Catfish

The back-story that the audience are told is that New York photographer Nev Schulman receives a message from an 8 year old  painter called Abby asking for permission to paint one of his published pictures she has seen. He agrees and Abby then sends him a copy of the painting. Messages go back and forth between the two and an online friendship starts to develop. At this point, his brother and friend who happen to be filmmakers decide it would be interesting to film the friendship as it evolves and maybe later make a  short film about it.

Events soon take a surprising turn though when an online discovery makes Nev question everything he knows about Abby and the other members of her family that he has also started getting to know through Facebook. Without giving too much away, a web of lies is uncovered that leads Nev to take drastic action in order to uncover the extent of the lies and the reasons behind them.

It’s riveting stuff as the events seem to be unfolding before your eyes, but you never feel fully able to trust what you’re seeing. That all these events have been captured on camera just seems too unlikely to trust. The most genuine and seemingly authentic scenes are those in which Abby and her mother Angela appear, and if the film is a scam, they don’t seem to be in on it. Their surprise when Nev visits them out of the blue in their hometown of Ishpeming seems genuine, and as Angela gives explanations for the falsehoods they have imposed on Nev, she appears sincere and completely believable. This makes you think maybe the rest of the film is genuine. I found myself coming up with my own conclusion about what could be believed and what couldn’t, and that turned out to be part of the fun of the film.

This doubt and controversy surrounding the film is part of what makes it so fascinating to watch, as it adds another dimension to the filmwatching experience, as you question “could these two filmmakers really have started filming these events, not knowing the turn of events that would take place or the depth of interest it would meet with?” Whether true or not, Catfish is a fascinating tale of deception that highlights some of the dangers of social media and the dangers of forming relationships with people through those networks.

Starring: Yaniv Schulman, Angela Wesselman

Dir: Henry Joosh, Ariel Schulman

The one exception to this is Russell Crowe as Police Inspector Javert. From the minute he opens his mouth and starts singing, he stands out as the one cast member not suited to the musical genre. It just does not work and actually distracts from the plot, as instead of concentrating on events unfolding, whenever he sings, you find yourself thinking “he’s really not very good”. If he had only been given a small role, this might be forgiveable, but he has one of the main parts and the responsibility of singing two of what should be the most powerful songs in the film. You can tell he is trying his best, but his voice is just not up to it, and as a result, the songs do not have the impact that they should. He also looks uncomfortable singing to the camera sometimes and there is an awkwardness to his performance which is not present in anyone else’s performance.

Hugh Jackman gives one of his best performances ever as Ex convict Jean Valjean, who breaks parole in post revolutionary France to start a new life with a new name. Jackman’s musical background comes in to good use in Les Miserables, and in contrast to Crowe, he looks completely at ease singing and acting simultaneously.

Anne Hathaway’s performance as poor Fantine is fully deserving of the recognition and Oscar it has received. Her performance of ‘I dreamed a dream’ is brilliant and successfully conveys a strong woman who has been completely drained by the events of her life. The tears she sheds appear genuine and give the impression she is completely absorbed in the role. Another notable performance is from Eddie Redmayne in the role of Marius. In previous productions I have seen, Marius comes across as dull and gets overshadowed by the better singers, but Redmayne brings the character to life, and has a strong voice which does not get drowned out by the other performers.

Being a Les Miserables geek, I enjoyed the cameo from the original Jean Valjean Colm Wilkinson. He appears near the start of the film and again at the end. I felt this signified him handing the baton over to Jackman to take on the role and then taking the baton back again, confirming that although many others have played the part since him,  he is the original Jean Valjean and the best.

Les Miserables also shows a new way of filmmaking, as rather than actors miming to the camera and then recording songs in a studio to be added at a later stage of development, the actors here are actually singing live to the camera. This is a brave method of filming which mostly paid off. Athough as the name suggests, Les Miserables is largely a ‘miserable’ film with many tragic elements, it does contain some comedy to give a bit of light relief. The comedy is provided by the despicable characters of the Innkeeper and his wife, here played by Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. They are a revolting couple who will do anything for a few extra pennies.

