ESSIE SPEAKS OF STRONG WOMEN

Well, we did strong men last week, it's only fair we do strong women this week :) 

We explore a different kind of strong woman this week though. If you recall, some of our strong and admirable gents had their roots in reality last week, well the same is true of this week. Only this time you get to see the actual people. And the stories? Oh my. They need to be seen to be believed. I'm talking about a documentary folks, scroll down to find out more, but believe me, it does not make for easy viewing. 

The second film (or first depending on which way you look at it) also has its roots in reality though we will never truly know how much of it. It depicts a strong woman and the film itself was directed by a strong woman, so really it doesn't get more theme-appropriate than that! 

Both the films make for difficult watching for different reasons, but one thing is for sure, they are both so very important cinematically and, in the case of the documentary "in real life". Do give them a go. I very much doubt you'll regret it. 

happy viewing!

Essie

ZERO DARK THIRTY

Onwards and upwards with the Oscar® nominees this year! Of course, it was only a matter of time before matters like the death of Osama bin Laden made it to the big screen. Following up to some degree (I suspect) on her success with The Hurt Locker, Katheryn Bigelow looks into this historic event, how it came about and the men and women – and one woman in particular – who played a vital part in this happening. I have to say, I was a tad disappointed. However, it is not a film you can easily avoid these days, plus I am not exactly saying “it was awful” so there you go. My take on it. Let’s take a look at the storyline first.

Our heroine and main character is Maya. She is a novice CIA operative and very dedicated to her job. She hits the ground running in Pakistan in 2001 with the interrogation of persons of interest suspected of involvement with the September 11 attacks. From then onwards, her single-minded obsession will become uncovering the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda. It will be a decade long slog of ups and downs, with good friends found and lost on the way. But it will end with the death of the terrorist leader at the hands of a navy SEAL team. The rest, as they say, is history.

Now, before I start, please don’t get me wrong. The capture and death of Osama Bin Laden was one of the most important historical events. Of course we should make films about it – heck, it’s inevitable, what historical event HASN’T made it to the big screen? And I have nothing but the utmost respect for everyone everywhere who enabled this capture at great personal, psychological cost. That goes without saying.

However, I sincerely feel that it was a tad unfortunate that Kathryn Bigelow was the one to make the movie. I think the subject matter would sincerely benefit from the point of view of a different director. I’m going to be blunt about this; this is pretty much The Hurt Locker 2. Maya and William James

I’m sincerely disappointed because it’s not like Bigelow lacks the skill or artistic imagination to make original films. Heck, check out her early work, there is some seriously cutting edge stuff in there for its time. I am sad to report that it seems she has headed down the franchise route. It worked the first time round (and how. She is the first female director to win the Oscar® for Best Director, which is no mean feat) so, you know what, she went and did it again. The fact that subject matter is similar helped tremendously. But admit it, would it not have been great to have a completely different cinematic way of tackling the topic? Especially coming from the same director? It would be such a showcase of talent and versatility. Missed opportunity me says.

Zero Dark Thirty is not a bad film though. However, you will think of it whatever you thought of the Hurt Locker. If you liked The Hurt Locker, go see it. If you disliked it, pass. Sad but true. 

A STORY THAT NEEDS TO BE HEARD : "SAVING FACE"

There are problems with award ceremonies like Oscars®. I mean, I’m not going to go through the entire list right now, but one thing I’m thinking of is categories like Best Documentary. The “big” categories get so much attention that some rather brilliant things are being awarded, yet completely ignored. I bumped into “Saving Face” when I was lazily switching channels one evening. “Oscar Winning Documentary” it said. To my embarrassment, I had never heard of it. I was embarrassed for two reasons, firstly because I’m supposed to be a film expert of sorts. Secondly, the story the documentary tells us is simply so tragic and so serious that I just felt that, you know. I should have known about it. Maybe I can make up for that by putting it up on the blog. Hopefully I can.

The documentary follows Dr Mohammed Jawad, one of the top plastic surgeons in the UK. He heads to Pakistan, where every year over 100 people (and that’s only the ones we know about) are victims of acid attacks. Acid is readily available in Pakistan as it is one of the products used to work with cotton, one of the most important agricultural products of the country. This means that it is the weapon of choice for violent husbands or other family members to use on women. These women suffer terrible facial scarring from the acid which is in itself debilitating and very hard to cope with, but the disfigurement also gives them physical pain and health issues. Dr Jawad, and the audience, follows some of their stories.

