ESSIE SPEAKS OF FANTASY

Well, this week's theme pretty much decided itself.

I have been working hard these days. Everyone tells me so. My mom, my boyfriend, my landlady, my friends... I don't mind. I even kind of enjoy it. However, it does mean that I am in desperate need of "escape" once my week day is over. I have found that these days more and more, the serious stuff gets pushed to the weekends. Weekdays are for fantasy. Far off lands. Heros, damsels and monsters. I know, I'm a serious film person and all that. I occasionally  feel I should be writing about / watching more arthouse stuff. But then I tell myself, you know what, you guys probably work. You guys need to escape. I totally should share the successful methods of escape I have found. The art house stuff will come. On the weekend...

happy viewng,
Essie

OUT OF THIS WORLD WITH "INKHEART"

Now, I know. It may not make sense to some. Brendan Fraser is not everyone’s idea of a leading man. I kind of understand why. But this film kinda got me. It may be because I am such a book worm and simply love the idea of characters coming out of books. It may be just that I found the idea original. And to be fair, there have been plenty of films about people going into books but not that many in the way of people going into books. And let’s be fair. We all love a good story. If the effects are good and the stroryline half-way decent and original, it gets forgiven most things in my book. (In my book – see what I did there? Oh never mind...)

Ok, so our hero is Mo (Brendan Fraser). He has a very good relationship with his daughter Meggie who he raises single handed. He restores books for a living and is passionate about books, but there is one especially that he has been looking for, for a very long time. Until today. The book is rare, this is true, but not particularly valuable or popular. But the book has a different kind of value to Mo. Unbeknown to his daughter, Mo has a talent. He can bring characters in books out into real life, simply by reading the book. And of course what has gone out, must go in and that is precisely what has happened to his wife Resa – Meggie’s mother. Mo’s only hope, all these years, has been to find another copy of the book and confront the villains that had emerged from it all those years ago, in the hope of getting his wife back... But with all his talents and now with his daughter to think of, can Mo really beat some villains that are truly out of this world?

Now, as you can guess from the general tone and actors, this is definitely not a film that will change your world and your perception of cinema. However, it has a lot going for it. First and foremost, with its graphics, monsters, dragons and magic, it is EXACTLY what I needed to watch at that particular time, on the evening of a tiring weeknight. It all comes down to my argument about entertainment at the end of the day. You can look down your nose at this kind of thing all you like. You can claim “oh but you knew the end all along” etc. But at the end of the day, the film claims to be no more than a tall yarn that will transport you to another universe for a couple of hours. It succeeded with me. Brandon Fraser may not be the future King Lear, however he is brilliant in his role here. It is not completely unsimilar to his previous roles in the Mummy franchise if you think about it. You know, the typical “good man” battling supernatural forces of evil... You know that has made me think how really subtle the phenomenon of typecasting can be... I mean, the Mummy and Inkheart have virtually nothing to do with eachother subject and genre-wise and yet... I don’t know. Maybe it’s a strong face like Brendan Fraser connecting them that connected the dots in my head... It’s a funny old world, eh? 

A DYSTOPIA AND A SLICE OF HISTORY: "THX 1138"

I kinda knew this film was going to be depressing. But it is a classic – and I mean properly, a real classic. As in film history and stuff. I mean, think what you want of George Lucas, he is a significant part of film history. And it’s kind of important to know about him. AND if you’re interested in dystopias – in a professional capacity or just because you like them – this is one of the important ones. Which is why I watched it. No regrets =)

Our story takes place in the future – as it usually does. In the 25^th Century, humanity lives in cities underground and every aspect of life is strictly controlled, with authority and more importantly, with drugs. Roommates area allocated by an automated system, prayers are said in sterile chapels to an automated God. The highest possible levels of productivity and the lowest possible degrees of emotion are made possible through the use of heavy sedatives. However, not everyone agrees with the system. Not everyone thinks this is a good idea. LUH 3417 for instance, a spirited young woman, is part of the rebellion. Not only that, she actually starts substituting the sedatives of her roommate THX 1138 so he discovers his humanity and emotions. THX begins to feel strange – otherwise known as emotions. And one of the emotions is love for LUH, a love that is quickly reciprocated. However things like love, sex and not taking drugs are serious offences in this world. And The Powers That Be soon discover the subterfuge and catch the couple... Will THX be able to use his new found humanity to survive? Or ultimately, will he be consumed by the all powerful system?