Les Miserables is a brave and mostly successful effort to bring a Broadway musical to the big screen without losing the power and integrity of the musical numbers it has transported and upsetting the loyal fanbase. It has introduced the musical Les Miserables to a wider market and will hopefully help to ensure the continued success of the musical on Broadway.

Dir: Tom Hooper

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne

This is 40

They seem unable to have a conversation with each other without it turning into an argument, their two daughters are not getting on and are constantly giving them grief, their Fathers are a nightmare, and they are struggling to make ends meet financially. The film does not exaggerate problems that can occur at middle age but plays on the humor of real and easy to understand issues that are common concerns for many people.

The film has received criticism for its long  running time and apparent lack of editing, but it did not feel overlong. The natural likeability of the central characters kept me interested and there were enough laughs overall to make the length seem worthwhile. Even during the less funny parts of the film, when the characters were feeling low, their seriousness and upset felt very genuine and was strikingly touching in places. There is a particularly moving scene where Pete is sat in his car clearly on the verge of tears and it tugs at the heart strings.

John Lithgow and Albert Brooks gave impressive supporting performances playing the Dads of the central couple. They are equally flawed parents, but both still likeable because they obviously want the best for their children, but are just not particularly good at showing it. Even  Megan Fox, normally a bit pouty for my liking was used well in the film. She didn’t have much comedy to do herself, but a lot of funny jokes were created around her, as the middle aged men struggle to stop from pathetically staring whenever she is around.

 This is 40 is not one of the best films i’ve ever seen, but it is an extremely funny film about the middle age dilemma. The central relationship always feels genuine and you completely believe the love hate dynamics going on between them. Even though the characters admittedly do seem to live a lavish well-off  lifestyle, they still come across as very real and down to earth and I was bidding for the predictable happy(ish) ending.

Dir: Judd Apatow

Starring: Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Megan Fox, John Lithgow

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

A visionary Sheikh (Amr Waked) from Yemen decides that bringing the sport of fishing to his country might enrich the lives of his fellow countrymen and decides to set about achieving his unlikely dream of introducing Salmon to the Yemen. His representative Harriet (Emily Blunt) appoints a fisheries Scientist to help make this happen. Dr Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor) initially finds the idea preposterous and rejects the idea as ridiculous. However, circumstances arise which slowly force him to alter his opinion.

The British Prime Minister’s Press Officer (Kristen Stewart Thomas) gets involved and this is when the film starts to go downhill. Politics just don’t sit right against the light hearted charming scenes with Dr Jones. Kristen Stewart Thomas plays the unscrupulous hard nosed Press Officer Mrs Maxwell, who latches onto the salmon project, seeing it as an opportunity to present a good news story from the Middle East. Her inclusion is presumably to create laughs amongst the audience with her sharp tongue and ruthlessness, but her character is so far fetched she just becomes an annoying distraction. There is a random scene of her in her home environment wearing an apron and shouting at her children which seems to be attempting to justify her normal aggressive business-like behaviour by showing the viewer her maternal feminine side. It’s almost screaming at the viewer “look, she is a wife and mother too, isn’t this woman amazing?”

The majority of the characters are hard to relate to as they are all far fetched and do not come across as real people. The Sheikh is likeable but spouts visionary statements in most of his scenes and keeps drifting into a distracting american accent. Harriet is at least consistent throughout, but unfortunately her part is not all that interesting.

Ewan McGregor starts off in good form as the uptight highly strung Dr Alfred Jones. He is a man in a passionless marriage, who lives life very rigidly. He shows signs early on of being unhappy with his set-up but seems to lack the backbone to do anything about it and merely acquiesces to all of his wife’s requests. Things change when his involvement in the Salmon project progresses and he gets a glimpse at another life he could lead. Unfortunately as the film progresses, he slowly loses some of his charm, as he becomes less and less nerdy, until he almost looks and acts like your average movie leading man.

There are some good points to the film. The relationship between Harriet and Dr Jones is very sweet and genuine and grounded in a believable evolving friendship and it is this relationship that saves the film from being awful. They are two completely different personalities who are thrown together by work, and find that despite their differences, they can offer each other an understanding and companionship that suits them both.

