Shutter Island

SPOILERS IN THESE REVIEWS!

HIS:

Words cannot quite express how I felt coming out of this movie. The heady mix of psychological thriller and classic cineaste left me simply speechless. I was dumbstruck that cinema of this calibre is still created in today’s world, where thought, emotion, drama and classic thrills and spills are all delivered in such classic filmic fashion akin to old Expressionist cinema.

Being the worlds biggest Hitchcock fan (sorry Brian DePalma!), I was almost overcome with emotion leaving the theatre as it’s as if the great man himself had given us a brand new film. Much has already been written about the many references to Hitch’s work so I won’t list them all here but suffice to say I was thrilled to look out for each and every one. The film could be a companion piece to perhaps Vertigo, another favourite of mine, with the famed 360 degree pan around Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak as they tenderly embraced amidst illusory memories almost replicated identically here. However, in one bravura shot, the likes of which I’ve never quite seen before, DiCaprio and Michelle Williams, surrounded by a burning house manage to even better that moment. The shot evokes so much tragedy I was devastated. Indeed, anytime a flashback involving the married couple was shown I sank into a deep and wonderful state of despair, so deftly was it handled. The sense of the past and loss was palpable, and it very nearly broke my heart.

DiCaprio is often mentioned in the same breath as DeNiro,being Scorceses latest muse but the actor is actually starting to resemble Jack Nicholson more in style, which is no mean feat. His work is of a consistently superlative standard and in Shutter Island he is given perhaps his most challenging role to date. He’s asked to tackle truly mentally challenging themes and handles it all excellently. In fact,staying with the Nicholson analogy I would also say that the film evoked a heady mix of ‘The Shining’ and ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest’(perhaps with the shadow-filled look of ‘Night of The Hunter’ thrown in for good measure). The sheer style adopted here is another masterstroke, and many of my personal favourite movies enjoy a similar theme such as Vanilla Sky and Fight Club, a style in which we are constantly questioning the reality presented to us. I know that’s a lot of different genres to think about but we are discussing the latest work of one of motion pictures eminent historians, Martin Scorcese.

There have been one or two misgivings about Shutter Island in the media which initially threatened to temper my anticipation;  Let me just save us all 20 years of navel-gazing and heated discussion by stating right now that Shutter Island is now and will in the future hold up as an absolute movie classic.

Thank god for cinema…..

A.

HER:

ell hello 2010! What a joy to head to a film in March and see something that is so intelligent, nerve wracking, sad and just all around excellent.

Needless to say from the headline, you can’t review this film without giving away spoilers. So if you don’t want to know the details, which i highly suggest to make the film that much better – come back to this post when you’ve seen it.

Leonardo DiCaprio lends his mind and soul to this twisting thriller and the audience is all the more thankful for it. As a US Marshall , Teddy Daniels, DiCaprio is sent to Shutter Island to find a missing patient Rachel…or is he? A labyrinth mystery unfolds and we are subject to wondering, what is crazy? I was pulling for DiCaprio to escape  ”Get off the island” I was rooting for him. I didn’t want to see an intelligent man, who was out there fighting the fight for people who can’t and questioning the wrong doings of a government institution to get silenced by “Big Brother”. Only to find out the truth….

This truth is wrapped up in flash backs that are so boldly real and horrific. The performances in this film lend themselves to the deep sympathy of what true sadness does to someone. Michelle Williams is the truth in this film, playing Daniels dead wife, Dolores. With her sad, sad eyes and devastating body language she reaches out to you and pulls on your soul. When Daniels sees her, you only feel the cold sadness of her on-screen presence.

Every performance adds to this “game” and in the end it’s a final attempt at saving someone that has been pushed to the deep end. Scorcese reaches further with Shutter Island…to a place where no one likes to go. The low, deep music, the pale faces of the characters, and the loneliness of the island are all excellent choices that Scorcese took to create the tense atmosphere of the film.  Not since One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest, have we witnessed a film that explores the inner workings of the mind and the dramatic extent that psychiatrists  were taking to “cure” patients with mental illnesses.

At the end of the film, it really left me wondering – Is it crazy to want to live in another reality, when your reality is too excruciating to bear?

A

Invictus

HIS:

In recent years, Clint Eastwood has proven to be a master director in many genres. We knew of his skill with the Western but his ability to tell a dramatic story has been almost second to none, in a signature minimal style of which he’s become renowned. Now we can add the sports movie genre to the list. Invictus is both a political drama and an uplifting sport movie in equal measure. Nelson Mandelas choice of the Springbok rugby team to carry the new rainbow nations hopes and aspirations during the 1995 World Cup is told in inspirational style.