Well we all know the George Lucas penchant for grand scale, battles between good and evil and the trope of the individual against the entire – evil – system (Think Luke Skywalker against the Empire. Same difference). Also, you don’t need me to point out the fact that the whole storyline bears a rather eerie resemblance to the classic book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. I mean yes, there are no end to the number of twists on the story but twist it as you will, it is still the variation of the same story. Oh don’t get me wrong, Lucas’s film doesn’t fail at being emotionally engaging, heck, in my opinion, it’s almost what Lucas is best at. It’s just that I cannot seem to shake the feeling that the film has been “done before” as it were. I think the main reason for this is the fact that there are so many familiar themes, thoughts and stories in there; Lucas creates a powerful hybrid of them all, united with some brilliant strands of his own but... I don’t know. I felt it’s lacking the thing that forms the transition from Good to Great. I mean, it was his first feature to be fair. And it is part of film history. But still...

ESSIE SPEAKS OF SPIES AND HEROES

Howdy folks!

Wow, what a week I'm having! Work in the office is absolutely mad, I'm doing my own stuff and helping with organising the office move that is taking place tomorrow. Exciting times! On the plus side, I am really settling into my new internship  and life over here. On the minus side I am almost constantly exhausted. And am officially part of that merry band, the London commuters. This means that I am exhausted at the end of each working day. And that I need some good, old fashioned entertainment to chill out to.

And then I thought, hang on a minute. There are one heck of a lot of commuters out there who probably have exactly the same needs from their entertainment. So here you go. Two very good films that helped me really unplug and enjoy myself this week. There's something in there for the fantasy lovers, there's something in there for those who like their entertainment more realistic.

Enjoy peeps!
Essie

RETURN OF THE CLASSICS IN "THE DEBT"

Well, I guess the news was going to hit the airwaves at some point, there is a boyfriend in my life as of quite recently (haha that got you didn’t it baby?). And the reason I mention him in this particular post is that this film is mainly his discovery. (I mean, of course he’s into movies, could you imagine it being otherwise? J ) Anyhow, we watched this together the other night, and it was so absolutely riveting that I had to share it with you. I mean, put your hands on your hearts, everyone likes a good thriller. Especially a spy thriller.

The story is that of three Mossad agents that went to East Berlin in 1965. Their mission is a dangerous one, to capture and bring to justice one of the most notorious Nazi villains in history. The mission is carried out and goes down in history with its success, the three agents taking their places amongst the most famous Israelis in history. However, the glamour and success they live with conceals secrets. The secrets are both personal and professional and have given a bitter edge to their fame and fortune, unbeknown to all but the three of them. And as we all know by now, the past has this annoying habit of not staying buried. 30 year later, someone needs to go back undercover to salvage not only their reputations, but their very lives...

I know, we are all somewhat divided about spy films in the first place. And at first glance, the film seems to pack a few too many clichés into one film. Spies during the Cold War with Second World War overtones thrown in, combined with the “Jews vs the Nazis” paradigm AND a love triangle (this is not really a spoiler, it is pretty self-evident from the moment we see the main protagonists, one woman and two men). Not to mention the “secret from the past that doesn’t remain buried” thing. I mean wow. I would really understand if you took one look at the synopsis and ran for lack of original content alone. But hear me out, because despite all this, the film has a lot, and I do mean a lot, going for it.