This is not a terrible film and there are a number of laughs early on, but when the laughs stop, the absurd storyline becomes less interesting and just appears unrealistic and far fetched. The romance plot is nice in places, but the two characters are so different, it is difficult to fully buy into the happy ending that we are offered.

Dir: Lasse Hallstrom

Starring: Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt, Kristin Scott Thomas

The Hobbit

The Hobbit has come under much criticism for its 48 frames per second style of filming. It has been said this is too fast and distracts from the enjoyment of the film. I can honestly say I don’t know what all the fuss is about. It wasn’t obviously different to any other film as far as I could tell, and no-one else in the cinema with me seemed to be complaining. I did see the 2d version though, so perhaps it’s more apparent and speedier in 3D.

My personal problem with The Hobbit is that it strays too far from the source material. Peter Jackson obviously wants it be viewed in the same way as The Lord of the Rings movies were, being divided into three separate films and with heavy battle content, but actually ‘The Hobbit’ is a completely different reading experience to ‘The Lord of the Rings’.  It’s a relatively short book intended for the consumption of children and young adults. I couldn’t understand how there was even enough material to justify it being split into three movies. It seems in order to make it stretch across three movies, the director has added unneccessary and long drawn out battle scenes. Admittedly ‘The Hobbit’ is a book about adventures, and yes, there are battles, but it’s also a character driven book and I feel some characters were lost a little in the film, due to the excess battle scenes.

The one character fortunately who does translate to the film extremely well is Bilbo Baggins. Martin Freeman was perfectly cast in this role, and he captures Bilbo’s uptight self effacing manner brilliantly and with comedic effect. His initial attempts to rebuff the hungry dwarves who have come into his house and are eating all his food is very funny and sets him up as a character who is set in his ways and likes his own company above the company of others. However, his surprise turnaround and decision to take part in a dangerous adventure to help the dwarves regain their homeland shows he does have an adventurous side, even if it is generally quite well hidden. He seems to often regret his last minute decision to join the dangerous quest alongside Gandalf and the Dwarves, but there is obviously some strength of character that stops him from turning back and returning to the safety of his home in the shire.

I have stated the movie does seem to stray quite far from the source material, but it does include the book’s most memorable content, including Bilbo’s fight with the three giant Trolls, and Bilbo’s significant first meeting with Gollum where he first comes into contact with that famous gold ring. The scene with Gollum is done brilliantly and mangages to be both a humorous exchange and a frightening one, as Bilbo sees both the good and dark side of the eery creature Gollum. Although he does not know it at the time, this meeting is to change the course of his own life and the life of his closest relative Frodo.

Although I personally was disappointed by the dissimilarities of the movie The Hobbit to the book it originated from, it was still a very good movie. There was slightly too much action in my opinion which deflected from the great characters, but it certainly kept me engaged throughout, which is an impressive feat for an almost three hour movie.

Dir: Peter Jackson

Starring: Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian Mckellen

Rust and Bone

This unlikely friendship develops after Stephanie requests Ali to come see her after she is released from hospital, having recently  had her legs amputated. He is more accepting of her new circumstances than she is herself, and his unflinching behavior towards her increases her confidence and encourages her to re-engage with former activities and friends that she had been rejecting in her post surgery depression.

Marion Cotillard is compelling as the beautiful killer whale trainer Stephanie, adjusting to the changes brought about by the recent loss of her legs after a freak accident at work. She has the ability to show intense feelings without the assistance of explanatory dialogue. The combination of this alongside her natural beauty makes her fascinating to watch.

Matthias Schoenaerts is equally interesting as the central male character Ali. In his kickboxing scenes, he comes across as a brute force not to be reckoned with, but his gentleness with Stephanie and full acceptance of her altered state show he has hidden qualities. Stephanie’s  vulnerability brings out the caring side of Ali that is closed off to everyone else he should be close to, including his son, who he struggles to be as gentle with. He is in the habit of hurting the people he loves, usually by ignorance rather than cruelty, and it takes a long time for this habit to change.