I cannot begin to accurately describe how difficult it is to watch this documentary. There were bits I could barely watch from crying. I feel it is incredibly important for documentaries like this to be made. The first step in tackling this kind of problem is raising awareness. And I mean, I knew acid attacks happened in Pakistan.  But in this matter, I have the slight advantage of having lived in a more eastern country for most of my life. And even there, it rarely makes headline news. The further west you come, the less you hear about it. But even the concept of “they have acid attacks in Pakistan” isn’t enough to describe the horrors that these attacks produce. And the victims of the attacks are fighting back, they’re trying anyway. Laws significantly punishing the perpetrators of these attacks significantly are relatively new. The victims of these attacks often have to fight great social stigma, not least because of their looks that have been drastically altered. Slowly, a few brave women are taking the attackers to court, trying to get them convicted. Then there are people like Dr Jawad who do wonderful things for the victims they can reach. But there is still so much to be done. Especially considering these are just the ones we know about, and most of them still go unreported.

I feel that we really owe it to these women to at least listen to their story. Who knows maybe you might be motivated to actively do something, even if it’s just a small donation? But even if you don’t, at least knowledge of what is going on is spreading. Awareness and education is the one way to fight this. And just because it may well be the other end of the earth from where we live, well… That is no reason not to care… 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF STRONG MEN

Haha, no worries it's nothing lurid :)

There's a double-entendre here actually, well sort of. First of all, the characters we're talking about - I mean the film characters of course - are pretty strong, solitary types. One actually existed, one didn't quite, but hey. They are both household names in their own field ;)

Also household names - and strong men / contenders in the up and coming Oscars are the actors who portray them - also rugged, solitary types or so the press would have us believe.

I really think these two specimins are among the best things mainstream cinema has released these days peeps. Don't miss 'em says I and scroll right on down!

happy viewing!
Essie

THE PAST OF A NATION - AND A GREAT MAN - EXAMINED : "LINCOLN"

Ok this is another film that is going to get talked about a lot. I mean, it already is. It did quite well at the Golden Globes, it got a slew of nominations for the Oscars® and if the Golden Globes are anything to by (and it is no industry secret that they often are), Lincoln is set to do well there as well. Now, we already know that this is a Spielberg biopic, which, in itself, gives away quite a bit. But let’s get the lowdown on this three-hour long epic shall we? (By the way, what IS it with the length of films these days? Nothing under 2, 5 hours long! I mean, mostly the quality is quite high so the length is not, in itself, an issue but still, I’m curious. Films used to be a lot shorter in the past, even when technical developments allowed for much longer films. Now, when our attention spans are supposed to be getting shorter, films are getting longer and longer. There’s a thesis for a researcher or three in there somewhere…). Ok, I’ve done another one of my mile-long parenthesis. But bear with me; I’m getting to the point. In fact, this was not intentional, but it is kinda fitting that I went down a bit of detour here. Because one of the main “things” about Lincoln is that it is verbose. Very  verbose. But I’ll get to that in just a sec. Let’s briefly hear the story first.

This biography of Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis), takes up the story of the great politician’s life in 1865. Lincoln has two very important matters on his hands. The greatest without any shadow of a doubt is the Civil War. One thing is clear however, the war seems to be inexorably winding to a close. Lincoln is more than happy that the North seems to be winning. And with people dying in their thousands, peace could surely not come soon enough. The only thing is, Lincoln has a second issue on his mind that he is desperately trying to balance with peace with the south. For a while now, Lincoln’s main political aim has been to end slavery. However, he must bring the amendment to the attention of the senate and be sure to pass it before the southern states join if he is to have any hope of success. The economy of the southern states depends largely on slave labour, meaning that they would, almost to a man, block this amendment. Lincoln has a race against time on his hands if he wants to get this historic amendment through. On the one side, there is the hope of an early peace and saving thousands of lives. On the other, there is the chance to end slavery, which brings hope of much greater things in terms of ethics, lives and quality of lives. And then of course, there is the possibility of the amendment being rejected anyway, as the representatives are far from unanimous in their support of it. Lincoln deals with this crisis within his conscience with the aid of such historical figures such as William Seward (David Strathairn) and Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) with truly historical consequences…

