Another Earth ****

by

Posted: 08/12/2011

Sundance winner Another Earth is as ambiguous as its trailer, but at its indie heart is a tale of tragic redemption, rather than apocalyptic sci-fi curiosity. Listen carefully to the trailer voiceover, as this is one girl’s journey laced with an otherworldly presence.

On the night of the discovery of a duplicate planet to Earth in the solar system, an ambitious young student called Rhoda (Brit Marling) and an accomplished composer and university professor John Burroughs (William Mapother) cross paths in a tragic accident. What happens next is down to Rhoda’s actions and Burroughs’s reactions.

Documentary filmmaker and writer-director of this tale Mike Cahill presents an alluring sci-fi moral full of humane fragility that draws a touchingly mesmerizing and soulful performance from its lead, Marling. In its pseudo-documentary style, it seeks a grounded realism, considering its parallel sci-fi furore and ethereal quality, which can only be as a result of Cahill’s filmmaking background.

Indeed, Another Earth could be described as ‘another Melancholia’ in concept, where Rhoda, a young girl in a depressed trance seeks solitude from society’s harsh judgement of her by tackling her grave human error by embarking on a kind of ‘restorative justice’. The Earth 2 is both her reality and her metaphor for the second chance that she realises she craves. It’s also the cause and the cure of her situation, resulting in an open-ended finale that’s up for intelligent debate.

Cahill’s casting of Marling opposite Mapother (of Lost fame) is utterly magnetic and the sole power behind the tale. These two distressed characters’ immediate worlds collide and provide a temporary lifeline for each other, away from the obsessions of the rest of civilisation. It’s here that Cahill allows the tentative steps towards their union to develop, creating an almost inert atmosphere to do so, resulting in both coming alive in this artificial environment then shutting down outside of it. It’s a fascinating transformation.

The inevitable truth cannot be kept at bay, which acts as a catalyst on the road to healing for both characters, to assimilate them back into society. The start of their journey may well be seen in the trailer, but it provides an incredibly blunt and dramatic shock tactic very early on in a film of two worlds colliding, both physically and metaphorically. It’s also refreshing to have a seemingly well-adjusted and fortunate youngster and a female as the delinquent for a change, which may be why Cahill’s film could feel unique – like a tabloid reporting on the more ‘attractive victim/culprit’ to grab and sustain attention.

Nevertheless, the power of the human mind to overcome adversity in its own way, whether that’s away from society rule is what gives Cahill’s film such inquisitive appeal. The sci-fi is merely a contributing factor to what is in effect a robust character study of salvation.