The sex scenes between Stephanie and Ali alter in their intensity as their relationship develops. Initially they are awkward,  as Ali offers to have sex with Stephanie so she can see ‘if it still works’ following her amputations. The sex becomes more passionate and fiery as Stephanie gradually rediscovers her sexuality.  The director does not shy away from shots of Stephanie’s stumps. They are integral to the story and although initially shocking, the viewer comes to see past them,  as Stephanie herself does. An impressive amount of CGI work must have gone into the movie as although Marion Cotillard is an actress in possession of both her legs, her performance and the CGI work combined meant Stephanie was a fully convincing amputee. This is an impressive feat considering the amount of times Stephanie’s stumps are on display during the film.

There is a lot of imagery used in the film. When Ali first meets Stephanie, he cracks a bar window as he restrains someone involved in a brawl and he hurts his hand in the process. Similar imagery is used later in the film when Ali uses his fist to try to break ice after his son falls into the water beneath it. This time, Ali actually breaks the ice and badly damages his hand. The cracking and breaking of the ice symbolises the barrier that Ali has finally broken as he lets his love for his son and others take priority over his love for himself and his pride. Through sheer strength and character, he rescues his son from  beneath the ice and reconnects with his family and Stephanie.

Rust and Bone is a gritty yet gentle film about love and acceptance,  and about allowing yourself to trust in life even when all it has thrown you is curveballs and sorrow.

Dir: Jacques Audiard

Cast: Marion Cotillard, Matthias Schoenaerts

Margaret

A very young looking Anna Paquin (pre True Blood fame)plays popular seventeen year old Lisa. She inadvertently causes a fatal accident early in the film, by distracting a bus driver who then misses a red light and runs over a woman. Following this accident, Lisa’s behaviour becomes very erratic. She blows  hot and cold with the men in her life; starts drinking; taking drugs; shouts at people who say anything she dislikes; treats her mother horrendously; and becomes obsessed with getting to know about the woman she witnessed die. Presumably her behaviour is meant to be a result of the traumatic accident she witnessed, but the problem with this is that even before the accident Lisa doesn’t seem like a very nice person and her behaviour is difficult to understand. From the moment she is introduced, she appears to be a spoilt arrogant girl who enjoys playing with people’s emotions. This means it’s hard to tell if her later behaviour is a result of the guilt and trauma, or if it’s just her personality.

The accident scene which Lisa witnesses and struggles to come to terms with afterwards is done with shocking detail. A disturbing amount of blood is shown coming from the victim and a body part  is even torn off by the bus. The victim’s dying moments are excellently acted by Alison Janney, as she falls in and out of consciousness and realises she is about to die without even fully comprehending what has just happened to her. An incident like this would probably traumatise anyone, but unfortunately the fact Lisa is so unlikeable for the majority of the film, means it’s very difficult to feel sympathy for her and instead you end up just feeling frustrated with her.

Margaret is very difficult to watch as it shows you someone completely self destructing, but the film is held together by the fine performances from the cast, most notably Lisa’s mother Joan, played by J Smith-Cameron. She appears constantly on the verge of tears as she watches her daughter falling apart. Watching her trying to keep a brave face and get on with things is uncomfortable but affecting. She makes you want to hold your arms out and give her a hug, since her daughter shows her no affection and instead fires insults at her and makes her feel worthless.

To summarise Margaret, it’s not a pleasant watch, but it’s certainly powerful and love her or hate her, you’ll definitely be left with strong feelings about the central character.

Dir: Kenneth Lonergan

Starring: Anna Paquin, Matt Damon, Mark Ruffalo

I’ll just come out and say it. Contrary to my expectations, I hated Skyfall. When I went to see it last week, I was really looking forward to seeing the third Bond movie since the “Daniel Graig reboot”. I loved Casino Royale, and thought Quantum of Solace was pretty good too. Both were clearly Bourne-inspired, with more gritty, realistic action. Bond updated to the 21st century. Skyfall is heralded by many as a welcome return to the “old” Bond, but to me that’s part of why it fails.