Eastwood gets right in the thick of the rugby sequences,putting the camera in the scrum with the players so every pass,kick and punch is felt. The stadiums such as Ellis Park and Loftus-Sarsfeld are likewise rendered perfectly, full of a sea of South African supporters. Any CGI enhancement is thankfully unnoticeable.

While the screenplay is a little heavy-handed at times,and laden with having to explain the finer points of both rugby and apartheid to an unknowing, international audience it still manages to convey a sense of history. If you don’t get chills down your neck during the game against the All Blacks you need some kind of emotion-test!

As ever, Eastwood brings the best out of his actors and both Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon deliver wonderful performances of real-life people from the very near past(1995). While everyone is raving about Freemans rendition of Mandela(a role he was physically born to play due to startling similarities between the two),it was Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar that grabbed my attention. Freemans accent wavered often between Cape Town and Louisiana but Damon nailed it completely. With the aid of prosthetics and hair-dye he also looked the part(thanks in no small part to bulking up considerably too) and every scene I thought he acted with a remarkable restraint. One of the best supporting performances of the year.

The most important thing of all though was that Invictus personified the incredible humanity and compassion of Nelson Mandelas new president,and gladly it did. A standout sequence involving a visit to Robben Island shows not only the hardship but the dignity with which Mandela endured. With the help of a wonderful soundtrack of both new and traditional songs and a usual minimalist jazz score by Kyle Eastwood, the film shows a time of great hope and a glimpse of how old hatreds can be overcome. Let us hope South Africa can continue to grow in Mandelas spirit for many generations.

B+

HER:

The main theme of this film is how the power of sport can unite people. And it can…we’ve seen it in many films before how people come together in support of a team and that union can stop violence, hatred, racism, and so much more. Invictus is the true story of that bond between people. Set in the early 90′s when Nelson Mandela was freed from his 30 year imprisonment, and then elected President of South Africa, his ability to free his mind from the shackles and the hatred for the people that put him in prison. He rose above that need for revenge and instead opened his heart for his country by unifying the division through the Rugby World Cup in 1995.

Morgan Freeman as President Mandela, was excellent. His motions, mannerisms and just the way he looked captured Nelson Mandela and his friendly demeanor while also carrying the weight of the country on his shoulders. Matt Damon stole the film for me. With his excellent portrayal as Francois Pienaar, the captain of the 1995 Rugby team, a man in real life that saw the opportunity as well of using the game to unite the country. Damon looked as if he was right off a Rugby field, which is no small feat since those men are rough around the edges and quite big.

A film that catches the heart and theme of sport – and with the Soccer World Cup in South Africa this year, it will be interesting to see if this country can once again rise above the inner turmoil.

B

Avatar-IMAX 3-D

HIS:

There can be no question as to the astounding technical achievement that is “Avatar”. It is undoubtedly both the finest looking feast for the eyes you’ve ever seen and the very future of cinema. It’s groundbreaking. As important a leap in technology as the Lumiere Bros discovering the moving image. Indeed, the very idea of where film can now go with this stunning new 3-dimensional clarity married to a great script leaves me salivating. Alas,there’s the rub with this particular movie. Avatar definitely isn’t blessed with a great script. In fact,it’s possibly one of the cheesiest,most cliche-ridden screenplays of the year. Anyone interested in plot(?) or any kind of character development will be left with their head spinning in disbelief.

The story essentially revolves around such an obvious premise it’s rather poor. As George W Bush(sorry…Giovanni Ribisi) leads his military into annihilating a foreign citizenry in order to mine precious oil(sorry….minerals),all led by General Petraeus(sorry…Stephen Lang) we encounter the usual ropey star-crossed lovers syndrome James Cameron mined to similar effect in Titanic.

I’ll confess, the first time I saw Titanic I was amazed at what I saw….in a very good way. The boundaries of technology had been applied to help tell an incredible story based in human emotion and more importantly, truth. Sure, the Romeo & Juliet thing was a little tepid but I understood the necessity of having characters with which to guide us through the story. Avatars characters have no discernible,real-life qualities whatsoever. In fact, no matter how awed I was by the sights and sounds of the planet Pandora it never disguised the fact that I was watching a movie primarily made up of blue CGI aliens. If the new augmented, instant reality created so incredibly by FX veteran Rob Legato could be handed over to someone who actually cared about a human storyline and not just bigger, better,louder,faster I think we could have seen something historic.

