My April cinema-goings

Just one worthwhile film in the past month of lean pickings:-

My ratings in order of seeing -

Le Havre (6/10)
Headhunters (7.5)
The Cabin in the Woods (5)
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (4)

Le Havre  - Moderately engaging French language offering from Finnish director, Kaurismaki. Often leisurely tale-telling with a few attractive quirky touches. In sum, likeable enough, but hardly exceptional - though I don't think it had intended to aim that high.

Headhunters  - Distinctly above-par crime thriller, in Norwegian language. Multi-twist plot, none of which I saw coming. Discomforts one from the outset in not knowing where to place one's sympathies, but I liked that, keeping me on my 'mental toes'. Not a film for those demanding clear-cut resolutions to finish - AND (a warning!), it features the portrayal of the grisly killing of a guard-dog, though this one was largely off-screen and nowhere near as upsetting to me as seeing the hanging of a dog last month in 'Wuthering Heights', which was, surely, real - even if we didn't see the poor little thing actually die. Overall, 'Headhunters' is a superior film which I'd gladly sit through again.

The Cabin in the Woods  - I seem to be in a minority in not thinking particularly highly of this film. All the reviews I've seen have been positive or very so. The general ratings on IMDb website are higher than average too.
My own score is largely based on the originality of the angle on what has, for decades, become such a tired, cliche-ridden story taken up by scores of horror films, viz a group of largely or entirely obnoxious, mainly sex-crazed young things being terrorised in a confined space and being popped off one by one by unknown forces. Yes, I concede that there's a 'wink' at the horror genre's over-used formula here, but I don't think the film works either as horror or comedy. (Some horror films only work because they are so knowingly funny, but it needs some skill to bring that off successfully without being over-parodic). The main reason why this film doesn't work for me is that the premise of entrapment of the group is undermined near the film's start, revealing that the confined area from which escape must be sought is not the same as that which the preyed-upon group sees it. (It's difficult to give much more away without spoiling it for those who wish to see this film, and who may well enjoy it more than I did). Then, later in the film, the confining walls of this 'box' are re-drawn to unconvincing effect resulting in a plethora of special effects which I just find tedious and lazy. Okay, I'd better stop there. But it certainly is a different film from what most of us might have expected.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen -  Not having read the book, which I understand is more philosophical than the title might suggest, I was mildly intrigued by this - but only mildly. I really didn't know what to expect . Apparently the film takes a literal reading of the title and makes it a 1 hour 45 minutes film of this scientific and engineering project (with a parallel romantic thread) - and  I found it, frankly, dull, dull, dull!  Not even British stalwarts Ewan McGregor and the ever-watchable Kristin Scott Thomas (playing bossy-bitch right up to the hilt) as well as recent 'flavour-of-the-times'  Emily Blunt, could make the whole thing more than a tiny bit interesting. Too long and too damn boring! Some fine scenic photography, though.

___________________________

Anyway, let's hope the coming month brings more than one single film that is worth catching.

__________________________

My troublesome but truly treasured twosome (again)

All pics taken this very April morn. Blackso now starting to show his 13 years which, in human equivalent age, is probably not far short of my own 65. Noodles will be about 10. They both still control my life absolutely - 'cos I spoil 'em something terrible.

'HUGO' - at second viewing, but this time in 3D.

For only the fourth time in the last 10 years I've just paid good money to see a film in the cinema for a second time. This time the special one-off showing of 'Hugo' had the added attraction of being in 3D. I'd already seen the 'flat' version back in January which, even in that format, had captivated me. I was a bit reluctant to go, partly because it was showing on the very same screen as when I'd previously seen it. However, largely on the encouragement of my good blog-follower-friend, Paul, go I did.
In a previous blog I'd already nominated it as a potential 'film of the year' and it has now not only lost nothing of that status, but my appreciation of it has been enhanced. Visually, it really is quite extraordinary - and that has got to be its major achievement. The story has its sentimental passages for sure, particularly in the first half hour and towards the end, but it doesn't drown in pathos. I was also more attentive to Howard Shore's music score this time and, I have to say, it's pretty good without being ostentatiously distracting (though, perhaps, using Saint-Saens' 'Danse Macabre' a tad too much.). Even though in the story-telling I knew what was going to happen I was gripped all over again - and actually looking forward to seeing certain of the set pieces, this time jumping out in relief. I wasn't disappointed. I've seen half a dozen films in 3D in this latest resurrected wave of film fashion, and 'Hugo' is easily the most remarkable - in fact I'd say the only one so far which fully justifies being it being in that format, even though it holds up excellently in 2D too.
    As I just caught it on what was probably a final opportunity to see it on a cinema screen in 3D I would urge anyone who hasn't yet seen it, even if it's only showing in 'normal', to catch this totally magical film. Can't understand why it wasn't thought merit-worthy enough to carry off a single one of the major awards at the Oscars and the BAFTAs. I wouldn't be surprised if, in years to come, 'Hugo' is going to be considered a landmark film, for visual effects if nothing else. Superb!