Jumping the shark

Back in 2002, when Die Another Day came out, it was criticized for featuring an invisible car, nicknamed the “Aston Martin Vanish”. There’s a movie term called “Jumping the shark“, which refers to an episode of Happy Days where Fonzie jumps over a shark while water-skiing. Jumping the shark means overdoing it. Taking things just a notch too far in an effort to keep things fresh. This happened with the “Vanish”, and it happened again in Skyfall.

Is Bond a superhero?

I went to see the latest Bond with a friend, who argued afterwards that James Bond is essentially a superhero. This friend’s favorite Bond movies are the Roger Moore ones, like Moonraker. The thing with superhero movies is that there’s no jumping the shark. Superhero movies can be as outrageous as they like. Movie-goers will have suspended their disbelief before the opening credits are over, because that’s a requirement for enjoying the genre.

Casino Royale made Bond a ‘regular’ hero again. Sure, some of the gadgets in his car were a little far-fetched, but on the whole, it was a relatively plausible Bond movie. The same goes for “Quantum”. But Skyfall is different. This times however, it’s not technical trickery that makes the movie unbelievable, it’s the fact that absolutely nothing that anyone does in this movie makes any sense.

SPOILER ALERT

Even without thinking about the difficulties of planning such an attack, it seems to me that a subway train is hardly the best weapon to kill a secret agent who’s pursuing you though the sewers of London. Nor is a run-down castle, far away from any sort of help and without any weapons, the best place to take someone you’re trying to protect. Luckily, the attacker in this case makes even more mistakes. He opts not to just blow up the building, or lay siege. Instead he mounts the silliest attack in cinematic history. It reminded me of Home Alone.

Both the Bourne movies and Taken 2 have chase scenes situated on Istanbul’s rooftops, but only Skyfall jumped the shark by doing it on motorcycles. That location wasn’t the only completely unoriginal thing in the movie by the way. There’s a “NOC list” (Mission Impossible) and there’s even a fight scene on top of a train. That scene comes with all the cliches, including a train driver that does not stop. Not even when Bond destroys half the train. He’s not supposed to stop. That would make things realistic.

Silly

All this just killed the movie for me. Without credibility, I’m not going to invest in a movie emotionally. When I see veteran MI6 employees give away their position by using a flashlight, I just give up. As well-made as this movie obviously is, it jumped the shark. It made Bond movies silly again, and I hate it for it.

Looper

In 2072 time travel has been invented but it is only used by the mafia as an effective way to get rid of people without getting caught. A bag is put over the victim’s head and they are sent back 30 years in time  where a hired assassin known as a ‘looper’ is waiting to shoot them. The loopers are a special breed of assassins and when their employers decide to end their contract, they send the looper’s future self back in time to be shot by their former self.  This is called ‘closing the loop’. The looper gets a big pay out and can enjoy the next 30 years of their life before travelling back in time to be killed by their former self.

The main character is a looper called Joe (Gordon-Levitt) who makes the mistake of not shooting his future self fast enough when he appears in front of him. Future Joe (Willis) has somehow travelled in time without a bag over his head, which gives Joe the opportunity to recognise himself and pause, allowing the target to flee. Joe tries to rectify this by searching for his future self with the intention of  killing him as intended before the mafia can catch him.

It’s difficult to sympathise with either of the Joe figures, as they are essentially both murderers.  This does mean though that since you are not rooting for either of them to live, you can just enjoy the action and not worry that your hero looks likely to die.

The ‘TK’ element of the plot where we are informed a mutation has given a small percentage of the population minor telekinetic abilities, is poor and not explained well in the narrative. It’s almost as though they couldn’t think of a good explanation for this plot element but since they needed it to justify the existence of a central character to the plot,  the filmmakers decide to barely mention it and hope viewers won”t notice.

Levitt’s make-up is a bit distracting.  I spent the first twenty minutes of the film trying to work out what had been done to him to make his appearance different to what it normally is. I concluded they had made his nose slightly bigger and given him blue contacts in order to make his future appearance as Bruce Willis more plausible. If you’re not familiar with the actor though, you probably wouldn’t think twice about the make-up.

