Change Your Image
denisejhale
Reviews
Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006)
Junior James Bond
I took my sons to see this movie, I'm afraid none of us have read the books so can only judge as a movie. The plot was easy to follow and the script was good. And, for once, it was good to see British people in a children's movie behaving like real British people. Only the 'baddies' seemed stereotyped, the Nazi-type woman is probably Helga's (Hello! Hello!) grand-daughter, the main American was flash and crass with strange side-kick (echoes of James Bond baddies) and there was an emotionless East-bloc spy, however best baddie was probably Bill Nighly as head of Britih operation. Anyone remember advertising campaign featuring Bank Manager in your wardrobe, well Bill's character reminded me of this and I could also imagining him stepping out and interrupting your erotic moment in order to discuss your overdraft.
But back to movie, which we all enjoyed and at end my younger son commented that it would be first in series. Maybe but whilst men in thirties/forties can do 4 to 5 movie and show few signs of ageing, teenage boys may be able to do 2 or 3 at most. Otherwise, they have an excellent formula ready and waiting.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
Too 'Boys Own' Adventure for me
I admit to knowing nothing about the book(s) this movie is based on. I selected it as I thought it would appeal to the boys in my life, it did. Aged 44, 13 and 9 they all enjoyed, but, to me, it was a weird mix of historical surroundings, sci-fi, and literary characters. (Although the identity of the American agent as Tom Sawyer was not something I picked up on in film, only realising when I visited this site).
The special effects were good (although I wondered about the damaging effect of the ship's wake on Venice), the fight scenes dramatic enough, Dorian Grey, although good-looking, was a tad older than I would have expected , the twist of loyalty obvious.
I have feeling that a sequel may be in the offering, if so the boys can go without me!
Bright Young Things (2003)
Glitters but not shines
This is not the first of Evelyn Waugh's books to be adapted for visual entertainment. In the late 70's Brideshead Revisited was adapted into an excellent television drama that spanned several weeks allowing character development that is not impossible in a 90-minute film. Merchant Ivory used their skills of pacing and lavish cinema photography to produce a terribly poignant adaptation of A Handful of Dust. However Vile Bodies presents its adaptor with a number of problems. It is quite a short book and Waugh's first success. Like Jackie Collins's novels of the 70's/'80's (and even Richard E Grant's By Design) part of its success was in the recognition of the real people behind the thinly disguised characters. Now, of course, these 20's celebrities are mainly unknown to today's readers. Waugh himself acknowledges that:- `The composition of Vile Bodies was interrupted by a sharp disturbance in my private life and was finished in a very different mood from that which it was began. The reader may, perhaps, notice the transition from gaiety to bitterness.'
Although Waugh viewed the book as a comic one, which it is, I felt that his own awareness of the tragedy of life came through by the end. Therefore I was uneasy with the Hollywood `happy ending' that Mr Fry had concocted.
It is very difficult to be objective about your own work and Stephen Fry not only directed this film he wrote the screenplay. I'm not completely aware of the whole process of filmmaking but I felt that there were areas in the film that would have benefited from someone else's input. For example; there were a lot of very short scenes at the beginning of film and towards the end a long monologue. Both of which irritated for different reasons.
Amongst the main characters Miles (Michael Sheen) and Agartha (Fenella Woolgar) enliven the film, as they were meant to. Our hero Adam (Stephen Campbell Moore) is likable and good-looking enough and his situation affords him our sympathies. The heroine Nina (Emily Mortimer) is beautiful, exquisitely dressed but a little too self-absorbed to be totally likable. Although I'm a fan of Richard E Grant in a film of many famous cameos his is not one that stands out. Although he successfully oozes the disapproval that his upright Priest characterisation requires. More memorable are John Mills zestfully sniffing cocaine and Peter O'Toole portrayal of Nina's father. Every scene seems to contain a well-known, British actor in a supporting role and, without exception, all their performances in this film were well executed.
Stephen Fry states he would like to direct again. I hope he is given that chance. Although the film has a few flaws it is not a bad movie and it is British. Our problem, as an industry, is that we make so few films but we expect them all to be brilliant. Stephen may not have produced a diamond but, despite the limitations of the original plotline, it is definitely a diamante.
Two Weeks Notice (2002)
Disappointing!
Unfortunately everything I had heard about this movie was true. It was predictable, the leads lacked rapport, the comedy wasn't, both stars revisited personas created for better movies. Even Hugh Grant's presence wasn't enough to save it from being dire. There is however a fantastic view of the Chrysler Building in one scene.