4/5 stars

By @FilmGazer

Follow on Twitter

New Year’s Eve *

by

Posted: 08/12/2011

You have to worry when a film’s musical medley finale is far more entertaining than what you’ve just sat through. Another snag for the filmmakers of the equally disappointing Valentine’s Day last year is their biggest star, Robert De Niro, is woefully miscast in the sombre role, when his true comedic talent is apparent in the end sing-song.
–
You’ve guessed it: it’s nearly ball-dropping time in Times Square, New York City, and a bunch of characters have all sorts of New Year’s resolutions to make and keep, all to do with some form of love: forgiveness, compassion, opening their hearts to a different point of view etc. We follow the 24 hours before the ‘greatest reset button in life’, New Year’s Eve and the big countdown.
–
Director Garry Marshall and writer Katherine Fugate haven’t learnt their lesson from last time, it seems – or they’re under contract to see this limp franchise through to the bitter end. The problem isn’t attracting an impressive cast – as that’s what the film’s main draw is, what with De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Hilary Swank, Zac Efron, Sarah Jessica Parker, Halle Berry, Jessica Biel, Katherine Heigl and even Jon Bon Jovi on board: One could cynically argue that it’s the easiest money they’ve earned all year, so of course, they’ve signed up. Perhaps it’s their collective love for the Big Apple at this time of year, too?
–
What is highlighted is too much of a good cast, without proper mini plot development in each scenario just produces a damp squib, with characters we don’t much care for, even if we enjoy seeing the famous faces together in one film. Their characters’ trials and tribulations amount to padding until the countdown, with some great musical numbers from Bon Jovi intermixed for fans. Hence, when the big moment finally comes we should be right there with them all, feeling that renewed hope of a great new year ahead, rather than wishing to reset our own time button to two hours earlier.
–
We see De Niro wasting away – both in body and mind with such a character; Heigl as the usual ‘bridesmaid and never the bride’ – again; Berry like a worn out extra off ER; Swank running around and mounting her own personal crusade – complete with the ever perfect curl in her hair; and Pfeiffer trying to convince us she’s really plain Jane and uninteresting – well, the latter part is true in this film, even with Efron and his cheeky charms trying to inject some life into her and their scenario of completing her wish list, as though she’s going to snuff it at midnight.
–
And no film set in New York would be complete without Jessica Parker running around in killer heels, like she’s doing a small SATC Carrie cameo, and forgotten she’s actually playing a concerned mum to teen Hailey (Abigail Breslin) who just wants to be kissed. Valentine’s Day star Ashton Kutcher plays disinterested New Year’s loather Randy in this, rather than over-enthusiastic flower man Reed in the 2010 film. He’s really only there to set up a singing scene for Glee’s Lea Michele in a knockout red number, and gets to slob it out in PJs, like he’s just got out of bed to make a lacklustre appearance in this.
–
As a result of too many characters and not enough investment in each, New Year’s Eve also suffers from a frustrating lack of explanation, such as what’s Claire Morgan’s (Swank) deep bond with cop friend Brendan (Chris ‘Ludacris‘ Bridges), and why is she estranged from her father, Stan (De Niro) – among others. To be honest, should we really care?
–
Apart from Bon Jovi rocking the house and a great vocal performance from Michele, Sofía Vergara – who’s like an annoying Cheeky Girl at the start – makes things hot and steamy in chef Laura’s (Heigl) kitchen, as well as steals the only comedic moments as man-crazy sous chef Ava from Heigl, rendering the latter’s usual comedy presence void.
–
There are a number of other actors and situations going on, one or more of which ought to strike a chord with whoever is watching. Although the filmmakers’ intentions are all good, the execution results in contrived, groan-inducing morality and over simplicity in parts that just undermines the candour of the lessons learnt. Let’s hope there’s not another date in the Western calendar that Marshall and Fugate can get/have got their hands on – even if it means they keep a few big names in easy work.
–
1/5 stars
–
By @FilmGazer
–

Hugo (3D) ***

by

Posted: 04/12/2011

Many name James Cameron as the man at the forefront of 3D. But Hugo (3D) has just added another exciting contender in one of the most unlikely directors, Martin Scorsese, who is best known for chronicling the rough and gangster-ready parts of urban America, with such greats as Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and The Departed. The artistic, colourful and quite magic wizardry of Hugo is perhaps a shock departure from the Scorsese norm – maybe like many actors, he wants to start creating films he can share with his family?

Based on Brian Selznick’s book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, a young orphan boy called Hugo Cabret (The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas’s star Asa Butterfield) is left to live rough and run the railway station clocks of the Gare Montparnasse, after his drunk of an uncle, Claude (Ray Winstone) goes astray. All Hugo dreams of is getting the one inheritance from his clock-maker father (Jude Law) working again, a broken mechanical automaton that could hold an invaluable message or memory from happier times.

One day, he is caught one day stealing parts from local toymaker Papa Georges’s (Ben Kingsley) stand and is father’s ideas pocketbook is taken from him. Desperate to get it back from Papa Georges, while avoiding being caught by the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), Hugo meets Papa Georges’s daughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) who holds the heart-shaped key that he needs to wind up the automaton. However, once the two join forces, they discover a whole new world of secrets about Papa Georges’s past.

The first awe-inspiring moment is being whirled along – like through a fly’s eye – on a gravity-defying trajectory through the station platforms and concourse that has to be seen to be believed. Scorsese’s whole 3D affair is a sumptuous one of artistic marvel that has a wintry festive glow to it. There is so much scene detail to take in it’s quite breathtaking in fact, like pouring over the illustrative brilliance of an old-fashioned storybook.

