2 hours ago
Wednesday, 24 June 2015
It's based on a successful stage play of a 2006 actual news story involving a serial killer in Ipswich (medium-sized town about 80 miles north-east of London) who picks five prostitutes as his victims. The play uses the real words employed by members of the public in the locality (the road of the film's title) in newsreel interviews and - arguably with some risk concerning the seriousness of the subject matter - it sets them to music.
The cast is largely of little or complete unknowns, save for Olivia Colman, Anita Dobson (a long-time fixture of one of this country's most popular soaps) and, in not much more than a cameo role, a star of no less stature than Tom Hardy, appearing for five minutes or less as a taxi driver.
The 'music' that the cast speak, lilt or sing to, in singles, doubles or in ensemble - much of it direct to camera as if in interview - is determined by the inflections and stresses of the actual spoken words used in interviews of the time - some of the content of which is quite shocking, being 'gut-feelings' spontaneously expressed. Whereas in true musicals the shape and stress of the lyrics is determined by the music it lies alongside, here the reverse happens - the lyrics (without rhyme, of course, unless a line or word is being repeated) shape the music. None of the 'melodies' (such as they are) are particularly memorable, but it wasn't meant to be that way. It's almost entirely a sung-through affair, though often the speaking voice gradually transforms itself into a singing one, so it's nothing like 'Les Mis' or 'Sweeney Todd'. Neither is the singing anything like Rex Harrison's 'Talking on Pitch'. When the cast rise into song they really let rip.
The story covers the time when the last of the victims was found, the surrounding area's residents already nervous and suspicious of everybody else due to multiple news items and warnings to be cautious, and on to the suspect being apprehended and, seen from the outside through TV news reports, his trial and conviction - and in a final flourish, onto the all-round relief and attempt of London Road residents to reclaim the area's reputation in appropriately flamboyant manner.
It certainly held my attention all the way, because one was hanging onto every word uttered through song, all of which was admirably clearly enunciated. So why didn't I like it more? (Director: Rufus Norris). I find it hard to pin down exactly. I would imagine that in the theatre the piece would have significantly more bite. By its nature it's very piecemeal, jumping from character to character - and it would take a heart of stone not to feel for some of the surviving prostitutes we see. One of the characters displays possession of such a heart - though I must ask myself how I'd be feeling if prostitutes operated in the area in which I lived, and left behind evidence of their 'work'.
Those who remember 'Les Parapluies de Cherbourg' of 1964 will get the idea of the nature of this type of sung-through film. I seem to recall that only a few years ago there was another one which tried the same thing but I just cannot recall the title.
I can't help feeling that although we'll always recall 'The Cherbourg Umbrellas', after fifty years we may find it harder to remember 'London Road'..........................6.5
Monday, 22 June 2015
I could tell from the trailer that this was not going to be 'my type' of film (an otherwise routine romance, though with a strange, unique twist), and so it transpired to be. But having the chance to see it on a morning matinee cheapo ticket, well, buggers can't be choosers, so off I went.
The premise of the story is that, due to a combination of events and natural phenomena in 1930s San Francisco, a woman (Blake Lively) in her late 20s stops physically ageing and goes through ensuing decades right up to the present day with this blessing/curse of eternal youth. Okay, I can go along with that. But when, halfway through the film, she meets the father of her current date (Michael Huisman), it was a case of "Aw, come on! Can the world really be that small!" Harrison Ford, playing the father, is actually given a part with considerable depth, and he's really good in it. In fact, he is one of the few saving graces of the film, another being the presence of Ellen Burstyn as the daughter of the titular Adaline, though seemingly to be about three times as old as her mother.
Btw: Why is that it is only very rarely that find it hard to make out what more 'mature' actors are saying - these latter two mentioned players being prime examples of how to do it properly - whereas so many of the current younger set speak in such a lazy manner, near to the point of disgrace. In this film I was several times left wondering why those to whom Lively was speaking didn't reply "Pardon? What did you say?". One would think that the director (Lee T. Krieger) would have asked her to do a retake, but of course he knows what the words are, so that's all that matters, isn't it?.
The film is shot virtually entirely in San Francisco, that most photogenic of cities that it's always a pleasure to see on the screen, and the views we get of it here do it justice.