Commenting on the movie alone, which by the way you simply have to see in 3-D Imax or not at all, the score by James Horner is very ‘jaunty’ and tribal and way below the composers usual standards. Likewise the acting is pretty average too. Obviously it’s tough to comment on performances mainly rendered in motion capture although Zoe Saldana stood out at least. Sam Worthington is the lead of some of Hollywoods biggest movie franchises yet I’ve still to see any discernible charisma from him. Not that he so much puts a foot wrong, just doesn’t leave any impression at all. Stephen Lang,w hile clearly having a lot of fun, comes across as one-dimensional too. All of which have the script to blame.

Avatar is also an environmentalist movie. Tree-huggers of the world will rejoice at it’s message of being one with the flow of nature and ‘speaking’ to the animals but this may lose a few of the films more core audience of young males who will lap up the huge explosions and space-ships. In fact, if the idea of an elongated final sequence of a robot battling an alien excites you…no doubt this will be your favourite film ever. As for the rest of us,I was left wondering what this technology in the hands of Terence Malick would offer,as this is just a re-hash of his superb ‘The New World’ anyway. Pocahontas and Jamestown,Virginia in 3-D Imax? Sounds fantastic!!

Technically: A++

Film: D (for dud).

HER:

Sold out in theatres all over NYC, lead to a heightened anticipation of the film Avatar. I was fortunate enough a few months ago, to see a 20 minute sneak peak of this and it definitely peaked my interest. Of course, seeing something with a new 3-D technology MUST be seen in Imax 3-D and that’s where I headed…Glasses on, and I was in -

It was an absolute optical feast, from the word go. The 3-D not only jumped out of the screen, it was as if the characters were living this experience in front of you. Gone are the 3-D days of a sword that just popped out to your face, or the one item that popped from the screen. This is 3-D that lived there….in front of you. A glimpse into the Na’vi culture and all that surrounds it. The flight of their characters was absolutely breath-taking and the color was brighter, deeper, as if a paint brush was taken to the next level of vividness. The Na’vi characters skin was living, and their movements made them look as if they were real people who were just cast in this film.

That was the absolute plus side of this experience and makes going to see this an absolute MUST! (in the theatre) Now the downside was the story. The Na’vi are NOT real characters that were cast in this film. They’re made up people in a made of planet called Pandora. The general basis of any movie is a script. Something that people can relate to, on a human level. Avatar tried to do that with the story, but fell very short, I think because they weren’t dealing with real people.  Taking the Na’vi people and creating a story on par to the Native Americans was smart. We can relate to that…a people living off the land peacefully and tapping into the Earth and all its wonders, is very real. Then having someone who has more fire power and trying to extinguish them for personal financial gain of that land.

I really don’t know where the downfall was in this – but the human/Na’vi transactions seemed silly, in a Transformers type of way. The only stand out for me was Zoe Saldana, who reached through the photo-realistic CGI Character, of Neytiri and created a complex, emotional character. Where the rest of the cast (and there were some big names in this) just stayed 2 dimensional which could have to do with the script itself.

There is a message in this film, that will resonate with many people. And it is a story that is not new to film - Think “The New World”. With all that said, it definitely has some great qualities that I don’t want to spoil – it’s meant to be seen in Imax 3-D, but unfortunately as I’ve said before of blockbusteres – Turn off your brain for a few hours and you’ll enjoy the ride…

I’m going to go with HIS and rate this in two categories -

Technically:A

Film: C-

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

HIS:

Frankly, I’m still scratching my head in disbelief at this one. Terry Gilliam has stamped his trademark quirkiness over every minute of the running time and honestly, should have been forced to tone it all down. Unfortunately, the late Heath Ledgers final moments onscreen will be in this turkey. Ledger and Gilliam have reunited to do a film possibly as bad as the risible Brothers Grimm. Don’t get me wrong,Im a huge Monty Python fan, a huge Terry Gilliam fan too but this is definitely a huge mis-step.

It’s a real Jekyll and Hyde movie in the sense that when the movie is grounded in reality(about 50% of the time), it’s quite an intriguing ensemble farce yet the other half is just bad. The fantastical imaginings of Gilliams mind worked brilliantly as animated interludes during Pythons comic sketches, indeed they were put to good use in films such as Brazil, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Twelve Monkeys(and I’d still dearly love to see his ‘lost’ Don Quixote) but Dr Parnassus is just wild abandon. Rather shoddy CGI all the way through doesn’t help either and makes it look pretty terrible on the big screen.

