ESSIE RANTS ON A DISAPOINMENT

I mean ok. I know I`m not being entirely reasonable, good sequels are few and far between. But seriously - this film had a very special place in my heart. I was seriously and sentimentally hoping that I was going to LOVE it. I don`t.

I mean it`s not bad but... Well... You`re just going to have to scroll down to find out.

Oh and to make up for the delay, check back on monday for an update of not one but two films.

I`m seriously getting my shi*t together, starting from this weekend.

In the meanwhile, happy viewing.

Oh and by the way, if you want me to rant/gush/ anything in between about a film in particular don`t hesitate to suggest it - I have been feeling very indesive recently and am open to suggestions.

Sedef

A DISAPPOINTING FORECAST : CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS 2

Sequels scare me. Especially if I really like the previous film as much as I liked Cloudy with a chance of meatballs. There definitely is some wisdom in not fixing something that isn’t broken. But therein lies the paradox ; if you are making a sequel, by definition it has to be a new film and yet you can’t quite let it stray too far from the original either. It’s a tricky job, sequels. It’s also the reason they so often go very wrong. I mean think about it, save a few notable examples (The Godfather trilogy being a notable one) really GOOD sequels are very few and far between. This one is not bad. It is not the first film – but definitely not bad.

So, the second story picks up pretty much where the first one left off. The clear-up operation is about to begin when the cavalry barrels in unannounced and definitely uninvited. The cavalry is “Live Corp.”, the world’s number one high tech company. And they have a miraculous proposition. Not only will they clear up the island, they are offering Flint a job! For the young scientist this is an opportunity he simply cannot miss. Not least because it affords him the opportunity to work with his all-time science hero Chester V. So it seems like a very exciting new start for Flint, Sam and all our old friends from Swallow Falls. However they quickly realise that often, if something looks too good to be true – it often ain’t… The problem is, Flint may just be so blinded by Live Corp and his hero-worship for Chester that he may just miss all the warning signs…                      

There were a couple of things about this film that really made me laugh. First up, let’s call a spade a spade, Live Corp is very, very clearly Apple. The whole idea that Apple “pure evil” etc. is of course a common joke – at least in the adult world. There are also quite a few food related puns floating around there and um… Ok here is where it starts to get a little tricky - cause yes the puns a funny but there are way, way too many of them. This is what makes me think this film edges slightly closer to a kid’s movie as opposed to an adult one. Because let’s face it, a steady stream of bad puns are a lot funnier if you’re around 10 as opposed to around 30. The same thing goes for the animals or rather the foodimals. I mean, don`t get me wrong, they are funny and amazing. The creators of the animation must have had SO much fun creating them. But they`re just… Presented to untidily. I mean I know the island is an ideal place to present it - the  machine spews the animals out all random and higgledy piggledy so this is the perfect way to present them. In completely random order. I would have slightly preferred  some kind of rhyme or reason. That and the whole sexless reproduction thing had me in stitches - in the same way the puns and random order of animals did this may escape the attention of younger viewers but for the older ones… Oh yeah, the machine just spits out the babies. The foodimals just adopt them and that`s that. Such typical Disneyesque family values, I had to laugh.

So… Yeah. It`s a bit more of a kids film. Which is possibly why I was slightly disappointed watching it. But then again, I suppose there is nothing actually wrong with old fashioned values. Back in the day animation was a medium almost exclusively for children`s films – cartoons for adults are a relatively new phenomenon. And I mean come on, almost all animation fans are big kids at heart it is not that hard to adapt to be absolutely honest…  But well… It`s the whole sequel thing, isn`t it  - these are characters you know well and you have high expectations personally tinged with your own personality and imagination. It can be a bit tough to be faced with the objective reality of it at the best of times. Then there is the fact that now the angle has subtly shifted and it`s now a tiny tad more of a kids film which puts you in an odd position vis a vis the film. I mean, if you think about it – the strawberry (thisll mean more to those of you who have seen the film) but yeah, think about it. Isn`t it the typical cuddly cute sidekick (who typically can`t speak – think telletubbies). So in a sense the characters we know haven`t developed but have actually infantilized (also, while I think of it, remember the one and only kiss between Sam and Flint right at the beginning of the film - the puffed out cheeks as the tips of their lips come together). I mean as a marketing ploy, I get it, cinema is an incredibly competitive market and appealing more to the kids (who can very effectively get their parents to spend money) makes sense. But yeah… If you don`t have a niece or nephew or little one to take to the movies you may find yourself wondering what the heck you are doing there at some point… That said, I can think of worse ways to spend a Sunday morning… 

ESSIE DOES SERIOUS DEBATES

Happy belated Easter folks! 