Btw: The only other films of the last decade which I've seen twice in the cinema - 'Mamma Mia!', 'Inception' and 'Chicago'. Doesn't mean that I thought these were the best films of recent years, though obviously I liked them. However, what they do have in common is that they stand up well to repeated viewing.
   

My latest round-up of some recent cinema releases - March 2012

It's not been especially fertile period since my last summary - and, unlike my previous two blogs on latest releases, this time there is no stand-out  film. However, protocol demands that one should be nominated as 'Film of the Month'  and I therefore accord it, with muted fanfare, to 'MICHAEL' - no, not the ' John Travolta-as-slovenly-angel' 1996 film, but a rather darker Austrian offering with the same title. More of it  later.

 

So here is my list of films seen in the cinema, with my scores marked out of 10, stressing again that these represent my own personal experiential value of each, rather than whether or not they are intrinsically 'good' or otherwise. 

In order of viewing:-

A Dangerous Method (5)

Wuthering Heights (4)

Michael (7.5)

Bel Ami  (7)

The Help  (6.5)

The Hunger Games  (7)

A Dangerous Method - Moderately interesting drama on the Jung/Freud professional acquaintanceship - but little more than that.

Wuthering Heights  - (2011) - a real curiosity, with rough edges in several senses - and containing, for me,  at least one execrable and unnecessary scene.

    The 'big' story behind this one is having a black actor playing Heathcliffe, the only one in the film. Okay, we can all take a deep breath and watch it 'colour-blind', but for me in this production, it tended to be a major distraction. Should we expect authenticity at all times? Of course not. It is, after all, just one version of a work of fiction anyway - based, of course, on the Emily Bronte classic which I love - or at least part of it. But here it really was an ever-present feature which skewered away the focus of the original.

   There were things here which I thought commendable - namely the complete absence of any background music (a huge plus for me!), and the bleak views of the inhospitable Yorkshire moors of the book, (in fact, the same county where I grew up) where the film was actually shot on location. Truly filming 'in the raw'.

   Now to that scene to which I referred which will haunt me for evermore. On having to leave his home a boy kills his little pet dog by hanging it by the neck in a noose. We don't actually seeing it dying but the scene which lasts probably not much more than 10 seconds shows the little thing struggling in panic when it is hung up. I'm as sure as I can be that it wasn't c.g.i. - and I have absolutely no doubt that as soon as the camera was taken from this shot the dog itself was saved from its implied fate, though its fear, alarm and distress was clearly evident.. But why did they do it at all? As far as I recall there is no such scene in the book. But I'm afraid that, for this reason alone, this will join the list of films which I've seen where something about it will forever remain distasteful in my memory. 

As a whole, I think the film would have been better served if it had been given the title of  'Heathcliffe'   - with an appended sentence "as suggested by 'Wuthering Heights'".

     By the way, the actor referred to, one James Howson, has apparently done himself no favours by failing to appear in court last week to answer charges of allegedly racially abusing his pregnant ex-girlfriend. The latest I read is that he is now on the run from the police - though there is also a suggestion of mental health issues, so who knows how this will turn out? Judgment may be premature.

Michael  - A quite disturbing Austrian film (German dialogue) of a 40-something paedophile who keeps a 10-year old boy locked up in his basement. There is little of the situation that is actually spelled about what is happening but it very soon becomes clear what is going on. Nothing is graphically shown - apart from one very brief but shocking interchange between the two of them during mealtime. The boy is allowed upstairs to have meals with the man and to occasionally watch TV with him. In his fully furnished prison-basement he also has all mod-cons, though not his own TV - and is never allowed outside alone. It's not a film for those who don't like inconclusive endings and who demand to know "what happens next?". It certainly leaves one wondering. But all in all, quite a good effort.