Scorsese sets up his characters and their settings well, giving insights into what makes them tick and what ticks them off, all within the period context of 1930s Paris. And while we are thrilled by this and invest in the romance of the time, as well as the promise of a child-led adventure with Hugo and Isabelle, the non-cinephile among us might find the latter half of the film rather obsessive as it veers off into cinema history to not only serve Scorsese’s gratification, but also to hammer home his work with The Film Foundation, an organisation that campaigns for motion picture preservation. It’s here the younger viewer might find things a little bit of a slog, regardless of the cinema magic on show.

Indeed, as we begin to lose track of Hugo’s own adventure a little, we certainly hear Scorsese cries of his organisation’s aim through this part of the narrative, and much as his creative indulgence into the visionary entrepreneurism of cinematic forefathers’ The Lumière brothers, Harold Lloyd and Georges Méliès may mean more to some while educating others, the eventual reasons for this tangent take some time to materialise.

Still, the performances are nothing short of compelling, with child leads Butterfield and Moretz illuminating the screen, especially a confident Moretz as headstrong Isabelle, without falling into the standard, overacted and dewy-eyed portrayals in other kids films. Baron Cohen is his usual comedic self, like a contemporary-talking cross between Inspector Clouseau and Officer Crabtree from TV’s ‘Allo ‘Allo! series. But for full effect to demonstrate Scorsese’s awe at the work of Méliès, the director has cast the enigmatic Sir Kingsley as Papa Georges to capture both this character’s long-held bitterness and his majestic transition at the end of the film. Kingsley’s acting dexterity is reborn in this, after the disappointing Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time last year.

Hugo (3D) is a sumptuously crafted film that underlies Scorsese’s aims of touching hearts, taking us to other places and providing us with striking visual memories. Like all family entertainment, it has its wholesome moral values at its core. Even though the journey to the grand reveal meanders while doubling as a parallel Scorsese campaign for film preservation, the director has produced one of the most strikingly visual films of 2011 and demonstrated a correct use of live-action/animated 3D.

3/5 stars

By @FilmGazer

Follow on Twitter

Happy Feet Two (3D) ***

by

Posted: 04/12/2011

More penguins, more dancing set-pieces is what Happy Feet writer-director George Miller gives us again, probably because they make for vibrant family entertainment. Short of the penguin musical, the second film that had some huge boots to fill after the Award-winning first is rather a colourful, sing-song whirl of incoherent plot-lines and snatched, throwaway character comments, even if it does spell mega cute in places.

In Happy Feet Two, toe-tapping penguin Mumble (voiced by Elijah Wood) is all grown up with a young, incredibly shy son called Erik (voiced by Ava Acres) who has two left flippers and can’t join in with the Emperors’ routines. Like father, like son, Erik struggles to fit into this world, and goes off to find Antarctic pastures new with friends Atticus (child rapper Lil P-Nut, Benjamin Flores Jr.) and Bo (Meibh Campbell).

They discover the Adélie penguins, where other ‘misfit’ pal Ramon (Robin Williams) comes from. Their group worships Sven (Hank Azaria), a puffin who can fly, and who Erik is inspired by. Meanwhile, Mumble goes off in search of his son, and after he leaves, an iceberg breaks up, trapping the Emperor colony. These results in meeting and bringing new species onboard and mounting a mammoth rescue. Oh, and there are some krill in the water’s depths called Will (Brad Pitt) and Bill (Matt Damon) who decide to be adventurous one day, separating them from their kind and finding waters new…

Four separate writers, means four inputs into this story, including Miller again, which is obvious in terms of the convoluted plot. It’s as though Miller, Gary Eck, Warren Coleman and Paul Livingston pigheadedly opted to get their individual tastes in this to keep everyone happy. In fact the funniest parts – and ones that run as a separate story it seems – are the krill episodes, especially the banter between Pitt and Damon. You do expect the writers to join up the dots in the end to give their separate adventure some purpose, but they don’t. The krill merely live in parallel below the ice surface. Still, as well as the witty repartee, these parts of the film are an excuse for some of the most electric animation on offer.