The drama however is rather interesting, if a little silly and the acting on display is mostly solid. Obviously everyone is watching Ledger posthumously and he does a good if not great job.  He starts off rather well but seems to frequently lose track of his accent. It’s quite apparent and does distract from what is otherwise another good performance of his.
The spectacle(and it is a spectacle) of watching how Gilliam managed to finsh the movie with the inclusion of Johnny Depp,Colin Farrell and Jude Law all playing the remainder of Ledgers unfinished scenes is rather clever. In short, it works very well and all three perform admirably(although Johnny Depp captures the laissez-faire atitude best, with a smile and a wink).

Best of all though is Andrew Garfield,a young British actor of increasing renown who manages to steal almost every scene he’s in with a remarkable turn of wit.

The strangest film you’ll see this year……and a pretty bad one at that.

D.

The Lovely Bones

HIS:

While this may not have appeared on my top 5 films of the year I’m a little surprised at the critical reaction it’s been getting. While taking on a hugely successful novel that is beloved by it’s readership is indeed a brave challenge,Peter Jackson has shown once again why he’s one if the most daringly original yet crowdpleasing directos working today.
The film is set half in 1970′s Pennsylvania and half in a ‘netherworld’, a place halfway between heaven and earth.
Now,it does take a huge leap of faith to believe in that particular part of the story and what may be inspiring on the page is difficult to stage in any sort if tangible or believable way onscreen.

The CGI work is rather impressive and there are some stunning visuals all vaguely reminiscent of “What Dreams May Come”. It’s Hollywoods belief that our afterlife is created from favoured images from throughout our lives. What Dreams May Come did it, Vanilla Sky did it and now so does Lovely Bones. It’s stretching my trust in events unfolding but I understand the necessity of the ‘invention’.

I mentioned it was crowdpleasing because while the subject matter is grim, it’s not a particularly difficult watch. Jackson is very like Steven Spielberg in that sense. In fact, Lovely Bones looks and feels very much like the films Spielberg made in the 80′s. Peter Jackson also has an assured touch with the surreal or macabre as he demonstrated so well in Heavenly Creatures. This shares that same sense of uneasiness, an emotion I enjoyed being in a state of.

The acting ensemble is very good indeed and I’m surprised more is not being made of their work. Susan Sarandon has a lot of fun as the chain-smoking grandmother although Id rather have seen someone other than Mark Wahlberg play the aggrieved father. Wahlberg never quite hit the depths of desperation enough for me and I was left wondering how it wouldve been in the original hands of Ryan Gosling. Fortunately there are two standout performances in Lovely Bones. Firstly,the Irish youngster Saorsie Ronan proves that her turn in Atonement was no mere fluke. She gives a very mature and commanding performance for her tender years and manages to nail all the required emotions as well as the accent. The biggest and most pleasant surprise of all though was Stanley Tucci as the murderer. I’ve never been a fan of Mr Tucci’s and have always wondered what the fuss was about. Now I see it. He’s astonishing in every scene and kept me on the edge of my seat with his sinister creepiness. This is a serial killer from the Buffalo Bill/Silence of the Lambs school…what better education for a twisted murderer.

The film is definitely at it’s best when set on earth, amid a hunt for a killer and an uneasy and sad tone pervades throughout. A great film that has it’s flaws but thankfully they’re not as major as I’d been led to believe.

B+

A Christmas Carol 3-D

HIS:

The world doesn’t really need another Christmas Carol. Scrooged, Its a Wonderful Life, the David Lean production even the Muppets Christmas Carol were all great versions in their own unique way. The question is can Robert Zemeckis add to that pantheon of quality?

The answer is a resounding YES. In fact, Zemeckis has managed to craft his second film destined to become a Christmas classic (after The Polar Express). Using the same motion-capture techniques employed on Polar Express he creates an almost fully realized three-dimensional world,clearly not resting on his laurels inbthe interim period as far as advancing the technology. Human eyes were a bit creepy before but now are developing nicely, and human skin is rendered almost to perfection.

The good thing is that it all relies on one of the classic pieces of literature in history and when Charles Dickens immortal words are spoken it’s familiar and comforting. They truly don’t write them like this anymore!
The film is at it’s best when it sticks to the story and lost me a little as it became one fantastical set-piece after another. Obviously the freedom of having 3-D still seems to pressure directors into creating many ‘rollercoaster’ scenes in which we dive in and out of treetops to supposedly spectacular effect. This was wonderful in the opening shot swooping over the rooftops of London but grew increasingly tiresome as time went on.