Another plus for me was the non-intrusive nature of any background score. Was there, in fact, any at all? I didn't notice.
I've gone thus far without saying a single word about the appearance of the male lead in the person of Dutch-born Michael Huisman. So here's a single word - Phwarrrrrrrrrrrr!
If I 'enjoyed' this film a tiny bit more than I expected it was only because the good qualities ever so slightly outweighed those less then. So an honest rating in my records would be..........................5.5.
Sunday, 21 June 2015
Today is not only the anniversary (10th) of my mother's funeral, but also the 36th anniversary of my father's death.
Seeing my sister last month for my annual visit (she, now 77, having been widowed just last February), she'd dug out a photo which I'd completely forgotten, taken when we were on holiday, when I'd have been about 10. This was on the Yorkshire Moors, actually only about 25 miles from our home, but in those days that distance was a big deal! Can you guess which of the the three young boys I am? (If you do a left-click on the photo it should come up much larger and clearer).
My mother is, you can just see, holding onto Candy at the bottom of the picture, the only dog we ever owned, and which I loved to bits - and the old lady on the right is my grandmother, my mum's mum.
I am actually the right one of the three. Next to me is my late elder brother who died 7 years ago at the age of 64 and who became an internationally-renowned memory man, once holding the world record for remembering the mathematical ratio pi to over 15,000 decimal places (long since been overtaken, though) as well as other memory tricks, such as with playing cards. My younger brother, David, is the perky-looking one on the left, and was the most intelligent member of the family, winning school prizes and things. (I have one other surviving brother, now 75.)
So there it is - rare from me, but a blast from my past, on a day when thoughts veer towards my departed parents. Poignant and sad memories, true, but also most agreeable ones.
Monday, 15 June 2015
I am, however, glad to report that the weighty proceedings are significantly lifted whenever the admirable Annette Bening appears on screen (which is often), as an hotel manager with whom Pacino flirts unashamedly. There's a significant amount of pleasing banter between them. Even when the conversations between these two get to more serious subjects it's still interesting, which is more than can be said for some of the other interchanges.
Pacino himself is a three-times married rock star of yesteryear, where drinks and drugs figured, and continues to cast shadows. He's still performing occasional public concerts singing his 'hits' of old, and he's still managed, forty years on, by Christopher Plummer. I wasn't quite sure how much of Plummer's doddery act was put on as being in the character of the man he was portraying, or was it part of Plummer the man as he's become? Of course I want to think it was the former.
Roughly based on a true story, it tells how, in 1971, John Lennon, whom Danny Collins (Pacino) worshipped, read an interview Collins had given and was impressed enough to write to him c/o the magazine in which it appeared, suggesting that they talk further, only Lennon's letter to have been withheld from the imterviewee's awareness, he now being told of it forty years later, to his dismay. This provides the excuse for nearly all the background music to the film being of Lennon (post-Beatles) songs. Unfortunately they are all only snippets, some very brief, which was a shame.
The cloyingly sentimental aspect I refer to at the start of this post is that there is a serious health issue affecting one of the members of Collins' son's family, and which the Pacino character takes an active part to try to alleviate. This tilted the film's whole centre of gravity to an ill-fitting seriousness, at least one that is at odds to what I was expecting.
This is writer Dan Fogelman's first film as director, which he achieves with fair enough results. Perhaps I should have been more open-minded to there being light and shade in the story. I was hoping for something enjoyably frothy throughout rather than it being so just in patches..........................5.5
Wednesday, 10 June 2015
He's at his best when in rat-a-tat-tat delivery, and here he's allowed his head with a pretty good script (by Tess Morris) which sounds extemporised.
The premise of the film requires a considerable leap of faith. He mistakes a 30-something lady for his blind date of ten years younger (and this is only the beginning!) when she, unable to get a word in edgeways, decides to play along and makes out that, yes, she is indeed the very date he was supposed to meet - and that despite her having a speech prepared for a celebratory party she was due to attend that same evening, she goes off with this total stranger. Just imagine going with a man totally unknown to you who's making a strong come-on. Unthinkable isn't it? (Good job you can't see my blushes.) So here they are, visiting bars, a restaurant, bowling alley.........However, it's not too long before the unfortunate appearance of a former male school colleague of hers, and now with a disturbing fixation on her, makes her admit the truth of who she is to her 'date'. Arguments develop - but can you guess where it's going to end up? Yes, that's right - they find that they're mutually smitten. (Btw: This is not a plot-spoiler - as if it could be! - it's contained within the first sentence of the publicity blurb.) So - after the set-up idea the film follows a predictable path but it's kept interesting because of some lively acting and that script which fizzes along.