First up, hats off to Spielberg. This is an epic of quality and grandeur to suit a great man such as Abraham Lincoln and the historical changes he wrought in American history. The cast, full to the brim as we mostly know by now with big name stars (Joseph Gordon Levitt, Sally Field and Hal Holbrook among those who I couldn’t work into the synopsis) , present us with a true feast when it comes to acting. And for those, like me, who have very limited knowledge of American history, especially this period in American history, the film is easy to follow. The explanations given by the characters are clear and easily fitted into the storyline. And to be fair, seeing that the main part of the story takes place in parliament and amongst politicians, there are plenty of opportunities to make the discussion clear, so all levels of knowledge can follow and gain something. But of course this comes at a price. This tendency, coupled with the nature of the story, as detailed just now, means there is a lot of talking. And I mean A LOT of talking. There are, as I said, detailed explanations on what is going on, and even though my levels of concentration are definitely average if not slightly above, even I had to rewind, and/or check out a few facts online from time to time. You might, thus find it a tad hard to get into the pace of the film if you are a fan of less talking and more action, as it were. But once you “get” the storyline and adapt to the pace, this film will prove a wonderful lesson in a historical event in history. And I defy you not to get excited about the whole thing at the end, even though history tells us what happened as clear as day… 

THE LEGEND IS BACK - FROM THE DEAD - "SKYFALL"

I know, this was FAR too long in the arriving J  I mean the review, not the film – although fans may argue that the film was a little too long in arriving too, I honestly don’t know. It’s funny about Bond films. Over the years, it has turned into this timeless and omnipresent phenomenon. Normally this kind of thing would be criticised in a work of fiction. Let’s face it, most superheroes do die off at some point. Even Sherlock Holmes. To be fair though, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was of a different era. And felt that all good things should, ideally come to an end. But then of course there are things like comic-strip heroes being killed off, the fans revolting, and the hero being brought back from the dead…  I don’t know what to make of that, honestly. Skyfall does two things in this “instalment” of Bond. It delves into Bond’s past and gives us an all be it small sneak peek into his childhood. And briefly deals with the concept of resurrection.

In fact, the past and various resurrections are the main theme of the newest Bond. First, Bond himself (currently Daniel Craig) who is assumed dead after a rather unfortunate operation in Turkey (plug: my home country. And the operation takes place in Istanbul, my home town. So there.) Of course, this is Bond we’re talking about so he survives. And he is very tempted to go into hiding and end his days in a small Turkish village by the sea (shameless plug number 2). However… Duty calls him back. Back to MI6 and back to life, the MI6 and more specifically M (currently Judy Dench) is in trouble. The threat comes from deep in M’s own past,  a foe she had assumed long dead and gone (Javier Bardem) is back to haunt her. And as long as he is haunting her, actually killing her and destroying the MI6 are all very real options. Only Bond can save the day… But can he? Bond is human like any other agent (ehm) and both his age and the near death experience he had have severely shaken (not stirred) him. Can he muster enough of his former glory to protect the agency and the country he loves?

I have several gripes with Bond films. The “immortality” of Bond is the main one. I mean, at least in Doctor Who they have worked out an EXPLANATION for his face changing and him never dying. Ok, it’s a completely unrealistic sci-fi setting, but honestly. It’s better than Bond receiving a hail of bullets, not even getting a scratch, turning, firing one bullet and hitting the bad guy square between the eyes. I mean come on. These are men who have dedicated their lives (more or less) to organised crime. You would assume they could at least shoot properly. This film alters this situation somewhat. I mean, naturally, Bond wins the day, defeats baddies against impossible odds,  all that jazz (and you know what, this doesn’t even count as a spoiler!). But at least this time he has some realistic difficulties doing it. We actually explore the possibility of him getting physically and emotionally effected by what happens to him. His marksmanship begins to seriously suffer. He gets nervous. He isn’t as strong as he used to be. I seriously believe that these are all good things. Possibly not as human as I would like but steps in the right direction. And besides, I guess Bond’s “immortality” is part of his appeal for the die-hard fans. And I am not a die-hard fan, so who am I to say? The cast is brilliant (the only person I couldn’t work into the synopsis is Ralph Finess). The special effects are… Well, let us say they are more than worthy of Bond. One of my dearest friends (who is more of a Bond fan than I will ever be) reckons   that the film is definitely not destined to be a Bond classic but is still more than presentable. So there you are. I even have a “fan’s eye view” for you. Enjoy J

ESSIE SPEAKS OF MAGIC, ADVENTURE AND JOURNEYS

Well howdy there folks! How are things going in your part of the world?