Jim Carrey does the job that Tom Hanks did in “Express”, namely playing multiple roles all of different ages and sizes. He portrays Scrooge brilliantly,with an obvious nod to Alistair Sims fine rendition. Closing my eyes I could almost hear Sims voice. When Carrey experiments with other accents though,particularly as the Ghosts, he’s less successful. I would’ve preferred seeing other, more suitable actors fill out those roles. This does seem the medium he was made for though,with his animated style and elastic frame lending itself almost naturally to the motion capture world.
Gary Oldman also adds a touch of class as Cratchit, grounding every scene of his in a sad reality.

A tremendously enjoyable new Christmas classic, and the 3-D makes it all the more so.

B.

HER:

Oh what fun, it is to ride, on the tails of A Christmas Carol. And what a ride it was….from Christmas Past, Present and Future, Robert Zemeckis tells an animated, and dark, tale of an old friend Ebenezer Scrooge.

We all know the story, and it’s been done a thousand times before, but never quite like this. With the 3-D technology popping out of the screen, and it certainly does pop, this dark tale of Scrooge is an entertaining experience from beginning to end. Definitely one of the darkest translations of this story, but done so well that I think any kid that goes out to see this won’t do anything bad as they fear any of these ghosts visiting them.

Jim Carrey does his thing  (larger than life animated voices) in this tale playing all Scrooge at all the ages they visit, and all the ghosts. The animated voice matches the onscreen technology and takes the viewer to another time and place. Like I said before, the 3-D pops quite well, with snowflakes falling right before you, and hands reaching out almost touching your face, I would see this film in the theatre if it’s still playing near you.

Gary Oldman is Mr. Cratchit (as well as Bob Marley and Tiny Time) and the moments his characters are on the screen are quite touching when they discuss Tiny Tim, bringing a deeper element to the meaning of Christmas.

Go out and see this one…and take a kid with you!

B

The Road

HIS:

An intensely bleak post-apocalyptic movie which stems from the highly praised novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy. What struck me most of all, indeed almost immediately was that I expected this movie to be wholly reliant on the performances. After all, it’s almost a two-hander between Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-Mcphee. However,if there’s one single element that carries this movie above the crowd it’s undoubtedly it’s cinematography. The pure vision of the future may be incredibly morose but it was also highly realistic. An earth in which possibly the environment has fought back at mankind, or perhaps those trigger-happy politicians finally caused a nuclear holocaust (it’s left to the imagination the true nature of out planets impending demise), is photographed to the point where every pore on every face is engrained with the unseen tragedy. It’s an earth the viewer will recognize in it’s familiarity, in fact many of the sets weren’t ‘dressed’ at all. The locations were shot exactly as they found them. It’s a truly sobering thought how close we may be to such a scenario and how precariously balanced our technology-addicted civilization has become.

Director John Hillcoat manages to largely forgo the use of CGI in creating a dull,grey,weather-beaten near future which deserves to stand as an example in how such genres are created.

Mortensen is again immense, and I could picture only him, Daniel Day-Lewis or perhaps an older Christian Bale in this role.  He embodies a stubborn, resistant and protective father yet offers tantalising glimpses into a much softer soul than his otherwise concrete facade would have us believe. There are some moments of real human tenderness,beautiful scenes which are incredibly touching, mostly for their pathos,and the loss of simple pleasures. Flashbacks between Mortensen and a very good Charlize Theron are a mini-movie in themselves and are powerful indeed.

A delightfully poised cameo from an almost unrecognisable Robert Duvall keeps the ‘class’ quota up too,as do the many genuine chills of terror throughout.

A newborn classic of it’s kind with a linear plot and incredibly created vision of what lies ahead,is testament to the good in mankind, and makes “I Am Legend” look trite in comparison.

A-

HIS: (Guest Reviewer A.L.)

In The Road, a man and his son attempt to survive the grim horrors of a post-apocalyptic world, with nothing to rely upon except their love for one another.

 Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee are father and son, all that’s left of a family and, perhaps, of civilization. Something catastrophic has happened to our planet.

 The Road presents a blighted landscape with no explanation — there are just brief glimpses, in flashback, of global destruction — and sets upon that landscape desperate people attempting to survive.

 Father and son move across a bleak countryside where everything is destroyed, in the hope of finding some salvation at the coast. Their journey is littered with many obstacles including finding enough food to stave off death and hiding from human predators. The Road is not a thriller, but several scenes are frightening, both for the horrors they depict and for the human depravity they suggest.