People in foyer were apologising for taking their friends to see this movie!
Chicago (2002)
A worthy tribute to Bob Fosse
From the beginning the thumbprint of the late Bob Fosse is visible in the choreography. It is a superb musical. Tightly directed there is never a dull moment. All actors are excellent. I've never been particularly impressed with Richard Gere but here he shows himself to be a talented actor, having broken out of the model of enigmatic, affable characters. Best of all it didn't rely on a romance to carry the story.
Seven Days That Shook the Spice Girls (2002)
a wasted hour of my life! *
In less than an hour there will be a two-minute silence for an event that truly shook the world. Therefore, perhaps the showing last night (10th September) of 'Seven Days that Shook the Spice Girls' was ill-timed. Basically it appears the Spice Girls were on the brink of world domination when they sacked their mentor/manager, Simon Fuller. The days were not sequential and the programme seemed to be struggling to find enough material to create seven crisis points. Neither Simon Fuller nor the Spice Girls took part in this programme.
My reason for watching was Richard E Grant, but his appearances were so brief that if you blinked you missed them. Probably because, unlike other contributers, he seemed unable to treat the subject with the solemnity the producers were seeking. Next day I am totally unable to recall any of the comments he or anyone else made. No one died. All the spice girls have continued to enjoy fame and fortune. Even Simon Fuller has gone on to greater things. In the balance of things this programme added nothing to the world but just filled one of Channel 4 schedule slots.
One thing September 11th taught many of us is that's life is too short, it is certainly too short for people to waste making or watching this programme.
* As normal with TV I was doing something else so not completely wasted.
Hildegarde (2001)
Hits its target audience
This film reminded me of the sort of thing we'd see at Saturday Morning Kids club; independent 'ordinary' children, trying to solve their own problems and taking on the 'baddies'.
Its plot is built around a widow, her 3 children and a duck. Whilst mum is trying to hold down a job the children try to help. Enter a bird-poacher whose dream is to own a beach-bar. In order to finance his scheme, with his young side-kick, he catches and sells exotic birds. The duck is kidnapped for use in his decoy operation - a wildlife sideshow. All the children want is their duck back.
Richard E Grant plays the obnoxious Wolf, a scruffy bully, with a high opinion of his ability to impress the opposite sex and a low opinion about everything else.
Enough to say it's a good film that hits its target audience without leaving adults cringing (except at the state of REG's feet!). It's a shame that it could not have had a general cinema release. My children were rivetted and I was pleased that, for once, they weren't watching a cartoon.
About a Boy (2002)
See film before reading book to avoid disappointment.
Reading the book before seeing the film sets you up for a certain degree of disappointment. A book that has been part of your life for the best part of a week (or more) is reduced to one and a half hours of the main plotline. I had also misread the hype. The film is from the makers of Bridget Jones Diary; it is actually written and directed by two American guys, the Weitz Brothers. Their film credits include Antz (for which they wrote script) and America Pie.
The plotline parallels the lives of two boys, thirty-five year old Will Freeman (Hugh Grant) and twelve year old Marcus (Nicholas Hoult). Will lives in a stylish apartment full of the latest technology and gadgets. His laidback lifestyle is funded by royalties from a novelty record his father wrote before he was born. He is happy drifting though life minimising his contact with others, except for the occasional sexual encounter. Marcus is not happy. He lives with his mother, a woman with strong beliefs who has been rendered emotional weak for reasons never fully explained. Eventually these two boys meet and a reluctant friendship develops.
Hugh Grant's performance is his best to date. His delivery of the narration, in a dry, sardonic style, hints of the hidden depths that he assures his friends do not exist. The film is very much his. Toni Collette gives an excellent performance as the alternate' single mother who fails to appreciate her son's problems. And, despite my aversion, to child actors Nicholas Hoult delivered a very credible performance as the child who is struggling to cope in environments he can not control. The casting of child actors seem to have gradually improved as producers (*see below) have endeavoured to provide real' children and not cute' or precocious' child stars.
The film has its weaknesses. The best lines have been lifted from Nick Hornby's book. Whilst its first three-quarters adhere to the book, it then diverts into a crisis incident before concluding with a scene that is again Hornby territory. Whilst there is nothing wrong with this construction it wasn't quite enough. The magic is also missing in its humour, that is not to say it is not funny, it is, although not as roaringly so as the hype would have you believe. Perhaps I went to this movie knowing too much and expected something extra to be delivered. I exited with a feeling it was enjoyable but
Maybe Will's words express what I felt was missing, `Ah that's where you have me wrong. You've always thought I had hidden depths. But I really am this shallow.'