Over here, it is your type A British mid-winter. Cold, bleak and with no hope of a Bank Holiday until the end of March. Luckily, however, there is one thing that cheers the heart of a film buff like myself : the awards season! I know, some might argue that the awards handed out are always quite far from objective or go to the best candidates, however for me, that is not the point. All the talk of films fills with me with the same kind of "gligany" (It's a family word this. It depicts the kind of glee that you feel when, for example, you go to a restaurant, look at the menu and want every single item on the menu. Your mouth waters, your eyes almost pop out of your head, you start rubbing your hands with glee... That's gligany. I think.). And I mean, let's face it, it's a kinda similar situation. All the stars and directors out there, touting their wears, trying to get us to pick their movie over all others... I love it. I lap it up. And I watch a lot of films and I mean, A LOT.

Have no fear, they will be coming your way over the next few days. In the meanwhile however, please enjoy these two magical tale of adventure. They will hopefully help you get through your version of bleak midwinter, wherever you are!

happy viewing,
Essie

AN ADVENTURE WE HAVE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR: "THE HOBBIT : AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY"

I am not going to even pretend to be objective about this one. I, like many other diehard fans, have been waiting for it for a long, long time. Like a lot of said fans, I watched the film within days of it being released to cinemas. I intend to see it a few more times. The same way I did with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. So if you’re expecting an honest critique of Peter Jackson’s cinema, boy oh boy are you at the wrong post. Oh come on. Be a love. I am brutally honest in a lot of stuff I write. I’m allowed to rant and rave about a film or two. Besides, at the end of the day, who can say their opinions are completely objective? We are all shaped by our own personal experiences in life and have our own subjectivities and… Yeah. You get the picture ;)

So, this, as you know (probably) is the first film in the trilogy that will make up The Hobbit trilogy. I am not about to tell you the story in complete and utter detail, the chances are you already know it off by heart (ehm) or  don’t mind just finding out at the cinema when the time comes (in which case, I really don’t know what to do with you). Basically, The Hobbit is the story of the discovery of the Ring that will form the backbone of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is the story of Bilbo Baggins (played by Martin Freeman, one of my favourite actors EVER) who first went on an “unexpected adventure”. The main aim was to help a dwarf prince and his loyal band reclaim their fatherland. This, as you can imagine, is not a straight forward matter to start with. But then, just as they finally escape the lair of the Orcs, a mysterious ring makes its way into Bilbo’s possession. The first film leaves off at this point, but as you know, this is the sinister beginning of a whole different can of worms.

I can promise you one thing. I have heard this from complete novices to the franchise and from purists much stricter than myself alike: it just flies by. Logic coupled with all the time measurement devices known to man tell us we have almost spent three hours watching the film. I would happily watch a second Hobbit film at least that long without stopping. The story combined with the effects creates a universe so engrossing that you are just sucked in. It is a wonderful opportunity for escapism for all my fantasy junkies. And this is also a brilliant opportunity to get introduced to the genius of Tolkein if you haven’t already done it.

Cinematically of course, Peter Jackson is completely and utterly the man for the job. He is the number one name I think of when I think of epics, films on a grand scale. People criticise him about a lot, from being shallow to combining and mismatching concepts. I think, although some of the criticisms may have a foundation, he is overall a brilliant entertainer. And this is why he has done such an amazing job with The Hobbit. And of course, the acting. Martin Freeman is getting a bit typecast I feel, as the “everyman” that, bewildered and quite unwilling, gets pulled into an unbelievable adventure. But I also feel that this ability to portray this role “makes” a lot of films too. Think about it, who is he representing as this “everyman” swept off his feet? Why, us of course! The audience! The people who, quite literally, walked in off the street to watch the film. Suddenly, we are grabbed out of our everyday lives and immersed in a world of fantasy. Now, our immersion is metaphorical (or psychological. Not sure which concept goes better to be honest) and Mr Freeman is often, if not always, physically immersed in his adventures. But he reacts exactly in the way we probably would have. And having such a wonderful “representation” of ourselves on the screen in front of us immerses us in the film even further.