Apart from the krill, comedy heavyweights Williams and Azaria do not disappoint in trying to inject some much-needed personality into their individual characters to save this film from hinging from one musical set-piece to another. The rest of it is fairly unmemorable long after the event, to be honest. The only astonishing penguin moment is when Erik finds his true talent and massive voice, breaking into a startling operatic rendition, which is quite unexpected and quite magnificent.

The other problem film Two has is all the settings feel like one, so even when the adventure goes off course in another direction there is no visual separation, expect miles of while snow and waddling penguin bodies – the krill moments come as welcome relief. This is an issue – and caused some restlessness among younger viewers – when you have introduced too many characters.

That said the values and morals are the same inspiring and honourable ones, and there are no darker elements in this, unlike other animations in recent years, making it trustworthy and solid family entertainment. Rocker Pink is also a penguin in this – Erik’s mother, Gloria, adding to its music medley, as well as Queen classics, We Are The Champions and Under Pressure, for older members of the audience to nod along to. What Happy Feet Two lacks in robust narrative is made up in song and dance, which provides the thrills – as well as the stars of the hour, the krills.

3/5 stars

By @FilmGazer

Follow on Twitter


To watch this video, you need the latest Flash-Player and active javascript in your browser.


The Big Year ***

by

Posted: 02/12/2011

A comedy about bird watching – or ‘birding’, as it’s officially known – is such a random concept that it must surely be one of great mockery of the pastime. But Marley & Me and The Devil Wears Prada director David Frankel’s The Big Year manages to give it a little eccentric charm and grounded purpose, while relying on household comedy old-timers Owen Wilson, Jack Black and Steve Martin to add the feel-good factor.

Based on a non-fiction book by Mark Obmascik, the story follows Brad Harris (Black), a mummy’s boy and IT worker who is obsessed with birds of the ornithological kind. His dream is to take a year out and spot as many bird types as possible to win the coveted, annual Big Year, an informal competition dominated by the world’s best birder, Kenny Bostick (Wilson) who finds all kinds of devious ways to put others off the scent of the whereabouts of the feathered friends. Stu Preissler (Martin), a successful captain of industry, wants to retire completely from the corporate game and concentrate on a shot at the title. Through their avid love of birds, the three begin on an adventure that will change their circumstances forever.

At the heart of Frankel’s comedy beats an unbridled passion of sorts, with a quirky insight into the sacrifices made to stay at the top of the game that will resonate with all that watch it. It’s also a coming-of-age story for all three men entering different stages of their lives. Wilson, Black and Martin are as affable as ever, if too congenial to the point of being rather innoxious for some – even with Bostick’s scheming. However, they still making up an entertaining trio, with the latter two no strangers to playing oddball comedic characters and taking birders in their confident strides. At the same time, a strange, quietening respect for their characters’ choice of pastime grows, especially as it offers a chance to travel and see and learn a bit about nature – a candid reminder for some workaholic viewers of life outside the office’s four walls.

This release or escapism, coupled with the film’s joie de vivre is warmly infectious, and also masks Frankel’s and screenwriter Howard Franklin’s mere surface-level look at what really drives such a person to do such an all-consuming and committed task. Admittedly, without the personal life dilemmas – Harris’s strained relationship with his father, Bostick’s crumbling marriage, and Preissler’s desire to leave the corporate rat race, Frankel’s film would become a totally pointless one, bordering on offensive farce.

These sub-plots may detract from the birding path of the primary goal – to see the next Big Year winner crowned – but they also act to keep the characters grounded and more believable as they struggle to juggle things back home. In fact, all three actors could have played over-the-top caricatures, but Frankel keeps the humour following through the tragic fallout of their actions, which in turn endears them to us more.

The only incredulous part of the whole affair is how no one cheats, especially as just recognising a birdcall equates to having spotted it – Harris being the master of this, but this and the rules are not fully explained. In a nice little bit of extra fluff to add to Frankel’s romanticising of the pastime, Harris’s calls attract a new human mate. Naturally, Ellie (Rashida Jones) is totally out of his league under normal circumstances, if it wasn’t for her unusual hobby. Still, as groan-worthy as this might sound, it’s always undeniably cute to watch the underdog get the girl, and live to tell the tale at the end. And just to add some fun British eccentricity to the mix is John Cleese as the historical montage narrator.