Simon Pegg's female foil is one Lake Bell, a name I didn't know though I see that she's appeared in a number of films (none of which I've seen) as well as quite a lot of TV work. Here she gives as good as she gets, at least when she's allowed to speak, which she certainly is after the opening scene. It's said that during filming the crew assumed that she was English and that only after shooting, when she reverted to her normal accent, did they discover that she was American. She is particularly good in this.
Rory Kinnear is the obnoxious ex-chum who just doesn't get the message that the lady feels no attraction towards him. He just will not give up, even when knowing the circumstance she is in.
The entire action takes place during the one evening. We are, thankfully, spared any bedroom or sex scenes, which would have felt out of place here anyway. Unfortunately the film does end on a ghastly note of intense sentimentality, even with large numbers witnessing and applauding the couple's declared affection for each other - the classic 'feel-good' ending. But that was really my only major reservation, and director Ben Palmer keeps it all moving forward nicely.
When Simon Pegg plays these talkative characters I never tire of listening to him, though I can't pin down why. (Hugh Grant I also find a compelling watch for much the same reason.) Pegg's appearances in the 'Cornetto' comedy trilogy were similarly attractive to me - maybe less so when he plays in the 'Star Trek' and 'Mission Impossible' films.
If you share my liking for Simon Pegg my rating for this film will, I hope, make you interested enough to see it. If you are indifferent, or have an antipathy towards him, you will have to reduce my score accordingly......................6.
Monday, 8 June 2015
Melissa McCarthy (from the much better 'Bridesmaids') plays the unlikely F.B.I. agent hopping around Europe after volunteering for a job following the demise of an agent who was chasing illicit arms trading, where it's thought that her less obvious Junoesque figure may be an advantage. Locations are Paris, Rome and Budapest, where the captions helpfully tell us in which countries these 'little-known' cities can be found. (Why is it that we see no films which say 'New York, U.S.A.', as also with Washington D.C., Los Angeles etc?)
Also on hand are suave and Bond-style Jude Law with (and much more interesting), Jason Statham, all overflowing anger, super-confident of his own abilities and contemptuous of others. It was he who was the saving grace of this film for me, with an impressive ability to deliver dry, silly lines while keeping totally straight-faced. Shame, then, that his screen time wasn't as extensive as I'd expected.
Miranda Hart is also there, and she just doesn't seem to fit comfortably in the plot both as a person and in the scheme of things. Another pity
It's a very physical film (a lot of it very violent) with McCarthy drawing on reserves of energy one would not have expected from someone with her physique. She also packs one hell of a punch and she has no mean accuracy when it comes to using her gun - but these are all part of the absurdities which are meant to define this as a comedy..
The 'jokes' are either slapstick-like or, verbally, based on the assumption that the cruder one is then the funnier it must be, which, as we all know, is simply not true. I think it betrays a lameness in the script, something which a lot of our present-day younger stand-up comedians also fail to recognise.
The world this film inhabits reminded me a lot of the 'Johnny English' films. Of course the Melissa McCarthy figure is miles apart from that played by Rowan Atkinson, but they share a gaucheness in both action and words of not realising the implication and consequences of what they are doing or saying, at least until it's too late and the action has accordingly moved on..
The two-hour film was too long by at least thirty minutes. It ought to have been sharper but the fights are over-prolonged and could have been cut back with improved effect.
Director (and writer of this) Paul Feig also directed 'Bridesmaids', which I found a much more satisfactory film, though also patchy in its comedic moments. I think Feig over-indulges himself here, which shows especially in the bone-crunching combat scenes.
'Spy' has had generally quite good reviews. I don't subscribe to them, but I've certainly seen worse, a lot worse. Besides, there's always the chance that you will be one of those roaring in mirth. From me it gets a humble........................4.