 The acting is solid throughout, with Viggo Mortensen anchoring the film with a powerful performance. The director, John Hilcoat, along with the cinematographer & production designer do a fantastic job of pulling you into this world and making it feel real.

 I was a little disappointed with this film when I first left the theater, but the more I thought about it, the more the powerful themes of love, hope & faith began to resonate with me. It is a film that at times can be difficult to watch, but I would highly recommend that you do.

B+

Nine

HIS:

Although this isn’t half the film that Fellinis 8 1/2 was(the film upon which the stage musical was based thus leading eventually to this filmed version of said stage musical), I nevertheless had huge fun enjoying it. It’s possibly the film I may have enjoyed the most this year in terms of pure entertainment.

I’ve mentioned in reviewing 8 1/2 the struggles with which an artist must face. An artist cannot simply leave such terrors in the office, confining them to a mere corner of the mind. No, a creator becomes obsessed,for true creation must be an obsession and it’s this bewildering state of affairs(as well as a plethora of the pre-marital sort) that plagues Guido Contini.

I did miss the wicked humour of Marcelo Mastroianni in the role but of course Guidos dilemmas were in very secure hands with Daniel Day Lewis. Other than a strange decision to adopt a faux italian accent(while speaking English) Day Lewis doesn’t disappoint(did I even need to say that?). What keeps him head and shoulders above the competition is his sheer commitment. It’s now the stuff of legend but in ‘Nine’ he actually looks like he’s enjoying the process a little more. Perhaps it was the conventions of it being a stage musical that made him at ease. speaking of which,this was one of the major flaws of ‘Nine’.

Rob Marshall has directed more musicals than anyone else out there nowadays but the film became simply a series of 8 1/2 scenes almost verbatim punctuated by big song and dance numbers. I understand what Ive just described is a musical but when I say punctuated I mean almost pierced. Marshalls choice of setting every single number on one proscenium arch stage becomes….stagey. Surely the film version of the show could have broken free of such conventions at least now and again? This is after all a story about ‘writers block’ so perhaps Marshall ironically suffered the same artistic restrictions?

‘Nine’ also struggles valiantly but in vain in terms of the music itself. The songs are good but not great. Obviously this is no fault of the filmmakers but there are only maybe two tunes of real distinction. The performers all sing with gusto but I can’t help wishing they had something stronger to work with, songs of the calibre of other acclaimed movie musicals such as Cabaret or Evita.

Again comparing Fellinis work with Marshalls is a fools errand yet I couldn’t help but be disappointed in the penultimate scene involving Guido and his muse(Nicole Kidman, also adopting the strange dialect). In the original I was deeply moved by those moments in which Guido tries to explain the love an artist has for his muse but here I just admired Day Lewis wardrobe. A choice to bring a large fountain set-piece onto the stage as well as using it out on the street was no doubt another effort to merge the mediums of film and theatre but jolted me out of the truth of the moment. Likewise providing an overture and finale more akin to the theatre. A finale only works onstage because it is the point where the ‘fourth wall’ convention is broken, enabling the actors to break character and smile appreciatively at the audience. To do almost this on film didn’t feel right.

The women who surround Guido are played by a host of Hollywoods finest actresses. Marion Cotillard impressed me yet again, and she takes top honours by giving the film it’s heart and soul. Judi Dench does what only a Dame can do…namely give every single line an air of effortless wit, perfectly in character, she’s a class act. Nicole Kidman didnt really leave much of an impression on me other than looking remarkably Bardot-esque as the Italian movie star and Fergie( from the Black Eyed Peas) has the honour or performing the best song in the show, and does it with relish.

Stand out moments include a wonderful scene between Cotillard and Day Lewis ad she finally sees him for what he is(and becomes the years second great scene played out in a cinema projection room,Broken Embraces being the other) and Penelope Cruz delivering the most smoulderingly hot dance routine of this or any other year as Guidos lover.

If you haven’t seen Fellinis excellent 8 1/2 please do so first….it’s a far superior film and much,much deeper. If you have,then hopefully like me you can simply take this for what it is and enjoy almost every minute of it.

B+

HER:

I wanted so bad to love this film, I actually still do. From the moment I heard that it was being made, I was overjoyed at the outcome of what I would experience in the year to come. Daniel Day Lewis, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Sofia Loren, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson, Nicole Kidman..can the cast be any more plump with talented woman and THE talented male actor of our generation?

But alas, I am left with a memory of a great cast, and an ok rendition to a classic. The acting was terrific, the singing was so-so, the accents were not so great, and the emotion that resonated fell flat.