Bel Ami  - A pleasant surprise. Didn't know what to expect, but this Don Juan-ish story kept me absorbed throughout.

The Help - After all the hype, both pro and con, had no idea which way I was going to come down. In the event I thought it was competent, and certainly not uninteresting , though rather longer than I might have wished for. I haven't read the book on which it's based but I kept getting the impression that the film-makers wanted to get as much of it into the film as possible, which is fine, but it left me with the nagging feeling that a bit of judicious editing might have helped to have made it more effective.

    However - and it's a big 'however' - I have two major aversions in film (three if you count negative treatment of animals). The first is seeing pre-pubescent kids so worldly-wise as to teach adults, usually their own parents, all about life and its problems - and the latter shamefacedly accepting such revelatory 'instruction' from these little brats. Mercifully, there is little of that going on in 'The Help'. But my other 'biggie' is background music which signposts you to laugh, cry, smile, be cross, shocked, indignant.....whatever - and, boy, does this film have it by the bucketload! The damn thing hardly ever stops! As it goes on and on I find my resistance to feeling what they are telling me to feel growing stronger, and my irritation increasing accordingly. It's just so hellishly distracting!!!

It's not a film I'd care to see again though overall I'd recommend it for at least one viewing.

The Hunger Games  - During the course of watching this I did feel myself being won over to what might otherwise have been a hard watch. It had its moments - but only on hindsight did I realise how unoriginal it really was. Once again, I haven't read the book which has now got renowned status - and it might be that it comes over better in that format. But, on the whole, a worthy offering - and a film from which I got more than (say) any of the Harry Potter films. (An invidious comparison, I know, though both have this 'fighting-against-the-odds' premise.)

Just as a footnote, every so often a film comes round which, from what I read, I'm pretty sure would have been to my own tastes, but for certain reasons (usually financial) I'm unable to attend a screening of it. So it was this last month for one such - 'Martha Marcia May Marlene'. Big regret. Only hope a chance will come round again to see in the cinema.

      

_______________________________________________________

 Well, that's it for another month.

.

A Beard's-Eye View

Wishing that the weather would stop shilly-shallying and really get to Spring, but it can't be far off now as my eyes have started itching, meaning  hay-fever's on its way...............Been shamefully neglectful of my doctor's advice to take regular exercise in the form of (at least) of a longish brisk walk daily to help boost body's insulin production. - No excuses.................In this Dickens anniversary year re-reading all the 14 major novels (+ the uncompleted 'Drood') and currently half-way through 'Barnaby Rudge', his fifth..................Hoping that George Osborne, our Chancellor of the Exchequer, pulls something out of the hat in Wednesday's budget for us recipients of low(est)-incomes...........Although always loved quizzes, don't like TV Quiz shows which give contestants a choice of possible answers, often just three. There's no 'skill' when chance has such a large part. You either know it or you don't!...............Why do people say "I am a Christian!" without also giving an indication of where they stand on the spectrum from 'progressive liberal' right through to 'ultra-conservative'?  It's as meaningless as saying "I'm a politician!" without further elaboration, though my own observation is that those who shout loudest about their religion also tend to be more reactionary.............I've had this computer for 6.5 years now - and it takes a maddening 30-45 minutes (sometimes longer) after switching on, for it to start up and connect. Surely there must be faster ways by now - but lack of finance prohibits..............Feeling guilty about not reading so many other blogs in last few days, and commenting on even fewer of them. But take consolation in it being a phase that most bloggers seem to go through, only to return in force after a short(?) interval.............

   (Well that's cleared some of the 'clutter' - until it builds up again)    

Will this be FOURTH time lucky?