Sorry for the delay but what with bank hollidays and impromptu Easter plans my schedule got a bit discombobulated... I'm back on the right track now though - hopefully - and despite my intense "blue tuesday" syndrome. 

Anyway, today I'm going for some films with serious historical places... Or that have serious messages. This may or may not have something to do with the fact that my blue Tuesday syndrome is quite serious...

But enough with me moaning. On with the show!

Happy viewing,

Essie 

AN AWARD WINNING DISCUSSION OF AN EVER PRESENT QUESTION... "DEAD MAN WALKING"

I love digging up obscure gems. You know, the type people haven’t quite heard of, with very little but instinct to recommend it to you. The subject matter for this one is close to my heart so that alone attracted me – mainly out of curiosity as to how the topic was handled. Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn are also pretty darn close to my heart. It was like slipping on a comfortable pair of tracksuit bottoms really. I knew it was going to be nice and comfy from the start – and oh yes, I was right…

Susan Sarandon stars as Helen Prejan, the nun who wrote the true story of the time she spent as the spiritual advisor, and in time, friend of convicted murderer Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn). Poncelet is on death row. More specifically, he is on death row in Texas, so he stands even less of a chance of knocking his sentence back down to life imprisonment. But he lacks the funds and the expertise so he reaches out to Helen Prejan, almost completely by coincidence and so starts a life altering experience for both of them. Helen’s aim as a Christian and his spiritual advisor should be to get Matthew to take sacrament but Helen is aiming for something a little higher than mere form. Matthew is someone she considers a friend, and she has mere days to get him to truly accept and take responsibility for his actions and their consequences…

I pretty much knew what the film was the moment Helen and Matthew had their first meeting at the prison. I don’t mean this as a bad thing; it’s good that a film has an agenda and sticks to it. It just mean that the film was possibly a little less striking for me because I had seen others, others I had considered better for different reasons. What the film is, is essentially the argument against capital punishment – an argument that I fully support by the way. I say I found the film less striking than others, what I am in essence talking about it Wes Anderson’s Into the Abyss. The only difference with this film is that the arguments are slightly veiled and put to us via the now familiar faces of Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. It is not an unbalanced story; Poncelet’s victims get equal airtime. Through Prejan’s painful encounters with the parents of the young couple Poncelet and his accomplice raped and murdered we are painfully reminded that Poncelet is there for a reason. I was especially fond of the portrayal of the male victim’s father. While the girl’s parents are slightly more along the “classic” Texans one may imagine in this case – baying for Poncelet’s blood – Mr Delacroix is more complicated. He does not forgive Poncelet and he definitely wants him to be executed but… I guess this is a good way of showing that even through one of the greatest pains in the world the issue of capital punishment is confusing.

The way Poncelet is portrayed is basically used to underline how he is dehumanised. We never see him in his cell, like Sister Helen we only see him in the visiting area of the prison and in court. Camerawork is used to put Poncelet in the middle of a cold, lonely, dehumanising landscape; especially poignant at the family visit preceding his execution where he is chained to a chair and must converse with his family “from a safe distance”. He is not even allowed to hug his mother farewell. Sister Prejan uses nothing but words to reach out to him but arguably manages to do touch him more than all the dehumanising the prison system does. Some may argue what she does falls largely in the “too little, too late” category but I don’t know really…. I think we are almost definitely on this earth to learn and grow, and if Poncelet was able to do that right down to the last minutes of his life is this a bad thing or a good thing?

Although this is clearly not a documentary, the fact that the film feeds off real events comes through well in this film. In fact Sister Prejan’s “enquiries” to the prison guards about the whole system almost tangs of rather stilted public information films (although this is not to question Sarandon’s acting – fully deserving all the accolades she got for her performance in this film). And its reality renders the film truly heart-wrenching. It goes out of its way to make of Poncelet a very realistic villain; not a “monster” or a inhuman cartoonesque killer but a poor, uneducated young man who went astray. And the parents are real too in their suffering and confusion. But don’t let their pain cloud you into thinking that Poncelet deserves to die. The real question is, is inflicting the same pain on another mother really the solution?