And lastly, but my no means least; I cannot possibly close this entry without saying a word or two about the AMAZING Sir Ian McKellan. I read somewhere while the film was still in production, that Sir Ian actually broke down and cried from frustration on one of the sets because he was actually the only “live” person in the scenes and he had to act with a lot of his companions being represented by tennis balls on sticks, later to be “converted” into real people. I read in the comments to this article that “oh he’s old, he should “get with the new generation”.  Oh I could not disagree more. His true talent lies in his ability to adapt and change. It seems he was frustrated; he was pushed to his limits. Yet in the finished product, he is Gandalf as we all know him. He pulled it off. Could a younger actor be so versatile? I doubt it. This kind of thing does have a serious amount of experience involved. So the moral of the story is people, don’t be ageist. Respect your elders.

But first, if you haven’t already, PLEASE go see The Hobbit. It is definitely an adventure you will not forget in a hurry. 

FROM GAME TO REALITY (SORT OF) : "PRINCE OF PERSIA – THE SANDS OF TIME"

Now, admittedly, this is going to mean a lot more to those of you who actually play video games. I have an announcement. I don’t play video games. No, not one bit. In short, I honestly have no idea how it compares to the game, what the overlaps are, etc. I should actually ask a friend who does this regularly. I may do that still. But actually, no. I mean, these films shouldn’t, from a business perspective, cater ONLY to gamers, right? I reckon not. So here’s a non-gamer’s perspective on this little number. And she happens to be smiling on the movie.

Destan (the rather yummy Jake Gylenhaal) is the adopted son of the King of Persia. He and his two brothers and their uncle, the brother of the king(Ben Kingsley) are out on a mission of conquest and they happen upon the holy city of Alamut. Recent intelligence from the spies says that this historically neutral city of great historical importance is actually supplying weapons to their enemies. The Persians invade the city. Destan is among the most successful warriors there. However, he very quickly finds out that the story about spy intelligence is all a decoy. There is a villain in their midst. And he is after a mythical magic dagger that would allow him to reverse time, putting himself in power. Destan, along with Tamina, the princess of Alamut and the keeper of the sacred dagger, must form an uneasy alliance to stop him. The fate of the entire world may well be at stake.

Ok so basically, you know what this is? It is a road movie, where too initially completely dissimilar protagonists learn to love each other, bond and fight for a common cause on the way. That coupled with the type of romantic comedy that is as old as Shakespeare (I’m thinking Taming of the Shrew). You know, sassy girl gets “tamed” into femininity by the wit and courage of a truly good man. Ladle on a good dollop of special effects (come on, it is based on a video game at the end of the day) and voila. Prince of Persia. Now, I know that thus far I have not  exactly waxed lyrical about the topic. This is precisely why I rarely review Hollywood films, unless they are massive “event” films that is, these days. I am slightly sick of the (in my view) regurgitated storylines. The independent works, the European cinema, the more experimental directors actually have the capacity to offer you something you cannot “foresee”.  Things that really catch you short and make you think. I mean, Aeon Flux, that I reviewed the other day, has elements of this. I did not mention it much in the review because if I did a massive spoiler and the end of the film would come crumbling down but it is there. This film does not have that though. Sorry.

Ok rant over. This being said, why on EARTH did I put it in the blog then? Well, because, credit where it’s due, it is good at what it does. It is an action film. It stars Jake Gylenhaal and has a massive amount of him doing fighting scenes (eye candy alert!). I pretty much like Ben Kingsley in every single thing he does. It is classic Hollywood amusement. Ideal to watch with your mates of an evening. I enjoyed it. It just virtually contributed nothing to my film culture thingy. Not every film needs to…  

ESSIE SPEAKS OF ROBERT DOWNEY JR.

OK, I hear you say, that's a bit random. Why, of all the actors around, Robert Downey Jr. ?