27th April, 2002 Denise J Hale
* I not 100% sure who is responsible for casting decisions, but as the producers are in charge of the money I decided the ultimate decision was probably theirs.
Gosford Park (2001)
Altman's knowing camera highlights 1930's class obsessions.
As I sat down to view Gosford Park with Becky and Gina the thought crossed my mind, `Could the film live up to its hype? Five minutes in and Becky leant over and gushed in my left ear `This is wonderful!' I nodded my agreement. The film is deliciously wicked as it allows the viewer to observe the idiosyncrasies of people who are unaware they process any. The plot is not overly complex and is certainly not the strength of this movie. The structure of this film is in its interplay of characters and the contrast between the vital world below stairs and the bored existence of the upper classes. The introduction of an American into this world provides an alien perspective though which the audience can identify. One of the complexities of the film is in remembering who's who, especially upstairs. `Which one's Lord Stockton?' whispered Gina in my right ear. And a discussion on the journey home revealed that Becky believed Sylvia's sister was her daughter, which would have given her a very odd relationship with Bill! My advice is to pay attention to those casual introductions you will be tested later!
I also wished that I had known more about the Charlie Chan movies that the American supposedly produced. Research afterwards revealed that there were a series of thirties B movies in which a Chinese detective competently solved crimes. Thus Stephen Fry's bumbling detective is an antithesis of this fictional character. Perhaps there is an element of truth in that a modern audience, used to watching TV detectives gather evidence and solve crimes, are more knowledgeable about the methods of deduction than a nineteen-thirties, English, police inspector would have been. As Stephen Fry's performance has been highlighted in several reviews as the weakest link perhaps I am looking to justify it. However as the audience I was with definitely found it amusing perhaps that is sufficient justification for its presence.
One of the advice bytes a writer is always reading is show don't tell'. Early in the movie Elsie (Emily Watson) warns Mary (Kelly MacDonald) of George's wandering hands'. However throughout the movie there is no indication of this vice from George (Richard E Grant). Although nicotine addiction and a willingness not to waste good wine are displayed! In a film of outstanding performances Richard's was one of my favourites, with his malicious remarks and permanent expression of disdain there was a definite edge to his presence in any scene. Another character I enjoyed watching was Mabel (Claudie Blakley), the wife of the obnoxious Nesbit (James Wilby) who had only been invited to make up numbers. She is the female outsider in this upper class habitat and is easy to overlook as unimportant. No character in this tableau is unimportant. The most memorable dialogue is in the expert hands of Maggie Smith who delivers it with such a wonderful, naivety that she reminded me of my 7 year old, who seems to specialise in outrageous comments issued in total innocence.
My impression, from the recent Altman Omnibus, was that the director wanted to remove that air of knowing' which permeates most period dramas. In the finished product I was aware of his success in this endeavour. The film is a glimpse into a moment of people's lives. Everyone is busy with their own lives, and, particularly with the staff, we are conscious of their individuality. There are reflections on the past, but there is a stronger awareness of the present. The future has not happened yet. The death of the master may force the sale of the house, there may be a trial, a film may be made and a war may be coming, but in the meantime the silver has to be polished, and meals cooked and served.
Finally, before you all think this hierarchical society is part of British history. I recently viewed a documentary on Windsor Castle where a servant was measuring the distances between place settings, for a banquet, exactly as George had in Gosford Park. A dying breed yes, but please do not make the mistake of thinking it extinct yet.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
A demanding child but an enjoyable film.
You would have to have been comatised not to have heard of Harry Potter this year! Even when we were on holiday in France my son found the J K Rowlings books `with different covers Mummy'. Sunday 4th November saw the World Premiere of the long awaited film adaptation of the first book, which was attended by a galaxy of celebrities clutching their children's hands.
`Why didn't we go?' demanded my seven-year-old, while watching the GMTV report on Monday morning. `Because we're not rich or famous enough!' I replied My son gave me an accusing look as he realised I was a failure. In order to salvage a bit of status I duly booked up for the premiere screening at my local cinema. By the time Saturday arrived I think I was more excited then they were!
Taking our telephone booked seats I was aware of a slight problem. Row C was a bit close to the screen for my long-sighted senile myopic vision. And for the first few minutes I wonder why a vastly expensive film had been shot out-of-focus! However as the book came to life before my eyes this problem became irrelevant.