There were some very high points of the film. Daniel Day Lewis is always stellar in his performances, but it was the same note through the entire film. The layers of his character were exposed early on, and did not allow the fun of revealing who Guido was. Lewis is incredibly charismatic and carries himself as the narcissist his character is. Unfortunately, at times I saw glimpses of Bill the Butcher when Lewis was losing it a bit. Dench was great with her cheeky comments while playing the voice of reason. Cotillard and Cruz brought the only emotional elements to the screen, yet their characters were something out of a made for TV movie gone wrong.

In the original 8 1/2, that this film was remade after, Guido Contini is a man that wanted to be everything to all women at the expense of his sanity. In NINE, Guido was losing his mind not because of spreading himself thin with the women in his life, but because he couldn’t create a script to a film, which eventually added to the loss of his marriage. That key element to his desire for women did was not clear in Nine, therefore not capturing the essence of the original.

Kidman and Hudson are only on screen for fleeting moments, and they looked beautiful on the screen, but didn’t bring any type of electricity to the film.

The choreography of the film was excellent. There is a dance scene that Fergie leads that is quite memorable. Costumes shined as a leading role in the film and the music was fun, quirky and impactful – the actors voices hit the notes and they all sang quite well.

I need to sit on this film for a bit, maybe see it again after the excitement and hype have worn down…there was a bit of sensory overload. Also my mind cannot understand why such an amazing cast that performed well on screen, finessing the camera with each angle and movement, never quite had the chemistry to take this film all the way for me. Quite sad really….

B

A Single Man

HIS:

In the style stakes, you’re unlikely to see a finer film perhaps ever. A Single Man is styled to within an inch of it’s life, perhaps even a little too so. Being as it is the product of fashion designer Tom Ford it should be taken for granted the costumes are jaw-dropping. The architecture of the sets, props and cars is equally refined.

But the question is whether it is a case of style over substance. It’s certainly a valid point to raise, as Ford employs just a tad too much of almost everything. The score, for example, is beautiful but definitely overused. Almost the entire running time is accompanied by surging strings sometimes to te point of distraction. Fortunately though there are moments in which it heightens emotions incredibly too. Likewise the tailoring, which is devastatingly handsome and indeed makes Colin Firth appear better than he ever has, however the tailoring in the editing suite could and perhaps should have been softened somewhat. A few moments of flashback were wonderfully executed but didn’t flow back slickly into the ‘current’ timeframe. Slow motion is used generously as is a tad too much draining of colour. It’s all perfect individually but as a whole becomes repetitive.

But this film is joy to breathe in. The sadness present in Firths loneliness is terrifically painful and the actor has never been better. Every tiniest detail of his performance seems to have been carefully manicured to a precise point, culminating in one of the best character studies this year. He’ll almost certainly be rewarded with an Oscar nomination, he’s that good. Not so good is Julianne Moore. She makes all the right choices but I couldn’t get past her phony British accent. She sounds all the vowels correctly but never sounds realistic.

The themes of a mans enforced solitude though are brought home succinctly and elegantly. Thanks to the measured restraint of Colin Firth I felt the pain deeply at times and just wanted to hold my loved one near, and not let go. I’d like to add too that although the film is about a homosexual love it’s never overtly homosexual. Firth is a teacher preying on younger men, including students yet his is such a genuine compassion, such a real love it never feels inappropriate. Indeed the most tender moment in the film is Firth and Goode just sitting together on a sofa reading. It’s beautiful in its simplicity, showing how love elevates ordinarily mundane events, turning them into memories to keep for ever.

At times an extended commercial but one which will make you saddened to the core.

B+

HER:

A Single Man is a film about a man and the day he decides to end his life. The life of  George played by Colin Firth, who is a kind, pulled together, intelligent man struggling with the sudden loss of the love of his life, Jim, played by Matthew Goode.

The look of this film is nothing short of what you would expect from Tom Ford. Dazzling costume and set design on-screen mimics something straight out of his Gucci ads, and styled just out of a picture from the 60′s creating a feel and energy of the reserved climate back then.

As Ford continues his directing endeavor, he will learn to edit his stylized notions and images, as he would have to his collection of clothes. There are many images that the camera lingers onto- a shot of a woman’s lips, cigarette smoke, eyelined eyes…If you would have taken just snapshots from any frame of this film at any point that picture would have told a story. The only thing is that for one story, there’s just too much going on.