The Big Year is as mild a comedy as one gets with personable characters, so as to normalise the birder and allow us to empathise with their calling – as well as attract the family audience. Its draw is not only the fascination of how such a subject matter transpires to be funny without becoming idiotic, but also the appealing combination of Wilson, Black and Martin, who play it safe and sound in this. Perhaps, in a whole different premise, Frankel and co might have taken a bolder step into the darkly comedic look of the birder’s psyche and added more of a gust of air into this film’s feathers to allow it to soar above its cautious comedic charms.

3/5 stars

By @FilmGazer

Follow on Twitter

 

 

The Thing ***

by

Posted: 02/12/2011

John Carpenter may well be the master of horror filmmaking, but that’s not to say that someone else can’t tackle his esteemed previous work. In fact, Dutch filmmaker Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.’s 2011 version of The Thing could be argued as a brave career choice, considering the 1982 film’s cult following. Not to be confused as a remake of the first, but a prequel – both based on John W. Campbell Jr.’s 1938 novella Who Goes There?, whichever way you look at it, van Heijningen Jr’s new film is certain to spark similar debate over its genetics ideas.
–
Just to confuse matters, this prequel is set in 1982, and sees American paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) recruited by scientists Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) and assistant Adam Finch (Eric Christian Olsen) to join a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across a crashed extraterrestrial spaceship buried beneath the ice of Antarctica. Its passenger, an alien creature frozen in a block of ice, is taken back to their base, Thule Station, where Dr. Halvorson decides to drill into the ice to take a tissue sample, against Kate’s protests. In turn, this frees the thing from the ice and triggers a frightening chain of events. The mystery parasite suddenly mimics everything it touches, spurning paranoia among Thule’s inhabitants as to who is infected in the struggle to survive.
–
The 2011 film certainly feels like a remake, down to the room that contains the frozen alien life form and the endless corridors and exits of Thule Station that could signal danger at any moment. However the suicide at the outpost and the fleeing Alaskan Malamute at the end and suggest otherwise, supposedly matching up events to the start of Carpenter’s film. The unforgiving Antarctic setting still brings the required chills and sense of complete isolation, which Carpenter’s film did so well to enhance the characters’ paranoia.
–
However, what is missing is the terrifying and unnerving feeling of anybody at the outpost being infected by the virus or a clone of themselves, after van Heijningen Jr makes Kate the ‘trusted’ protagonist in his film who is supposedly ‘clean’. In doing so, the paranoia felt this time around is naturally lessened, making it an altogether different film. Hence, it’s more like Kate’s personal witch-hunt to find the next victim/culprit and contain the thing, rather than the complete fear of the unknown and subsequent chaos of Carpenter’s film. As much as Winstead is compelling as the smart and courageous young paleontologist, it could be argued why does a Norwegian scientific team need an inexperienced American graduate to do the job, which is when new plot holes form.
–
The bemusing original concept of a virus that mimics a person is given some screen-time thought for fans – but it’s still not clear enough. In the first film we know the thing absorbs and imitates cells, but it still doesn’t answer just how a person becomes infected in the first place – short of the obvious one-on-one contact where the thing penetrates its victim. Is it airborne too: There seems to be a lack of consistency, considering who gets sick and who doesn’t. In van Heijningen Jr’s defence, he does flag the issue of how the inorganic material can’t be replicated, but how does this explain the clones being fully dressed or fully functional as the people they imitate? Is it a lazy way out to say, “Well, that’s the mystery of sci-fi”?
–
This film favours a mixture of CGI and old-fashioned effects to recreate the thing that don’t always marry in parts and seem a little effects-heavy in others. However, the design of the tentacled biomass with its ‘vaginal denata’, morphing into all kinds of body shapes is still fascinating to witness, if less scary than the original after exposure to many Alien-styled films. There are also obvious, strong references to the latter, even down to shots of Winstead peering around a corner – strikingly similar to Sigourney Weaver as Ripley.
–
Indeed, we get a look at the vast expanse of the buried alien spacecraft in this film that mirrors many other sci-fi films in design, and short of being the place where a brief battle takes, and to possibly trigger post-viewing debate about how the frozen alien suffered the same fate as the humans, detracts from Carpenter’s authentic claustrophobia and paranoia, plus adds very little to the mystery of the virus. It merely feels like a muse for van Heijningen Jr and writing team to pay homage to their sci-fi legends, rather than adding anything new to this prequel’s narrative to enhance our prior knowledge.
–
That said, and without necessarily having seen Carpenter’s 1982 version, van Heijningen Jr’s The Thing still works as a perfectly watchable contemporary sci-fi thriller on the surface by creating enough entertaining scares, and with its strong-willed protagonist at the helm trying to stop the bloody body count – even if it loses out on cult-classic status. Considering the success of other recent Scandanaivan horror films like TrollHunter (Trolljegeren), Rare Exports and Let The Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in), van Heijningen Jr could have angled for that distinct European, non-Hollywood edge by making a totally Norwegian-language film that ties in with the narrative of the sequel, and gives an even greater sense of entrapment by language barrier, as well as by the actual menace. If nothing else, such films suggest audiences are more than willing to invest in subtitled films to gain a real feeling of disorientating terror.
–
3/5 stars
–
By @FilmGazer
–
–