Looper is an exciting action packed film that keeps you engaged throughout. It is not the cleverest of sci fi films and if you concentrate too hard on the plot, you’ll come away thinking ‘that’s ridiculous, that could never happen’, but if you don’t take it too seriously, then you’ll more than likely really enjoy it.

Dir: Rian Johnson

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt

Directed by Nikolaj Arces, with a producer credit for Lars von Trier, and starring Mads Mikkelsen as the court physician, A Royal Affair is a decidedly ambitious affair. There are references to Lancelot and Guinevere, Shakespeare’s historical plays, and more than one allusion to Hamlet (although this Danish sovereign actually is insane), up to and including the king’s pet of choice (a Great Dane…). Unfortunately, all that ambition remains on the surface of the film and does not translate into anything other than a bog-standard costume drama, albeit, at 138 minutes, a longer than usual one.

Let’s start with what works:
A Royal Affair looks beautiful and sumptuous. The scenery is gorgeous, as are the actors, the costumes and the props. On a superficial level it ticks all the boxes.

Which, dear readers, is precisely what does not work. It’s as if the film makers did only that: tick boxes. Opulent castle located amidst abject poverty and grime; check. Naïve foreign princess thrust into a miserable arranged marriage; check. Rugged and dangerous stranger messing up the status quo; check. The list goes on. For all its splendour, A Royal Affair feels like a paint-by-numbers exercise.

The story behind A Royal Affair is essentially that of an upside-down French Revolution. In this instance, the monarch wanted to implement social change for the benefit of his subjects, but was thwarted by his peers, who were somewhat less eager to give up their privileges.
Since Christian VII is properly mentally unstable (the film hints at his condition being schizophrenia), he is, at best, a blunt instrument. And as the good doctor soon discovers, wielding a blunt instrument may not necessarily result in the precise incision you require. Struensee, despite his good intentions, becomes as big a bully to His Majesty as the self-serving other members of the court. But they have been doing it longer and better, and consequently succeed in bringing about his downfall.

So ultimately, what we have here is the equivalent of a Tom and Jerry cartoon where the cat actually wins for once. Given that premise, A Royal Affair could have been – no, should have been – a lot more interesting to watch.

The reason it isn’t, is that every choice made by the writer, the director and most of the actors is the obvious one. None of the previously mentioned references are explored properly, and therefore wasted. It seems as if, whenever there was a chance to go off the beaten path, everybody involved said: nope, let’s just stick to what has been done before. After all, it worked then, right? As a result, Alicia Vikander’s performance as Queen Caroline Mathilde is boring and bland, and the usually formidable Mads Mikkelsen gets only one (final) scene in which he can truly shine as the ill-fated physician. Exception to the rule is newcomer Mikkel Boe Følsgaard who, in the middle of all the generic-ness, manages to give King Christian VII layer upon layer, leaving the audience behind in what I can only describe as appalled empathy. Given that Følsgaard was still in theatre school when he played the role (he has reportedly graduated this summer of 2012), he arguably has an incredible potential for more growth. I will be watching his next projects with interest.

According to Wikipedia, A Royal Affair is based on two books: the 1999 novel The Visit of the Royal Physician by Per Olov Enquist, and most notably Bodil Steensen-Leth’s erotic novel Prinsesse af blodet, which tells the story from the perspective of the queen. Steensen-Leth also wrote the screenplay for A Royal Affair but has left out the erotica this time.
Perhaps if I had read either of these books, I would have found more merit in this film, because I would have been more tuned-in to the details and nuances of the story. But in my opinion, a book adaptation must be regarded as an independent work of art, it should not require prior knowledge of the original manuscript, to be appreciated. As Jean-Jacques Annaud proved with The name of the Rose, this can be done to perfection, and A Royal Affair deserved the same treatment.

In a nutshell: A Royal Affair is by no means a complete failure. For audiences not expecting too much, who just want an entertaining 138 minutes of eye candy that doesn’t leave them with much to think about, it may even constitute a pleasant night out. But for those of you who, like me, want to be challenged, kept on their toes, and taken to new and interesting places: stay in and (re-)watch Mrs Brown instead.