Found out about this by chance last week and when it said screening 'introduced by Daniel Radcliffe' I thought perhaps it would just be a recorded video. But no it wasn't, he was there in person - very, very briefly with director James Watkins but still a treat nontheless.
He bounded into the spotlight from a side door said a few words about enjoying working on the film, it being scary and made a passing joke reference to Harry Potter being a small indy film series. And then he bounded off again to hysteria from a few fans.
In fact I'm curious as to why the cinema, Empire Leicester Square, wasn't busier - it was barely two thirds full. Harry Potter/Radcliffe fans are obviously losing their touch when it comes to stalking their idol.
More of my thoughts on the film itself to follow but in the meantime here are some pics that I hastily snapped - excuse quality, lighting wasn't great and the appearance was very brief.
Must confess that the trailer for The Descendants did nothing for me so I was curious as to why a) George Clooney has been shortlisted for an Oscar and b) the poster was full of superlatives and high praise.
So it's the story of Matt King (Clooney) who lives in Hawaii with his wife and two daughters who tells us from the outset that there is a misconception that it is paradise. Cue bad things happening.
The bad things are his wife is in a coma after a speed boat accident leaving him parenting his daughters - something his not used to doing. The second bad thing (it's all in the trailer so I'm not spoiling it) is that he finds out that his wife is having an affair.
There is also a parallel storyline about the sale of some family land he's involved with hence the title.
So did Clooney give an Oscar worthy performance? Well he gave a very good performance in something that isn't his usual fare and he made me cry a few times but I've seen more interesting performances with more depth elsewhere and from people that haven't been short-listed (coughs: Michael Fassbender).
The land sale plot line feels a little extraneous. It's obviously there to show the journey that Matt goes on as a person - he learns to appreciate the importance of family and his heritage - but otherwise just gets in the way.
Its strength lies in the dynamics of the close family and how the mother's absence exposes its strengths and weaknesses, the resentments and failings. But is it enough?
Again it's one of those films that is nicely done, well constructed with a nice balance of lighter moments and emotional moments but will it stand out from the crowd in a few months time? The answer to that is probably 'no'.
It's getting a Stan rating of 60% from me. On IMDb it has a rating of 77% with a Metacritic score of 84% while on Rotten Tomatoes it has 90% with 82% of audience members giving it 3.5 stars or more. So what do I know. Perhaps I'm just getting a hard person to please?
If you asked me to explain the plot of Haywire I could tell you that it's about a woman who is a private security contractor working for a company that is employed by the US government but she's been double crossed and is being persued. More than that ie who is goodie, who is baddie, who is working for who and why she is betrayed etc. I couldn't tell you.
Such plots can be fine if the action, thrills and spills are engaging enough that you are happy to enjoy the ride. Mission Impossible IV was like this. The problem with Haywire is that it didn't quite provide enough thrills and spills to make the journey go quickly. Yes there was a lot of fighting (which I find dull after a while even if it is a woman for a change kicking butt) and a bit of jumping around on rooves but little else. In fact it felt a little pedestrian and thriller by numbers.
It's a shame because what I did really like about Haywire is the fact that it does have a female protagonist - Mallory, played by Gina Carano - who not only looks like she really could kick ass but also has a Hollywood defying feminine physique. No scrawny arms, tiny bum and stick thighs on our Gina and it was so refreshing to see. It made her character far more believable compared to say Angelina Jolie who in her last spy-thriller was so stick like you knew something would break if someone really hit her.
Wanted to like it more, particularly with the likes of Michael Fassbender in the cast but instead it was just a bit 'meh'. I'm going to give it 54%. Over on IMDb it's got 66% with a Metacritic score of 67%. On Rotten Tomatoes it has 83% from critics and 43% of audience members gave it 3.5 stars or more.
Another film that makes me feel like I've lost two hours of my life. The best I can say about this Madonna directorial/co-writing effort is that the actors did the best they could with a jumbled and contrived plot and naive and amateurish script.
I get the impression that Madonna wanted to focus on the sacrifices Wallis made in order to marry Edward as everyone concentrates on his sacrifices. Fine but why then dilute the whole thing with a ridiculous parallel storyline about a modern day Wallis-obsessed New Yorker who's in a troubled marriage?