My Week With Marilyn****

by

Posted: 23/11/2011

It’s gems like filmmaker Colin Clark’s memoir of his personal experience with an icon that make the best screen stories, the ones that delve deeper into the celebrity’s persona to prove, disprove or enlighten our knowledge further and make for a more honest and intimate affair. My Week With Marilyn, the name of said memoir and debut feature-film director Simon Curtis’s new film title is one such example that much like Marilyn Monroe it portrays, is an instant heart warmer that you can’t help but be utterly charmed by.

In the summer of 1956, Hollywood star Marilyn Monroe (played by Michelle Williams) arrived on British soil to produce and star in The Prince and the Showgirl, co-starring and directed by acting legend and British acting royalty Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh). On that same shoot was then-23-year-old Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), an Oxford graduate from a well-established family who was desperate to make it as a filmmaker, and as third assistant director on the film, found himself in the most intimate situation with the screen siren, who confided in him during one magical week.

Curtis’ quintessentially British affair captures the imagination from the word go as it’s not just the promise of someone bringing Marilyn to life, but also the stuff of dreams: We have all thought at one point, what if you found yourself in the company of your idol for one week and got to know them like no other? His film, while brazenly pining for the romance of the ‘good old days’, is also stylish, quirky and natty, like the glamorous yesteryear Pinewood productions it strives to recreates, and has an enthusiastic, cheeky and addictive energy, as well as a truly wonderful cast to deliver this.

Williams is sure to get her second Oscar nomination for her Marilyn portrayal. She summons just the right countenance, pose and effervescence of the screen idol, while giving a respectable and credible insight into the darker recesses of her tortured mind and soul. This childlike innocence and fragility is beautifully captured when Marilyn is in awe of a dolls house in one scene, that we fall that little bit more for her and her crushing vulnerability at the hands of fame. That said the Jekyll and Hyde emotions suggest a far less naïve side at the end, very much a woman in control of her own destiny and brand, and Williams subtly and expertly relays this, but still retains Marilyn’s treasured enigma to marvel at. Curtis fuels the love affair with some highly impressive renditions from multi-talented Williams who actually performs Marilyn’s songs, “When Love Goes Wrong/Heat Wave” and “That Old Black Magic”.

Another standout performance comes from Branagh as the acidic-tongued theatrical stalwart Olivier, brilliantly allowing the sarcasm at the tardy Hollywood star’s irresponsibility and drama to drip off the tongue while absolutely nailing Olivier’s clipped and polished pronunciation with thrilling results. Like a scolding mentor, Olivier is the unwilling villain of the piece, who also reveals an intriguing vulnerability at becoming yesterday’s news. It is such insecurities we can all relate to, not just actors but anyone at the height of their career.