Monday, 1 June 2015
Set mostly in London (regular aerial panoramic shots including the usual landmarks, helpfully reminding us just in case we've forgotten where we are) as well as shorter episodes in Berlin and Moscow, it's the world of espionage and 'guess-the-traitor' when a terrorist suspect (clearly Islamist, but not stated) flees captivity in transit, whose 'rescuers' have been fed knowledge from an unknown person in the Secret Service.
Peter Firth, now with a C.V. as long as your arm, is the MI5 boss who disappears after the incident and it's up to earnest, but still wet-behind-the ears, agent Kit Harington to trace him and wheedle out information as to what's going on, and what's his connection with the escape - not to also mention forestalling further expected imminent attacks.
I understand that young Mr Harington, in his role in 'Game of Thrones', has set many a heart a-flutter. This is the first time I've seen him in any substantial part and he's not bad at all.
Also, as one of the Service's senior officers is Jennifer Ehle, whose English accent very occasionally falters, though not so as to be too distracting - as well as the estimable David Hammond.
There's lots of action, several nail-biting moments and, very commendably, a plot that is not so over-complex as to bewilder one. Sometimes these scenarios that owe a lot to John Le Carre are so labyrinthine that I give up trying to follow them and just try to enjoy the ride. Not so here, remaining simple enough even for me to follow.
In a sense it's an old-fashioned kind of film, but India-born director Bharat Nallun brings a certain flair to proceedings, such that I wasn't bored at all - and it's a sensible hour-and-three-quarters in length, another 'plus'.
Enjoyable enough to search out, it may not linger in the memory for very long, but while it's playing it's pretty good value for your money................................6.5.
Btw: Such is the pitifully deteriorated state of my computer now, it's taken me a full four hours to type and post the above, due to very frequent screen-freezes. Been reading Sherlock Holmes story 'Valley of Fear' in the stretches waiting for it to unfreeze itself, so not quite a total waste of time. Still infuriating as hell, though!
Tuesday, 26 May 2015
I want to use this opportunity to point out to my revered blog-followers that once again my computer is stuttering and spluttering to a halting destination, I fear, with frequent freezes and 'unresponsive message' alerts, taking me about six hours (or more) to achieve what ought to be managed in less than one. Commenting on some of your own blogs has become near-impossibly arduous. Even my e-mail account, where I can send missives without trouble, has got the inbox jammed up, taking a full week for me to see any individual message as they dribble through at the rate of about one per day. If I had the money I'd get the whole apparatus rectified without delay, or, far better, get a brand new up-to-date computer, but as I haven't I'll have to struggle along as best I can. So please bear with me if you've written something I would otherwise have liked to comment on and which you might have expected. Sometimes just getting your own blog on screen can freeze up the whole works for maybe an hour (It happens with some, but not for others.) I'll continue trying to respond where I can, but if you don't hear from me for a while I will still be here, hoping for better times shortly.
It may actually be a good film for all I know, but I'm clearly as far removed from the audience this is aimed at as it's possible to be, and only went because there was a chance to see it for £3 (American about $4.60 ), it not being on my 'must see' list.
Where to start? I'll give it short shrift, but this idea of averting global catastrophe has become so banal now. We've seen it done to death that it's become like 'crying wolf'. It just doesn't engage any more - at least not for this viewer.
George Clooney, looking far from comfortable in his role, is a life-long inventor since being a little boy and, playing around with glimpsing into the future, sees an apocalypse coming, and even has a countdown apparatus to zero hour. But his vision of total annihilation is questioned by a bright young girl who joins him (plus a human-replicant younger girl-robot), she having acquired a 'key' to actually travel to the future. However, she is also armed with that highly desirable quality, 'optimism', which he lacks. Also hopping between present day and future is shady character Hugh Laurie, looking almost as uncomfortable in the wrong part as Clooney. Fights develop involving gangs of human-like robots, but it all left me cold and wanting it to end (The film, not the world - though having said that......). Do Clooney and the girl save the entire planet from its likely dire fate? I was past caring, though I'm not going to 'spoil' it for you.
Purely in terms of relating to what I consider entertains me, I give it a better-to-avoid mark of..........3 (out of 10).