That whole storyline just got in the way and I left me just wanting to see more of Wallis - perhaps Madonna just couldn't manufacture enough about her and her sacrifices to make it the central story line.
And don't even get me started on the Mohammad Al Fayad scene (I'm not kidding) or the mish-mash of shooting styles or the...nope I'm going to stop there.
Dreadful on so many levels I felt embarrassed for the actors particularly Andrea Riseborough who did a marvellous job considering.
It's get a big fat raspberry 19%/one star from me. On IMDb it's got 44% with a Metacritic score of 39% while on Rotten Tomatoes it's got a critics score of 23% and inexplicable 63% of audience members have given it 3.5 stars or more.
And as it's on the Guardian 50 film list albeit this one is recommended for it's idiocy here's what it's reviewer had to say about it. Well Peter Bradshaw and I seem to agree, he's given it 1 star also commenting: "Madonna delivers a tale of two wallies." Enough said really.
Oh and if you still want to see it after watching the trailer, just take a tenner and burn it, you'll get more pleasure.
Have to confess that my initial thought about seeing the film was 'it won't be as good as the play' then my second thought was 'you don't want it to be as good at the play' and then my third thought was 'I'll bet you'll cry like a baby and love it'.
Well only one of those proved true and it wasn't the latter - although I did cry a couple of times.
My main problem with the film is that it is just too big and too Hollywood. There are rather too many scenes of sweeping landscapes and actors staring off into the sunset for my liking. It feels unnecessarily glossed at the expense of the heart of the story.
The film is longer than the play and I don't know whether they have added in stuff that was originally in the book or of the writers own devising but it diminishes the impact of the central Albert/Joey story.
How Albert gets into the army when he is turned away for being too young isn't explained and scenes have been added to create dramatic tension that really don't seem necessary. The French grandfather coming back to bid for Joey at the end, for example.
The play had charm, primarily because of the puppet horses, but you also got a real sense of the danger and destruction of war. War Horse the film didn't have the charm. It feels like Spielberg was trying to make another big war epic rather than a film of a children's book and failed at both.
I'm giving it 48% (3 stars) only because I'm a sucker for an animal sob story and I cried twice in it and having subsequently seen J Edgar this weekend, I know which I'd rather sit through a second time if I had to.
Dull, dull, dull, dull, dull. And indulgent. Stop putting actors on awards shortlists because they got made up to look old.
Wasted two hours and 17 minutes of my life on that film and don't want to waste much more. It's getting (2 stars) 30% from me only because the acting was good, I liked what Naomi Watt's wore and Armie Hammer has nice eyes.
I enjoyed The Artist. It oozes charming, is entertaining and it has a cute dog. I'm certainly not one of the few imbeciles who've walked out in disgust because of the lack of dialogue but I did wonder, if you strip out the fact that it is a silent movie would everyone be gushing quite so much? And the conclusion I came to is 'no'.
The story is interesting enough if not wholly predictable and the stuff of several movies before it. But, the lack of dialogue pushes the actors into a different direction, a different style of acting not seen since the, well since the last silent movies and it is really refreshing to watch.
I think what pushes The Artist beyond the gimmick tag is the choices that director Hazanavicius made. In interviews he says he didn't set out to make a silent film but decided that a silent movie was the best way to tell the story. The Artist was an artistic decision, is full of artistic decisions and wonderful vision.
It was also a genius choice not to stick doggedly to the silence but to add sound to one sequence, when our silent hero has a nightmare. It's a really nice touch and works perfectly in the context of the story.
However, what pleases me most about The Artist is that a film like this is getting so much attention at the big awards. It's refreshing to see something different win, something that doesn't tick the usual boxes that gets a film on a short-list.
My only fear or rather prediction is that there will be a string of copycats hitting cinema screens in the next couple of years. These won't be genius, these will lack imagination beyond trying to cash in. These will be gimmicky.
The Artist is definitely worth a look, it will put a smile on your face - Uggie the dog will put a smile on your face. The two lead actors Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo ooze old fashion beauty and charm, they are almost luminous on the screen, it quite takes your breath away.
I look forward to seeing it again with a live orchestra sometime in the future. It is inevitable.
Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow. And indeed wow. Been a while since I've walked out of the cinema barely able to speak. And I wasn't the only one, don't think I heard a voice as I left the unusually busy early bird screening yesterday with my friend Kate.
This is a great film for so many reasons I don't know quite where to start. I suppose first of all I should say that considering the subject matter - a man with a sex addiction - it is handled so perfectly, without glamour or titillation, leaving you in no doubt that this isn't a giggle-inducing problem but something quite emotionally devastating. It's human, that is the key, about the person not the action. The sex scenes are icily detached.
Director Steve McQueen achieves this with subtlety, atmosphere and art. Few words, gob-smacking performances from Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan as brother and sister Brandon and Cissy and beautiful, nay a heart-wrenching score set against a glamourous New York back drop that feels for the most part incongruously grimy and seedy.
Slight cheat, two reviews in one but I'm eager to get my 2011 best of/worst of compiled as well as decide on my StOscars which I can't do until these are written, so here goes.
Another Earth
Low budget sci-fi movie about a high school student Rhoda (Brit Marling) who in a tragic car accident kills composer John Burrough's wife and child (William Mapother). On the same night a duplicate earth is discovered. When Rhoda comes out of prison, haunted by the consequences of her actions she sets about trying make amends while wondering if the other her, on the second earth, has made the same mistakes - something she might soon find out.
Like the low budget sci-fi movies I've enjoyed over the last 18 months it is more of a character piece than about the science and as such it works really well although I do wonder if the film wouldn't work just as well without the second earth.
Rhoda doesn't say much leaving the audience to fill the gaps which I like. She is at time a difficult character to like and I also liked that ambiguity, the humanness of her.
It doesn't have a conclusive ending and raises a lot of questions that are unanswerable which some might find unsatisfying but I didn't. It's certainly a film that stays with you afterwards.
Only the fact that Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay got me in front of this baseball movie that and the fact that critic Mark Kermode said it wasn't really about baseball but about statistics.
I know nothing and care nothing for baseball and yes it is more about statistics, money and the politics behind the game. And there is nothing wrong with it but I just can't muster much enthusiasm for it. The script, as you can imagine, is excellent, it was well acted and engaging enough for the duration but ultimately I didn't really care enough.
It doesn't feel quite right starting on 2012's films while there are a couple of outstanding reviews plus my best of for 2011 still to post but I've had an idea and I'm impatient.
The Guardian has drawn up a list of what it sees as the 'biggest' films of 2012. Not sure what the criteria is for being the 'biggest' - the closest to an explanation is to describe it as it's film experts 'top picks', 50 in fact.
Flicking through the list and probably 80% are either already on my list or have pique my interest. So what if I was to try and see them all during the year and then keep a tally on how the Guardian rates in their reviews compared to my own? I'm aware it is slightly nerdy but what the heck, I'm going to give it a go and see what happens.
So first on their list is The Iron Lady described by critic Xan Brooks in the list:
Director Phyllida Lloyd gives us Thatcher without the Thatcherism in a perky biopic that amounts to a greatest hits package, bookended by scenes of the legend in her dotage, dancing with the ghost of Dennis and getting lost as she totters out in search of milk. What The Iron Lady has in its favour, though, is an electrifying bit of mimicry from Meryl Streep. The best actress Oscar looks all but guaranteed.
Now I'm not a fan of Maggie, having harshly felt the effects of her Poll Tax as a student and taken part in the demonstrations but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in her as a woman who fought sexism and the establishment to become the first female British Prime Minister.
Her story is told through aging, widowed Maggie's eyes as a series of flashbacks and hallucinations in which her husband Dennis is still alive and converses with her.
There are some fantastic performances. I had reservations about Meryl Streep taking on the role but she is very, very good. Olivia Colman is a favourite of mine and can't do anything wrong so naturally I loved her Carol Thatcher. I was also particularly touched by little Harry Lloyd's young Dennis.
However, my problem with the Iron Lady is that it doesn't feel political enough to be a film about politics, neither does it give enough insight into Thatcher to make if feel like a true biopic. Probably the area in which is was the most satisfying is the love story between Margaret and Dennis which was warmly portrayed.
Recent Comments