Well gentle reader, it may possibly be because I have recently discovered what a funny guy he is. I doubt his initial aim in life was to become a comedian per se, indeed he is very successful in numerous other more serious roles. However, he is, in my view, particularly brilliant at playing a certain type of eccentric genius that rubs everyone the wrong way but saves the day in the end. A kind of "action anti-hero" as it were. Not only are the films exciting to watch, be it storylines or special effects, they had me literally in stiches as I watched. So I wanted to share them with you.

And come on, be fair. It's january. It's cold and depressing. I reckon we all deserve a bit of an escape into a fantasy world. No?

happy viewing,
Essie

LET THE BATTLE OF THE TITANS COMMENCE : "SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS"

I have been waiting for this film for SO long. I love the new take on Sherlock Holmes. To be absolutely honest, I believe I do prefer the Benedict Cumberbach version of him better though. You know, the series. Are they doing any more of those by the way? If yes, when? I definitely should check on that. But in the meanwhile, let us return to the film in hand. Now, before, Holmes was the epitome of the old-fashioned hero. Strong, manly, spoke little, went straight to the point when he did and was a complete gentleman in all other ways besides. This Holmes is a brilliant mind and a brilliant detective, however also childish, selfish and possible manic-depressive. I also love the new Watson, who has his own character and personality (albeit he finds it hard to assert them when Holmes is around – but this is understandable). Gone is the bumbling doctor, whose main duty in life was to ask dumb questions at the right time so the reader could grasp the intricacies of the plot. This Watson (especially since he happens to have the body of Jude Law), is a force to be reckoned with.

And Holmes simply cannot do without him.  Watson finds this out much to his distress after his wedding, because even on their honeymoon, Holmes cannot seem to leave them alone.  Not only does he burst in on them, oh no, he brings a foray of disaster and assassins with him. This, however, may be a slightly unfair on Holmes. Not least because he is not so much pestering Watson as saving his life and the life of his bride. The reason they have assassins after them however is because Holmes has finally met his match:  An arch-villain whose intellect and genius may well actually match up to that of Holmes, Professor James Moriarty. And Watson just happens to be Holmes’ Achilles heel.  Moriarty’s aim however, reaches far beyond messing with Holmes and Watson. He has his sights set on the control of all of Europe, possibly the entire world. And Holmes is the only person capable of figuring out that he is behind all these machinations, much less stop him…

I love this series. So much so that even though a purist would say that Holmes should die and stay dead after his fight with Moriarty (oh come on. You knew that. I cannot believe you haven’t actually read the books. Shame on you.  No, really.) Anyway, the point is, I don’t care. You may have figured out by now, I am a sucker for anyone and anything that makes me laugh. Robert Downey Jr. is hilarious. I’m talking belly laughs, clapping and stomping on the floor. His interaction with Watson is perfect (as I outlined a tad in the first paragraph). The action sequences and effects are both spectacular and exciting. And the storyline is both complex and imaginative, just as a Holmes – Moriarty story should be. Oh and if you think about it, you could argue it asks serious political questions about things going on behind the scenes in any given conflict. But it is so well done; you don’t necessarily need to think about it, if you see what I mean. It’s there if you want to. Very unobtrusive yet fully there. Yet, if you just want to watch a funny and brilliant movie and not “think” about anything in particular, well you can do that too. It all depends on what you want from your evening’s entertainment – and this baby pretty much has everything you could need… 

YOUR WEEKLY DOSE OF SUPERHERO : "IRON MAN 2"

This is typical me, it needs to be said. I literally jumped in and watched this anyway, because it was convenient more than anything else. I had no prior knowledge of the series; I hadn’t even watched the first film. It had Robert Downey Jr. in it. It was a superhero movie. Oooh it has been nominated for the special effects Oscar®. That was just about the sum-total of my knowledge of the film. What can I say; I’m not always the epitome of professional conduct when it comes to my film watching habits. In the end, I had to put it in the blog. And just hope that there were enough nutcases like me who just dive into the middle of a series with no rhyme or reason. Or, alternately, have watched the first film already and don’t really care that I haven’t.