Think about it, clichés are actually clichés for a reason, it was  because they have been “done” way too often. And the reason they were done often is, presumably, because at one point, before we decided that it was cheesy and “uncool”, it (whatever it may be) was considered cool. And popular.  This means that there is something we would potentially enjoy a lot in any of “it”, provided it is done well. The same goes for anything with multiple “cheesy” factors in it – as long as they are all done well, there is nothing really wrong with it. And this film does do a sterling job of everything. First of all, and perhaps most importantly the acting is absolutely superb. The cast numbers names such as Helen Mirren, Sam Worthington, Tom Wilkinson and Sam Worthington. The director, John Madden, uses every classic spy-film trick in the book to keep us on the edges of our seats from the word go. The main action is psychological, which is also good, it doesn’t really rely that much on flashy fights and special effects like some films of the genre do (James Bond is a spy as well technically, don’t forget). So I mean, yeah, the film can be considered a tad old fashioned in some ways. But just because a way you do something is old, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is wrong. Take a good, old fashioned Martini for example... But maybe that’s the topic of another post all together... 

"HANCOCK" - A SUPERHERO WITH ATTITUDE

Ok, so this is another one I meant to watch for a while and forgot to get round to. That’s what happens if one lives one’s life surrounded by films. I live in a perpetual state of “what should I watch next”. I did not expect Hancock to be anything but an amusing fantastic /action movie that I would watch of an evening and forget. And to be absolutely fair, I highly doubt that Hancock is going to change anyone’s life. However, neither is it quite the soap bubble I thought it would be. I believe the character originated in some form of graphic art, this wasn’t something I’m aware of, but I do intend to “get round to it” sharpish. But let me tell you the story first.

Hancock is a super-hero. And you know what super-heroes are like, right? All honour, good manners and eat all your greens. Very nice in their place (say if aliens are attacking or, I don’t know, there’s a fire or an earthquake) but a little annoying in day to day life. I mean, that’s kinda what I think of old school super-heroes. This is why I loved the concept of Hancock. Because this super-hero has a serious attitude problem. He’s rude, he’s obnoxious, he’s a bum – as in he’s literally homeless – and he has a serious drinking problem. And yet he goes around the city, saving people as best he can. Now, Hancock is good enough at saving people. The thing is, it’s not only what you do, but the way you do it as well. So, as you can guess, Hancock is NOT  a very popular guy. Until, randomly, he saves a PR executive (Jason Bateman) from what is almost a fatal train accident. The PR executive decides to return the favour by doing some work on Hancock’s rep. This, as you can imagine, is the start of an amazing set of adventures in itself. But then, to add to all of that, there is the Exec’s wife, Mary, (Charlize Theron) who appears to hate Hancock with all her soul. But that’s another story all together.

Now, some people do not think much of Will Smith in general. Err, I do. I mean, I’m not a massive fan of his music, let’s be honest. And I highly doubt we will ever see him on a stage as King Lear or some such. However, in the movies he has acted in, his performance has always been brilliant. He is, in my view, especially good at comedies, and I mean honestly, I could not even imagine a better drunk and disorderly super-hero. What is more, in his numerous previous roles he has proved himself as an action star as well. So all in all, he is very, very successful in every single twist and turn of this film. I also think Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron are excellent choices as the PR exec and his wife too.

As I said, this film will not change your life. It is not, however, yet another badly put together action movie. It’s creators have taken some time to craft an original story in a genre that has all but been “done” completely.  And studios have invested the money it takes to give the story the technical backing it deserves to make rather spectacular special effects. In short, this is good quality entertainment folks. I can really think of worse films to turn my brain off to of a Friday night. Definitely recommended. 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF FAMILIES

Well, howdy. 

Sorry about the delay in updating peeps. I usually grab that moment when you get your coffee and settle at your desk to quickly update the blog on Thursdays  Today however, at work, there were no such moments. It was go, go, go from the moment I walked into the office. It is now 14.16, I could have sworn it was 9.30 only 10 minutes ago and I have really had enough of today. It's turning into one of those ones you should really, really have stayed in bed for. Oh well. 

The thing is there is one thing you can count on through all of this kinda chaos : your family. And this is precisely what this week's films are about. I have, as always, tried to go for "original" takes on families however. One is modern and decidedly tragic. One is a lot older and has a place in movie history, a "must watch" if you will.  

I hope you enjoy. And once again, really sorry for the delay!