Anyone who has read the book will have created strong images of both characters and locations. I am happy to report that my images on both accounts were more than fulfilled. Privet Close was an 80's housing development, rather than the 60's estate of my imagination, but that is probably more to do with my age! Everything else was perfect. The Dickensan appearance of Diagon alley, the power and wonder of the steam train (I think I'm showing my age again!), the majestic gothic Hogwarts, all enhanced by shooting from the perspective of a 11 year old. As for the characters, well Robbie Coltrane IS Hagrid! And Alan Rickman as Snape was as nasty, if better looking, than the Snape my mind created. Of the young newcomers all were excellent. Whilst Harry's incredulous wonder at the turn his life has taken probably reflects Daniel Radcliffe's own feelings, as he stood, hopefully, viewing the images of his dead parents tears prinked my eyes.
Although I was aware that Gloucester Cathedral had been used for part of Hogwarts I failed to detect its presence. Either I was too engrossed in the film for this type of detail or it was heavily disguised.
My own favourite scene is the Quidditch match. Quidditch is the wizard world's equivalent of football, with the exception that it is exciting to watch! Played on broomsticks with seven players aside the red ball, or Quaffle, is put in one of three hoops by opposing teams to score 10 points. The game is complicated by Bludgers, rogue black balls that zoom around trying to dislodge players. However two beaters have the job of protecting the rest of the team. Each team has a seeker whose job it is to catch the golden snitch, a walnut-sized ball that not only darts about but disappears from sight. The catching of the snitch scores 150 points and ends the game. Watching this game you will believe that broomsticks can fly and will hanker after your own Nimbus 2000.
For a writer to have so much control on a film is usual. Nick Hornby voiced the opinion, it's best to take the money and run! Joanna Harris was annoyed at the change of the heroine's distracter from priest to mayor in Chocolat! Whilst the film is not an exact replication of the book it is as near as a two and a half hours adaptation can be. That's two and a half hours which whiz by so that, like Harry, you are disappointed to be leaving Hogwarts!
11th November 2001
PS Senile myopia is one of the downsides of passing 40!
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
A visual experience not to be missed.
In Shakespeare's day communication was mainly aural. Thus your average Elizabethan could absorb more words in a minute than this modern decedent. We live in a visual era and this film challenges our capacity to process images to the full. Visually it is stunning. Sit back and let the experience wash over you. The story is not complicated and the dialogue relies much on the potency of cheap music (many popular songwriters coffers will be lined by this film), but it doesn't matter. This is pure entertainment. Like champagne it may have lots of froth and no substance, but I love champagne occasionally. Spectacular! Spectacular!
The Little Vampire (2000)
For a change a kids movie this adult didn't mind paying to see.
After a week of nagging and cajoling I managed to persuade one of my sons to accompany me to The Little Vampire. To me the combination of vampires and Richard E Grant were irresistible. Not so my older son who thought it would be scary unlike my 6 year old rather hoped it would be! Richard E Grant plays the patriarch of the vampire family - in turns menacing, protective and nurturing. A bit low on that sexy look but this is a kid's movie, otherwise a performance that raised the standard of the movie. The villain of the piece is Jim Carter (who is also the villain the latest episodes of Scarlet Pimpernel). Unlike former vampire hunters Jim's appearance resembled a gypsy/wild man of the woods. He was the bogeyman of the film giving performance that he seemed to relish and the audience enjoyed. The other performance I enjoyed was the vampire son Rudolph (Rollo Weeks), an actor I hope we'll be seeing more of him in the future.
My main crit is the vampires costumes (which looked splendid) the American couple dated them Shakespearian, which looked correct, but as the boy's age is 309 this calculates his birth era at around 1700 nearly 100 years later!! Given the fact that this is an aristocrat family would they really wear clothes a century out-of-style! I know it a children's film but! The plot is childish fun, the performances are good, the special effects were well done, and everyone seemed to laugh in the right places. Not very scary although a couple of scenes did have a little hand reach for mine. A thoroughly enjoyable afternoon's viewing.
American Beauty (1999)
Best movie of the decade!
How can one man's mid-life crisis be turned into a classic movie? Is it the dialogue? the standard of acting? the direction? the way it is shot? Yes! Yes! Yes! and more! It is a film which grips you from the begin and holds you throughout. It gets to your heart and your mind (not a path many films care to attempt). In a materialist society this is worth the admission fee.