Having invented the Iron Man suit, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has literally become the personification of peace on earth. “Peace is privatized” he announces proudly and the press lap it up. He already has riches, now he has worldwide fame and the kind of adulation only a super hero can have. He is, both seemingly and actually, an eccentric and slightly egocentric businessman that does whatever he damn well likes without regard to too much else, so all this suits him just fine. The long suffering Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow) does her best to keep him in line and to keep his company from going under completely. But under this perfect veneer there is trouble brewing. Both the government and Stark’s rivals will stop at nothing in their plotting to get their hands on the suit. Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a rather brilliant Russian physicist is not only out to get Stark but is possibly the only person with the brains and the technical capability to bring him down. Then there is the small matter of finding a replacement for the “core” that keeps Stark alive. As in, Stark has failed to find one. And he is desperately low on cartridges…

Now, this is the kind of Hollywood film I really do love. I mean yes, we know that Pepper Potts and Tony Stark will get together in the end. Yes, Tony Stark will defeat the bad guys. But Tony Stark is far from your average squeaky clean super hero. I love superheroes with attitude problems, especially if they are acted by actors as successful as Robert Downey Jr. In fact, after having seen his success in Sherlock Holmes in a very similar role, I am beginning to suspect that he is not so much acting but just being himself (a bit like a modern Clint Eastwood if you will). No matter though, he is just too funny. The comedy value alone would, in fact, make the film a joy to watch.

But then, there are the special effects. I honestly don’t know what I think of the whole school of thought whereby people go to films solely for the special effects. I am not one of these people. But every now and then, I enjoy a good show. And come on, even if you are all French New Wave, Godard and Truffaut when it comes to films, you have to admit that a good, old fashioned action flick is really, really fun. Especially if it makes you actually laugh outloud. And go “Ooooh!” at the special effects. I’d try to get this in blu-ray if poss. And I’d watch it with the sound blaring. And popcorn. If I had my way that is. Just saying. 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF BATTLES - WITH THE SELF

Hey there folks! How is 2013 treating you so far? Have you all re-adapted to work? Have you got used to putting the date as 2013 as opposed to still going with 2012?

And more importantly, how are those New Year's resolutions going? As you can see, mine are at the so far so good stage. Not only am I here, bright and early, updating my blog, I am also updating it with "up to date" stuff. By the way, for those who were fans of my old style an worried about this addition - don't be. Please note I said "more" up to date stuff. The old and the random will keep coming thick and fast. As can be exemplified this week.

We have one star-studded TV series to kick of your New Year and one older film that, to my mind, is definitely a classic. Both involve battles with the self, against impossible odds, against desperate circumstances (but these are not war films peeps, FYI, let's not have any confusion!) As for the outcome of these battles? You're just going to have to watch and see aren't you?

Belated Happy New Year Peeps. Have a great week!
Essie

FRESH FROM THE TELLY : "A YOUNG DOCTOR’S NOTEBOOK"

Ok, here we go. As promised, I am keeping up with the more up to date stuff (a New Year's resolution as you can imagine) - and keeping you guys up to date with it, more to the point. Now, at first glance, this series seems more like a comedy than anything else. Studded with big names like John Hamm and Daniel Radcliffe and advertised, on one of the bigger TV channels here in the UK (I’ll name no names but if you have eyes and live in the UK you know which one I mean. The ads are literally EVERYWHERE). All that and the trailer, showcasing the funnier, more surreal moments made me think it was a sort of sit-com or something like that, about the naïve young doctor trying to get used to small-town life. Having lots of funny adventures. Going on to find true love, meaning and success here. *Yawn*.

But then, you see, a teeny bit of information caught my eye while perusing the net. Based on the short stories by Mikhail Bulgakov (author of The Master and Margarita among other classics). Err hang on a minute. Bulgakov’s books and stories can be categorised as many things. “Difficult to read” may well be the foremost among these categories. Material ideal to be made into flippant sit-coms, is almost certainly not one of them. Hence my decision to give them a spin. Needless to say, I was hooked from the end of the first episode onwards. Allow me to try and explain why.