For financial reasons I necessarily have to be selective regarding which films I go to see. I decided not to spend on this one first time round, being put off by two reviews which thought it condescending to non-white people. (I can never keep up with what is the latest p.c.-acceptable term.) Having given it a miss, I began to think I'd made a mistake when other reviews I encountered were not only more positive but even laudatory. Then came the Oscar for Viola Davis (thanks to Paul, in comment below, for correcting the name to Octavia Spencer) as' Best Supporting Actress' and by then I was really regretting my decision.
Hoping to catch it on any fortuitous special repeat showings, I first found that it was to be a single matinee playing a fortnight ago at a cinema about 20 miles away, which would have cost me (combining train fare and admission price) about £14 (Over $20 American). However, I decided to go. But, checking on the Internet the day before, I found that this showing had been completely booked out. (It was showing at a small 'art-house' cinema, seating about 80.)
    Then I found there was going to be a one-off showing yesterday morning at a cinema in Brighton at one of their special weekly shows for 'Senior Citizens' (with free coffee and bickies!) at a price of just £3 (under $5) - and I could use my free bus pass to get there. Trouble was, it was also the morning of my pre-booked appointment at the podiatry clinic for my first post-diabetes assessment examining the state of my feet, which was rather too important for me to request a postponement - I'd only discovered the clash the previous day. So more frustration.
     Then today I've only just found out that it's to be shown, for just one afternoon, actually at the cinema closest to me here in Worthing at the end of this month. Will anything prevent me seeing it this time? I hope not - but if this really is to be the fourth time lucky, all I can say is that it had better be good!

RECENTLY RELEASED FILMS seen by me in a cinema during Feb 2012 - with my personal ratings (+ some opinions)

There were only three contenders for my much-coveted 'Raybeard Award for Film of the Month'. It took a little heart-searching (though only a little), finally to present it to:-

This type of 'lotta talk/little action' film is right up my street. It's the kind of entertainment I revel in. The sort of film in which Woody Allen, when at his best, was supreme. Mine is a very personal reaction which others may not share, but I go to the cinema for my own enjoyment, and this delivered it. More on this superlative piece later.

     

My complete list of February viewings, in order of seeing, and with my own scores (out of 10) were:-

  Man on a Ledge(4)

W./E. (3)

The Deep Blue Sea (8)

Carnage (8)

The Descendants (7.5)

The Woman in Black (5)

Anonymous (5)

The Woman in the Fifth (5.5)

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (6)

Young Adult (5.5)

 Further comments (on some):-

W./E.  I used to be a great fan of Madonna's music, and will still listen to her, though have grown increasingly non-responsive to her records over recent years. But it would be unfair to class me as one of those who is now averse to everything she does. I did go and see this with, I think, an open mind. But I wish I'd saved my money.

    Just exactly what was the point of having two stories running in parallel, with, as far as I could make out, hardly anything in common? Or was that precisely the point? I've said elsewhere that it was rather like flicking between two films running simultaneously on two different channels - save for the fact that Wallis Simpson makes the occasional spectral appearance in the 'other' one . Exactly why, I couldn't begin to fathom. I just found the whole thing irritating.

  I appreciate that the royal romance saga has been dramatised many times, especially on T.V., as well as in documentaries, and so to depict it yet again it needs a fresh perspective. (I could even accept Mrs Simpson dancing energetically to the Sex Pistols!) But this idea of going in tandem with a modern romance for no obvious reason totally lost me.

   Having given it a score of just three, I'm tempted to ask myself exactly what are the these three points for?  Well, I suppose the acting was pretty faultless, so let's just leave it at that.

The Deep Blue Sea    I was really looking forward to this, especially since the recent renaissance of the works of gay playwright, Terence Rattigan - and directed by that master of nostalgic atmosphere, Terence ("I do so loathe being gay.....absolutely loathe it!") Davies.

  I did already know the play quite well, and it is an undoubted masterpiece in my books. But theatre plays transferred to the screen are always cut - and Davies really pares this one down. However, what he's lost in dialogue he mostly makes up very well indeed in atmosphere. His slow-moving visual style is masterful and does the work proud. However, my only quibble is that in reducing the dialogue he's also taken a lot of the verbal histrionics out of it, a feature which works well in the theatre, but is more difficult to sustain on screen. So I can see the justification of it, though I did miss what was not there. Maybe those who don't know the play will not have the same problem I had.

     I was slightly less convinced by Rachel Weisz in the lead, even though Davies himself thought she couldn't have been bettered. I think it needed, possibly, an older person, and hence with a more significant age difference between this character and her lover, she knowing that this was probably her final chance for a physical romance, albeit adulterous, and was ever so desperate not to lose the opportunity. Her resignation at accepting her lot seemed to need a bit more conviction. However, it is on the whole, a most engrossing film.