Essie

LIFE IS "BIUTIFUL"

As I write the title above, I can almost feel my mother flexing her fingers before hitting the keyboard to ask me if that is how I think beautiful is spelt. You see my mother is an English teacher. Therefore, call it the habit of 30 odd years of teaching, call it being a mom, call it a combination of both, every Thursday, in the evening at the very latest, I will get a little e-mail from Mom containing the corrections for this week’s updates. Those of you are more observant than average may have notices commas appearing (yes, I am related to a comma Nazi – Mom, google it, it’s a bona fide term these days) and typos disappearing later in the day. All thanks to my Mom.  But that’s the way with parents. As Biutiful doesn’t hesitate to remind us.

Biutiful is the story of Uxbal (portrayed by the incredibly talented Javier Bardem). Uxbal is many things to many people, some know him as a medium. Others the middle man between knock-off copies and street salesman on the streets. To yet others he’s the guy who greases the palms of the police so they look the other way. But above and beyond anything, Uxbal is a father. He may not be able to provide the best living possible for his children but he adores them. And they know it. And this is really all that matters. When Uxbal finds out he has a matter of weeks to live, it becomes even more important. We follow him on his journey, desperately trying to put his affairs in order, and trying to accept the next step in his existence.

I wasn’t sure about this film when I started. The more I watched, seriously, the more I fell in love with it. The style is different from the Inaritu we know from Amores Perros, the story moves more slowly (comparatively, anyway) and allows more time for thought and consideration. Uxbal is a brilliant character, a modern Jean Valjean if you will. Yes, what he does is often questionable- very questionable - but you can never really blame him. The film has many strengths, Bardem’s brilliant performance is one of them, but the other – in my view – is the wonderful, understated realism of the whole film. All the characters, all the events, they are constructed in such a way, be they happy, sad, ugly or “biutiful” they are very, very real. Inaritu has succeeded in capturing on film a quality of life that I find hard to put into words. No matter how tragic and dark the events, there is always, and I mean always, a light shimmering through. Like the love Uxbal has for his children that gives everything meaning. And many other little things I’ll let you discover throughout the film. The more I think about it, the more suitable a name “biutiful” becomes. But like most things in life, you’re going to have to see it for yourselves to truly understand what I mean. 

A TIMELESS PIECE OF HISTORY : "THE JAZZ SINGER"

Now,  the reason I took this film up in the first place was the fact that it has historical significance. This film, ladies and gents, is the first feature-length film with synchronised sound sequences in it. The year was 1927 and this was not the first attempt at sound film, in fact many shorts already exited, but the whole “talkies” thing didn’t catch on. I know, very hard to believe, but true. When the Warner brothers first agreed to take on this film in their studio, everyone was pretty sure they were heading for rack and ruin. Instead, they went down in history as some of the great innovators. Because The Jazz Singer (a film that has, incidentally, spawned many remakes) did not flop and vanish. It went down in history.

The story is that of Jack Robin (portrayed by Al Jolson) , a young man with a passion for jazz who was born to a very conservative Jewish family. Our hero is given a choice between his home and his passion for jazz by his stern father – the cantor for his local community and thus thoroughly disapproving of Jack’s taste in music. Jack chooses jazz. And his career takes a meteoric rise. However, just as he is about to reach the pinnacle of his career, the fork in the road presents itself again. With a chance to redeem himself and patch things up with his father on one hand and the “big break” he has been working so hard towards on the other, what will Jack choose? You will have to watch and find out…

Now, the particular version of the film I watched was the 80^th year anniversary version that includes a lot of documentaries, extras and comments on the film and generally sound and film. As a side note, find this version if you can, because the extras are so good –and there are SO many – that if you have the choice, it would be a shame to miss them. One of the comments in the documentary was the fact that it was amazing that Al Jolson, from all that time ago, was right there, on stage, entertaining people from the 21^st century. Now, you may be prejudiced by the fact that the film is quite old fashioned in many ways. Not least in that it is still, mostly a silent film. The musical numbers and snippets of dialogue are in synchronised sound but the rest is silent. And then you might think, well, the topic is all very quaint and nice. You might think it’s going to be old fashioned. And boring. And then you might just leave it on the shelf. That would be a mistake in my view. I mean, the musical numbers alone are just so brilliant, despite the almost 90 years time difference you cannot help but enjoy Jolson singing numbers like Blue Skies and, on the other end of the spectrum, Kol Nidre is a sight to be seen. And when we watch him on the scene, he truly entertains us. I mean honestly, I love it. If he had a live show somewhere I would go see it. True, there are some slightly racist quips in there in the shape as a performance as a black and white minstrel. But I think this should be taken in the spirit of the time and as pure entertainment value with nothing too serious attached.