Redmayne gives a career-defining performance as Colin, a mixture of cocky youthful arrogance and personable honesty, as much a pawn as Marilyn in the film game – hence she adopts him as her temporary friend. Redmayne commendably plays the doting and mesmerised, lovesick aide who falls for the Marilyn magic, and his moments opposite Williams are truly tender and unique as unconventional ‘love affairs’ go.

There are also some divine supporting moments to enjoy from Judi Dench as actress Dame Sybil Thorndike, the dry-witted and patient surrogate mother to the fragile on-set Marilyn; a virtually unrecognisable Zoë Wanamaker as Marilyn’s drab and domineering Method coach and shoulder-to-cry-on Paula Strasberg; and Dominic Cooper as Milton Greene, Marilyn’s estranged co-producer who fell for the Marilyn charms years earlier and has to deal with his jealousy at Colin’s closeness with the star. Julia Ormond is captivating as screen legend and Olivier’s wife, Vivien Leigh, who is also tackling the ‘has-been’ demons that come with age. Emma Watson briefly appears as costume hand and Colin’s fling, Emma, an apt transition into the adult acting arena for the Harry Potter star. There is a real sense from all involved that this was a labour of love to do the utmost justice to the memoir and provide a bigger picture of the highs and lows of that time, as well as a lot of fun in parts.

As a first feature, Curtis has made a significant mark and shown a real gift for character narration, delivering a powerhouse of individual and ensemble acting prowess that encapsulates this glamorous era of filmmaking history, even if it is guilty of being a little pious at times.

4/5 stars

By @FilmGazer

Follow on Twitter

Moneyball ****

by

Posted: 23/11/2011

At first glance, Moneyball will ignite interest among Brad Pitt fans. On second glance, it will turn some away because of its baseball subject matter. Sports films are an acquired taste and will never fully convert those who are not into the sport in question. Therefore, as one of the latter, Moneyball is a real eye opener, and not because it suddenly stirs a dormant interest in the sport, but because the baseball could be argued as being the parallel theme to the overriding one of the ‘little guy’ taking on and shaking up the system from within. In this sense, there is something to be gained from it.

It’s based on the true story of Billy Beane (Pitt), the once would-be baseball superstar who still hurts from his failure to live up to expectations on the field and turns to baseball management. It’s nearly the start of 2002 season, and Billy’s small-market Oakland Athletics (the A’s) have lost their star players to the bigger, wealthier clubs. Billy must rebuild the team and compete on a third of the payroll. He discovers and hires whizzkid, Yale-educated economist Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) who believes in Bill James’ computer-driven statistical analysis to win games, previously ignored by the baseball establishment. Together they challenge the old baseball guard by installing overlooked or dismissed baseball players, based on a combination of key skills, and begin winning several games in a row.

Moneyball plays out much like any other baseball film but with a couple of narrative twists. Even though you don’t necessarily need to know anything about baseball, naturally, Moneyball will have a greater impact on someone who does possess the historical and factual elements of the game. It’s essentially an inspirational David verses Goliath film, a topical corporate shakedown story that anyone can relate to in this day and age, and it’s all down to the Pitt-Hill chemistry that keeps you engaged.

As co-producer and star, Pitt takes on by far his biggest film challenge yet with Beane and shaping this story to appeal to a wide-ranging audience. He is as courageous as his dynamic and daring character that’s the film’s driving tour de force. Pitt is strikingly reminiscent of a younger Redford and his gutsy turn in the 1984 baseball film, The Natural. Everything really hinges on Beane’s actions and reactions that keep things scintillating to watch, with Hill as Brand as the ‘voice of reason’ in the corner in a straighter stance, much like his character Cyrus in the 2010 film. In fact, Hill again demonstrates that taking on the straighter-laced roles where he can diffuse the tense with intelligent, deadpan humour input is his true acting forte.