An interesting style tool was used when the camera was on Firth. Ford decided to mute the color so it appeared as if the life had been sucked from his character. While the men that George came across glistened with color and life.

The heart of this film, and what made it incredibly touching to the point of having a lump in my throat, was Colin Firth’s performance. His subtle movements and facial expressions, the way he carried himself, the small glimpses of happiness and sadness made this his best performance to date for me. I am never one that is completely convinced of him, or the choices of the roles that he normally takes. In this film, his restrain was so moving that I found myself completely choked up at times.

The boy in the film Kenny, played by Nicholas Hoult from About a Boy, was the one person that held back in his performance. I completely understand why he was cast in this film-the camera loves his boyish good looks and his close ups are art work on screen. Also the innocence that he posseses was critical to his part in the film. His sexual orientation is never discussed, and shows that he probably doesn’t even understand at this time in his life.  I think that with the intensity that Firth brought to the film, every other actor needed to be as committed as he was, otherwise it just didn’t work. Julianna Moore, even though over the top in her role as Charley , at least committed to a character that was larger than life, and some scenes between the two were just raw and real.

I particularly liked the impact of the long glances and the intense smelling of things as Firth walked through this day waiting for the moment to end his life. A rose, a woman’s perfume, a dog – all moments of pure memory sense that brought flashbacks to a time when he was with his love and those were the moments of the film awhich acted as pinches of life for George.

I also thought it was interesting to put George into a glass house. For a time when a gay man would feel like he needed to live in privacy, Ford chose to put him into a glass house where the world could see him in his most natural elements and expose him.

This was a film that I’m really glad that I saw. It moved me so many times and I really felt the love and loss not only of a partner, but of innocence and youth.

B+ (Firth’s performance gets an A for me)

Paranormal Activity

HIS:

This is the break-out,’little terrifying movie that could’ of the year,and with it came preconceived notions of quite how frightening it really was. Grown men had been reduced to quivering wrecks at it’s authenticity whilst even the great Steven Spielberg felt compelled to watch it in broad daylight in fear of an induced anxiety attack.

Hyperbole can be a frustrating thing, particularly when it comes to movies that would’ve otherwise been a joyfully unkown quantity. Was I scared?Well,tense at times would be more appropriate and I will admit to feeling ‘ready’ to be mortally horrified during the mundane first act(which I surmised was merely a wicked ‘ruse’ before abject terror). The chills on offer are certainly adequate too,and no cheap-looking effects ruin anything. However,overall I was simply a little underwhelmed and left wondering quite what all the fuss was about.

Of course,I must give credit where credit is due, and what the director has achieved with a mere $15,000 budget is stagering. A gross that has already passed the $100,000,000 mark is extraordinary and should have Hollywood clammering to sign him up. Likewise,the performances he has drawn from his two unknown, inexperienced actors are wonderful(if only slightly lacking in their reactions to the error unfloding before them). To just give the lead actor the camera and have him shoot them both in the directors very own home crates such an authentic feel it’s easy to invest in them as a couple. In fact,the male star gets to throw away some wonderfully wry observations that seemed very realistic of a ‘man’ defending his homestead. Many men would react the same way,seeing the paranormal activities as an affront to it being his ‘castle’.

Inevitable comparisons are made to The Blair Witch Project but in my opinion it doesn’t quite match that films scare-factor. A resounding,artistic and commercial success for complete unkowns shooting with no backing though, which simply has to be admired.

C+.

HER:

A film taken in the vein of Blair Witch using a handheld camera, and a very low budget ($15,000) Paranormal Activity gives the viewer a glimpse into the home of a young couple experiencing an outer world phenomenon.

The beginning of this film left me very apprehensive about moving on. What I mean by this is that it was so chilling that I didn’t want to know where it was going. Being a very squimish person and knowing that after watching the film “Strangers” I couldn’t be home alone without jumping at every sound. This film did take me to that place, but it was in bits and pieces. I wasn’t completely enthralled and jumping out of my seat. 

The camera activity was clever and with realistic touches and a home video approach made the viewer close to what they were experiencing. My biggest problem with this film is the hype that it received. What I mean by this is when I went to go see Blair Witch, I didn’t know the back story to the film which made it that much more compelling. With Paranormal, I knew that the “ghost” going up and down the stairs was a friend of the filmmakers, and that the whole thing was “fake”.

I know this sounds ridiculous since it is a film, and as someone that watches LOADS of films I know the difference between the inner workings of the film industry. BUT I do like the intrigue of not knowing and for something like this where the viewer needs to believe that this is happening, the film fell short for me.

C