In short, I personally think, as a movie  buff, you should watch it. It’s film history. It’s one of those films you simply have to have seen. And do you know something? I can almost guarantee you will be pleasantly surprised at how much you enjoy it…

ESSIE SPEAKS OF CLASSICS, NEW ANGLES AND HAVING A LOT TO SAY

Well hello there!

My life is very exciting at the moment. There are many new and exciting things in it. I’ve started a really interesting internship in a very nice, friendly company which may well turn into an actual job. I moved houses and now live in a very nice little place with really cool new flatmates (Don’t get me wrong, the old ones were very cool too. It’s just that, well, so are these ones!).  In short life has taken a very exciting and positive turn and I am thankful and content.

In the meanwhile though, I’ve barely had time to sit down and watch films. But I have made the time. I must have my fix. So the films have been coming in and the thing is, well, I can’t quite decide whether I like them or not. Now as you know, I tend to go for films that I really like, the logic being that I am all bouncy. I want to talk about them. The thing is, this time, even though I’m not bouncy (ahem), I still have a lot to say about both films. So I reckoned, what the heck. So here they are. I hope you enjoy.

Happy viewing!

Essie 

THOUGHTS ON ONE OF THE EPICS: "THE DEER HUNTER"

Oh, I’m pretty sure that those of you who know of this film sort of sat up in your chairs and took notice when you saw the name. I know. There is a lot to say about this film. Which is precisely why I reckon we should say it. As you guys know by now,  I usually only go for films that I like, unequivocally. But with a film like the Deer Hunter, the thing is you can’t help being emotionally involved in it at some level, but then again you may not necessarily love / like it. Well, I was affected by it. And there is a ton of stuff to say about this film. So maybe we should leave the “like” pre-requisite to one side? Hm, hang on. I see a theme emerging. But first, The Deer Hunter.

The Deer Hunter is a Vietnam story. It is the story of war and how it affects the inhabitants of a small industrial town. Nick (Christopher Walken) and Michael (Robert De Niro) are best friends. They and their gaggle of friends in this small close-knit town have pretty average lives, going hunting and boozing together – not to mention working together, day in, day out. Then, however, war erupts. And the two boys, along with their friend Steve, go to Vietnam to serve their country.  The horrors of war are absolutely unspeakable and when Michael, our hero, returns he is not the same person. However, a promise means he has to return to Vietnam and come face to face with his demons. And the demons that haunt his friends…

Now, I have gone down the more lyric route and done my best not to give away spoilers but it is such a famous film a lot of you know the score, I am pretty sure of that. In fact, this was talked about, in fact became quite a controversy back in the day. I am of course, talking about the infamous Russian roulette scenes, where our three heroes are forced to play Russian roulette with each other by their captors. In the first place, let’s jump right in and point out that not only has it been argued (quite eloquently) that this is completely inaccurate, the portrayal of the Vietnamese borders quite heavily on racism. They are all despicable psychopaths with no morals, who often take great pleasure in torturing others and they almost all harbour this bizarre addiction to Russian roulette – or watching it. Granted, it makes for a very emotional build-up and the climatic end (that naturally involves Russian roulette) made me jump even if I could see it a mile away.

This one is funny. I mean, it almost really touched me. But something was missing. I am unsure what. The fact that I watched it in several chunks – as opposed to in one sitting – no doubt has something to do with it. Then again, the film is a proper old fashioned epic; it’s almost 3 hours long. Cimino’s aim was, no doubt, to have a Godfather-like effect. The dates fit, it has to be said. The film even starts with a wedding. We have the main guys, but the thing is we follow them around. For far too long. The aim is, no doubt, to establish emotional connection and this does happen on a level. I really felt Christopher Walken was, for example, great for this part; especially with his looks as a young man, he is the perfect, tragic poetic hero. And Robert De Niro is… Well, he’s Robert De Niro. So duh, of course they’re both brilliant. But I don’t know. The film is, I think, trying far too hard to be epic. And it’s doing this for three hours flat. At some point, you start to seriously glaze over.