Ok, so my rather snooty overview of the storyline has an element of truth in it. Yes, it is about a young doctor, Vladimir Bomgard (Daniel Radcliffe), a rather brilliant young doctor at that, whose first assignment it is to run a small rural hospital in the middle of nowhere in Russia, 1917. The first clue that it will not have the “fluffy” ending I outlined for it though comes in something very basic: this is a mini-series, only four episodes long. And each episode is about 25 minutes long. So, this has to be a hard-hitting story that puts across a lot of “stuff” in a short amount of time. And it does. You see, it becomes very clear very quickly that the story is told by way of remiscence, as it were. The older Dr. Bomgard (Jon Hamm) comes across his old diary and thinks back on his early days as a doctor. But such deep plunges into the past often are, as you can guess, a way of escaping from the present. So what, pray tell, is our Dr. Bomgard trying to escape from? And would he do better to stay in the present and face it?

If you’re in any way familiar with Bulgakov, you will be able to guess that, funny as the story may seem in the beginning, there is, from the word go, a deep, dark and “unpleasant” undercurrent. I especially love the way this side of the story shows itself – but only very briefly – in the first episode and get progressively more prominent, until it dominates completely in the fourth and last episode. The progression of Bomgard’s state of mind is very, very well given. On the other hand, there are of course, many little elements of comedy, offset by some rather brilliant acting, based around the young and inexperienced Dr. Bomgard (whose name, I realise in retrospect, we never actually hear in the series!). And the quality of the cast – not just the star names, but the entire cast – allayed any doubts I had about the film being a little too “sit-com”y. On the contrary, the young Vladimir Bomgard is a chain-smoking, ill-shaven bag of nerves who yearns for his life back in Moscow. Not any kind of cliché you could imagine, but a very real man. A contributing factor to this feeling may well be that the stories are semi-autobiographical – Bulgakov actually trained as a doctor.

In short this one is something familiar, good quality and interesting but with just that hint of the extraordinary to make you sit up and pay attention. I was seriously impressed. And I’m pretty sure you will be too.  

A TRUE STORY OF IMPOSSIBLE ODDS, I GIVE YOU : "CINDERELLA MAN"

On Christmas, especially after copious amounts of food and drink, I am not in the mood for complicated artworks. I am, as you know, a particular fan of films that get the proverbial “little grey cells” whirring, but not today. This is why cheesy Christmas classics came into being. I am not talking about one of those however. I am talking about an emotional story of impossible odds being surmounted by sheer courage, determination and hard work. And I’ll tell you something else, it’s a true story to boot. I give you, James J. Braddock.

James J. Braddock (Russel Crowe) was a boxer in the mid to late ‘20s. He was a rising star, set to do great things. He lived with his wife Me (Rennee Zellwegger) and three children in relative comfort, luxury and happiness until… The Great Depression. Like many people in the States, Braddock loses everything. He has to beg for shifts on the docks for any sort of hope of getting some income to feed his family. They now live in a shack in a shantytown, barely able (and not always that) to pay for their most basic needs. His dreams of fame and fortune seem like a flicker at an incredible distance until his ex-manager and very old friend manages to get him one last fight. Braddock hasn’t fought in years, he is a lot older besides, no one gives him much of a chance… Until he actually wins the fight. This is the beginning of a renaissance, as it were. Although, it seems positively unbelievable. Because this one-time champion, now dock worker, has actually got his sights set on being the world heavyweight champion. Is he out of his mind? Or is there an actual chance he could make it?

Admit it. Realism, storylines etc. aside, we all love it when the good guys get the prize in the end. We all love it when the underdog wins through impossible odds. Especially in a matter like boxing. I mean, yes, it is violent and everything but there is something deeply satisfying about our kind hearted hero beating the evil bad-guy to a bloody pulp with his bare hands (Come on, admit it). And of course there is a delicious bad guy; one Max Baer who was infamous for actually killing people in the boxing ring. To be fair on the man, as he was actually a real person, he was probably just a boxer who was doing his job and getting on with his PR but still. He suits the purposes of this film very, very well. And ironically (or not) he happens to be the person Braddock needs to fight to win the world title… In short, as you can imagine, the whole atmos of the film is very suitable for too much turkey, indigestion and large amounts of wrapping paper.

And, to be fair, even if you know how the story ends (to be honest, a – You can probably guess from my review how it ends and b – You can Google it and find it out in a heartbeat- I did haha) it detracts nothing from the emotion of the film. I watched with baited breath, I bounced up and down, I actually ran round the room yelling instructions at one point. You can’t help but admire the man. And enjoy the film. Despite all of its conventionality, it has undoubtedly made my top 10.