Thankfully, Pitt’s infectious energy transcends the wordy baseball mumbo jumbo, and the passion that all involved feels for the game shines through. Part of this is the sense that both you and the characters are venturing into the unknown and want to see change in an unbalanced system. The script glosses over the ones and zeros and endless charts of the analysis and manages to make a coherent narrative out of Michael Lewis’ complex book “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game”. Again, this is down to the winning onscreen team of Pitt and Hill, but more so because of award-winning The Social Network writer Aaron Sorkin being part of the scriptwriting team.

Capote director Bennett Miller turns to his muse, Philip Seymour Hoffman, to portray the stubborn face of the old system by casting the actor as Art Howe, the A’s team coach. Although against the statistical invasion of the game, Howe is delivered a chance to know what it feels like to succeed against all adversity, with the A’s winning 20 games in a row, which broke an actual AL record in 2002. As an underdog himself with little say in his team’s makeup, Howe begins to appreciate how the ‘misfit toys’ – as the players are called – can have their glory, and it’s spiritually uplifting to watch.

Thankfully, Miller does not take the conventional, backslapping route at the end, and throws up a few satisfying surprises where his lead character is involved. Sadly, the system wins, which admittedly does have the sense of defeated purpose. However, Moneyball has to be taken as one of those films where the journey is more important than the end result, and it’s one of guts, determination and sporadic humour. Full credit to Pitt, too, for creating an ingenious and unorthodox career-defining role for himself at this stage in his varied career.

4/5 stars

By @FilmGazer

Follow on Twitter

 

LFF 2011: 50/50****

by

Posted: 23/11/2011

A comedy about cancer is not something the average person feels comfortable laughing at. But when writer Will Reiser has been through the illness, it makes sense that he has something to say about getting over the ‘Big C’ stigma that the rest of us more fortunate people are inflicted with. Paired with Seth Rogen, who is Reiser’s good friend in real-life and helped him through the illness, the story behind 50/50 begins to intrigue further and adopt some well-meaning gravitas.

This is a story about friendship, love, survival and finding humour in unlikely places. 50/50 stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Rogen as best friends Adam and Kyle whose lives are changed by a cancer diagnosis given to supposedly ‘healthy’ Adam, and follows how they individually cope with the news on Adam’s road to recovery.

Admittedly, the idea of ‘big kid’ Rogen making fun of cancer on screen feels altogether unnerving at first, considering his CV of immature, dope-smoking roles in the past. As Kyle, he starts out as expected, shirking responsibilities to remain the eternal frat boy, chasing skirt and partying hard. But with his trustworthy companion, Gordon-Levitt, in tow, who instantly reassures you the journey you take with the characters will be a worthy and heart-felt one, all joking is sensitively executed after the bombshell drops.

The Gordon-Levitt-Rogen bromance is one of the most exciting and fun ones in recent comedy history, and the pair have a wonderful natural rift that considering they first met on this film, would fool anyone into thinking they’d been friends for life. This is the primary reason 50/50 works. Events are also given breathing space to unfold, with reactions to the news both expected and random and exuding a bittersweet humour, resulting in director Jonathan Levine’s story having a lot of credibility, rather than haphazardly trying to draw laughs using the Rogen touch. Admittedly, where Rogen is involved, there is always the odd, idiotic throwaway comment, so expect that, too.

Anna Kendrick as inexperienced cancer counsellor Katherine and Bryce Dallas Howard as Adam’s girlfriend Rachael make up the female contingent in this, alongside a wonderful turn from Anjelica Huston as Adam’s overbearing but concerned mother. Kendrick and Dallas Howard play chalk-and-cheese characters, but share the common sense of paranoia of “saying and doing the right thing”. Against them, we get to compare our reactions to events and how we would deal with such a circumstance; through them, it’s as though we are allowed to feel guilty and ill equipped, and that is a refreshing and personal element Reiser has brought to the script. It also enables us to not make light of how we deal with it, which is where the humour lies.

If nothing else, 50/50 is ironically laugh-out-loud funny and equally brave and tragic, without being weepy and affected, or worse still, condescending. It’s angle is to be as matter-of-fact as its stars in what transpires, which is its guilty and unique pleasure.

4/5 stars

By @FilmGazer

Follow on Twitter