And there is the whole matter of the afore-mentioned racism against the Vietnamese and the seriously nationalistic – American – overtones. But I don’t know, the thing is, it’s an important film. It does some good stuff. I mean, there are a lot of poetic things in there, far too many for my liking but you may spot something you like. I am pretty sure you won’t like it all. But at the very least, this is an important film of cinematic history. You kinda need to see it, if only to know why you don’t like it. That’s my opinion on the matter anyway. 

NOW IN CINEMAS - A NOVEL TAKE ON A CLASSIC: "SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN"

Now, you know how I was kind “meh” about the previous film? Well, I’m positively annoyed with bits of this one. I have a feeling that the blog may (only from time to time) turn into a place where I sit and gripe to you lot about what annoys me about films. I will not make a habit of this. And I will never put stuff that is so bad that I genuinely think you shouldn’t watch it. But still, why not be honest about bits you don’t like in something? That’s kinda what I’m doing with Snow White and the Huntsman.

Of course, Snow White and the Huntsman is the latest attempt to “revamp” the story of Snow White and the seven dwarves. I mean personally, I feel that the film is worth watching for this reason alone, I really like the idea of “what really happened” sort of versions of these things, I mean Cinderella has had her fair share of re-vamps, why not Snow White? I mean, here the basic tenets are all there. But in addition to the usual, Snow White does not “keep house” for the seven friendly dwarfs. She is “the chosen one who must save the land”. And when she comes back from the dead (she is not “asleep” like the fairy tale but actually dead here), she leads an army against the evil stepmother /witch and destroys her. Badass. Right?

Well, hmm, maybe. There are a few matters to be discussed though. First of all, Kristen Steward. I mean, no offence to the actress but I actually had to google her. No, to find out her real name. I thought and thought, and all I could come up with was Bella Swan. But there is the other matter of, well, she obviously isn’t worried about being typecast at all. Think about it, weak /normal and beautiful female character no one expects much of goes on to conquer hearts /become something super human and extraordinary / conquer hideous enemies. Fine, the second one doesn’t involve rather large wolves that are calling themselves werewolves. (I will not get started on Twilight. I respect everyone’s choice whether to like it or not but I will say one single thing : classic literature clearly states , VAMPIRES DO NOT SPARKLE IN THE SUN, THEY BURST INTO FLAMES. It’s my pet peeve about that series. Moving on).

Yes, so Snow White. It doesn’t take much experience in film analysis here to figure out that the Snow White here is very clearly a Christ figure. I mean she actually dies. And is brought back from the dead. Ok, there is true love’s kiss involved, but then the true love melts into the background, Snow White remains as white as snow as far as matters of the heart are concerned. It’s an interesting tack, but firstly it may be a little too serious for a film that is a fantasy film based on a children’s story. I don’t know, it just seems inappropriate somehow.

And then there is some stuff in the film that just popped out at me and my friend as we watched it. For starters, Snow White  is trapped in a tower for many long years until she comes of age. Then, her step mother must kill her to remain the fairest in the land for ever, when Snow White escapes and her adventure begins. The thing is, she is very athletic and able for someone trapped in a small cell for the best part of 15 years…  To the best of my knowledge, her muscles should have atrophied and stuff, no? Unless being “the chosen one” makes you some sort of exception. I mean this kind of omission of logic would be ok once in a while if it was tied together by this brilliant fantasy film that takes your breath away. And I mean there are some truly epic bits of this film (The bit with The White Heart for instance? I mean, Ok it has religious overtones but still... Pretty epic.). Oh and Charlize Theron is brilliant as the stepmother. Just awesome. But not as many as I would have liked. And a few too many of the afore mentioned errors in logic. I mean, suspension of disbelief is well and good but honestly, one shouldn’t push the matter.  Still, like I said, the concept is interesting. There are some seriously good bits. It’s a fun watch. Just watch it at home, on DVD with a couple of friends over. So you can point stuff out and gripe about it to each other J