Carnage Not a film for those who do not like to see theatre pieces transferred to screen (Not for you, then, Stephen.) - and its origins are very evident here. But I loved this.

    Based on 'The Gods of Carnage', a play by Yasmina Reza (who also wrote the play 'Art', which I know and love, and have seen on stage), this four-person chamber-piece, taking place, essentially, in one room, I found so very funny and entertaining. It amuses me to see, in the course of an hour and a half, to see the personal masks of courtesy,  manners and decorum, which we all wear in front of strangers, slowly dissolve away as people get to know each other more - the innocent odd word is taken the wrong way, barbs are noticed and reacted to, criticisms rise to the surface, point-scoring occurs, open bickering ensues until it predictably ends up with everyone verbally tearing everyone else apart. In this film there is a very gradual and carefully realised trajectory. Out of the four actors here, Jodie Foster is amazing. She seems a totally different creature at the end of the film, collapsed in on herself, from the cool, reasonable wife at the start. ( I'd be interested to know if the film was shot in the same running order as the play. I can't see how it could have been done otherwise). The other three players were almost as good, showing us four completely different personalities.

     Only one regret. Right at the end (I think they are, in fact, Kate Winslet's final words in the film) she describes someone as a "faggoty wimp." Whenever I hear this 'f' word - or the 'c-sucker' word' - it feels like a little stab. As the original play was written in French I don't know if the word, as written, was 'pede' (sorry, I don't know how to type accents). It would be an obnoxious term which someone like the Winslet character could have used. But it still hurts me a little.

   But that was the sole thing which I didn't like. Otherwise it's a wonderful film - and I'd not only watch it again, I even more want to see it on stage.

The Descendants  I liked this more than I was expecting to. I reckon this is Mr Clooney at his best. It's a good, simple story. Playing a father of two potty-mouthed daughters, I thought the latter would have been a real turn-off for me - and so they were, at first, but their alienation towards him, especially that of the elder daughter, pointed up the defects in his own former laissez-faire attitude, now regretted. The dialogue is as spiky as the plot. My single regret was that it all got a bit emotionally mushy towards at the end - 'family coming together', sort of thing. I think that mass audiences need this to feel a sense of 'closure', as they say these days. I think it would have been braver and better if, instead of going off arm in arm, they'd ended the film by all going bickering off into the sunset. But all in all, a good film.

The Woman in Black I saw the play in the West End shortly after it opened (now been running in London for over 20 years) and after seeing it I dismissed it to my companion as 'juvenile claptrap'. My friend agreed.  How on earth it's still running is unfathomable to me. The theatre play (with just two actors) was based on the Susan Hill book of the same name. Now the film opens it out considerably - but is still not entirely successful for me. 

Daniel Radcliffe, despite his facial stubble, still looks far too young for the lead. All the standard cliches of a haunted-house film are there in the first 30 minutes. But some of the purported 'shocks' only make the audience jump because of a loud thump or crash on the soundtrack, That's not skilful film-making - that's cheating!. However I have to confess that there was one point where I did indeed jump and which elicited screams from the audience, though that was just the once.

      So, not actually bad - but ought to have been better.

Anonymous A film based on the notion that Shakespeare wasn't written by Shakespeare - a hardly startling or original idea, but which I put in the same category as 'Diana was Murdered' i.e. an interesting story, and certainly a better story, but until someone comes up with hard evidence I remain sceptical. As some of the actors putting their household names to the theory by taking part in this handsomely-mounted film - Vanessa Redgrave, Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance - one must take notice of their worthwhile opinions. But I'm not lying awake at night wondering who actually did write Shakespeare - Was it really his contemporary, the Earl of Essex, just one of the several alternative possibilities, which is played out here? (Yawn!)..

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel I usually like ensemble-piece films (Steven Soderbergh, Robert Altman, Woody Allen, of course) and this is one of them. Includes Judi Dench (yet again!), Maggie Smith (yet again!) and Tom Wilkinson (yet again!), the latter playing gay - and quite unconvincingly.  But the film did have a few 'moments'. Unfortunately nearly all of them are in the film's trailer, before it all disappears, in the last half hour or so, in a wash of sentiment.

                                                    

THE END

(for the moment)