animated films are really doing well right now. It used to be that PIXAR made the only good ones. Then Dreamworks started to weigh in with the likes of Shrek. Now more companies are adding their fare to the pile and the quality is holding high.

Planet 51 is definitely worth a look. The whole setting is lovely with a green-skinned alien version of 1950’s America being used. As far as they’re concerned, humans are evil creatures bent on taking over their planet and turning them all into zombies. And they only exist in movies. Until Captain Charles T. Baker lands in Lem’s back yard.

As with so many animated films these days, it’s the background touches that really make it. The little in-jokes like the bicycle flying across the moon, or the pet dog that looks like an “Alien” alien. It even pee’s acid. And the little subplot with the postman and the dog.

The whole look is excellent, too. The way the architecture and so forth has all been planned out and kept consistent. The vehicles and how they work. It actually made me think of Robots in that it’s a familiar and yet alien environment.

The vocal talent doesn’t really stand out, though. The performances are good enough, but the only instantly recognisable voice for me was John Cleese. Dwayne Johnson (formerly known as “The Rock” and thank gumption he’s dropped that) does actually sound like an actor – certainly more than he manages to carry off in live-action films.

It’s not the best animated film this year by a long chalk, but it’s definitely worth catching.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Nativity!

Sticking with the seasonal theme, Nativity! was actually the fourth of the films I saw today. However, it was by far the best.

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Primary teacher Mr Maddens (Martin Freeman) drops a clanger when he lies and says that Hollywood producers will be coming to see his nativity play… then has to live up to the lie.

It’s a simple basis for a comedy which throws in some cute kids, a bit of romance, a spiralling story, a bad guy and a Christmas theme. Heck, it sounds really weak when you think about it.

But I really, really loved it.

I think this could be for reasons in addition to the acting and story. I’m a student teacher – secondary though with hopes of doing primary also. I love kids. I think British comedy films are currently riding on an all-time high.

All of these combined to have me alternately giggling and near tears depending on what was happening on the screen. The basic story is so simple that it’s incredibly plausible. It only takes the tiniest suspension of belief to think “hang on, that could so easily happen”. Up to a point, at least.

The casting is superb. Aside from Freeman (who I can genuinely picture being an incredible teacher if he’s actually got that manner with kids), Marc Wootton is annoying yet loveable as the somewhat childlike teaching assistant, Mr Poppy. However, their performances are brushed aside by the simply fantastic children.

What makes them so good is the fact that they’re not perfect. They’re not the “look at us, we’re amazing and can do anything absolutely perfectly while looking so cute we’d make you sick” kids you expect to see in American films. These children look like a couple of classes of bog standard British primary school children. That is perfect.

Nativity! has the same feel-good factor at the end as such films as The Boat That Rocked and Still Crazy. In addition to both it’s got some adorable children who aren’t sickly sweet. Just cute. The story’s well-paced, it’s funny (laugh-out-loud in places), sad, moving, uplifting and simply just great entertainment.

I now want to teach primary more than ever before. If you’ve ever considered being  a primary school teacher, watching this film could be enough to make you start filling in the PGDE / PGCE application forms.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Disney’s A Christmas Carol

I might as well be seasonal, even if the next few posts are all going to be film reviews. I had a bit of a film-fest catching four films today. It would have been five, but I wanted to ensure I was home early enough to help my little cousin put out the magic reindeer food to guide Santa‘s sleigh in.

So – Disney‘s A Christmas Carol. Another adaptation of the classic Charles Dickens novel, this time at least not featuring any cutesy characters other than those introduced by the author himself.

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Incredibly tight money-man Scrooge makes everyone’s Christmas miserable until he’s visited by a series of ghosts.

There’s no real need to explain the story as it’s so well known, but this has to be one of the best adaptations I’ve seen. Robert Zemeckis used the bizarre semi-realistic animation he introduced with The Polar Express and it suits the film perfectly. Jim Carrey‘s voice is almost unrecognisable as Scrooge (through all the stages of his life) and is excellent. I was amazed when I checked afterwards to find he did the voices for all three Christmas ghosts as well.

What sets this film apart is the way it’s been made. Visually it is simply superb. The ghosts are portrayed in four wildly different fashions, though they’re all pretty creepy. Leah has told me that most of her primary pupils that were taken to see it are still having nightmares a week on. I can’t say I’m surprised.

Zemeckis has done a wonderful job of keeping the film true to the original material. As far as I can tell, the dialogue is straight from the book. Carrey and the rest of the cast do a top-end job of making it sound good, too. Not too hokey and not so old-fashioned or archaic.

If I have any complaints, it’s the fact that the IMDB page has two questions in the FAQ: “Is the film based on a book?” and “Is one of the characters snorting cocaine?”

Good grief.

Incidentally, I saw the film in 2D and I can see a few sequences where 3D would have worked well. However, I don’t think it’s lacking anything by being seen without silly specs on.

A lovely film, beautifully crafted and closely based on a highly enjoyable piece of literature.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]