Don’t write Dead Man Walking off as just another soppy movie. It presents a very cleverly constructed argument with some first class acting. It will push you to think. And feel. And if that’s not what you want from a film, I really don’t know how to help you… 

BEHOLD, THE MISSING LINK... " THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON"

You know I always go on about “visiting our cinematic elders”. You know, checking out those films that were the “firsts”. Learning about our cinematic history. If you’re a movie buff, this is positively fun. If you’re a bit of a geek like me, you can rattle off whole lists of films that carry the same traits down the “family line”. The Creature from the Black Lagoon is definitely one of the main precursors to the “monster movie” that “spawned” films ranging from Cloverfield (2008) to The Host (2006). And I’ll tell you something else – don’t knock it until you actually try it. Because since it was made in 1954 it may well lack the kind of special effects we are used to today. The “creature” may look a little “off” by today’s standards. But get past that. If you manage to actually get past it – you have a cracking movie experience waiting for you. There is a reason why its director John Arnold was pretty much considered the king of sci-fi back in his day... 

This is the story of a scientific expedition that uncovered a lot more than the scientists on it bargained for… A find in an unexplored place in the Amazonian jungle spurs on what could be one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time. The missing link in the human ancestry between life in the water and life on land no less! But little do the scientists know that what they are about to encounter is not just ancient history – the creature lives! Hidden for years, undisturbed in the Amazonian Black Lagoon, the creature awaits… And he does not take all too kindly to being disturbed…

Yes, this film has all the traits of the “monster abducts beautiful female lead” films that followed it. It is almost what one might call a perfect classic example complete with love triangle. The female scientist on the trip is romantically engaged with one of the other scientists there (I say romantically engaged purely because the film makes a “thing” of how modern it is by underlining the fact that they are dating but not engaged to be married. The couple – more pointedly the man of course – fend off chides concerning “when they are getting married”. But they are not all that “modern” because David, the male lead is very much the “good guy”, the ethical scientist who wants the good of the creature and science. His boss, Mark, the other leg of the love triangle, is the ambitious one, out for fame and glory, “almost akin to a big game hunter”. I like the fact that the film tries to make a more “ethical” point about science, although it may seem a little clumsy by today’s standards. We have become a tad more used to “subtle” arguments, this is true, but the 50s were relatively new as far as the “talkies” went. In the eras after silent cinema, where the lack of sound meant everything else had to be incredible exaggerated and subtlety took a while to master. Well, that and the fact that the films were a good deal shorter than they are today – and with only just under an hour and half to play with you don’t have time for long drawn out subtle arguments.

The other point is that the film makes a legitimate effort to be scientifically accurate, describing the potential dangers of “the bends” (i.e. decompression sickness) although very little is made of this point – I suspect it was supposed to be a plot twist but then at some point got axed for reasons unknown. Also detailed explanations are given to any “every man” type character that can realistically be found – so the film is doing its level best to be scientifically accurate and believable. And this, despite the “gill man” character, shows the film is trying to be realistic on a different level – representing a step away from the “fairy tale” quality of a lot of films and trying to ground the story in reality and science with as little suspension of disbelief involved as possible. This of course sets it up as one of the precursors of modern science fiction as opposed to fantasy  - making it all the more important in cinematic history.

I am well aware that “old” films are not to everyone’s taste. But this is an important one. Much like the gill man himself, it bridges a gap between an older tradition in cinema and what we recognise as “modern cinema” today. If you are a geek you will definitely enjoy it. And shall I tell you something, even if you’re not, between its close parentage to modern films you’ll still probably enjoy it. Not just because you’ll giggle at its “oldy-worldy”ness either. Although, credit where it is due, you will probably enjoy doing that too J  

ESSIE GOES ALL HISTORICAL

I am a firm believer that all history is not boring. I  mean, don't get me wrong, I am a massive fan of historical documentaries And period drama. My current obsession is the Elisabethans and I could actually bore you to death with wierd and wonderful facts - but don't worry. I'm not about to do a demonstration.

This is why I pounced on the idea of looking in to the "kooky" history of films. There are films in cinematic history that we kind of pooh-pooh as "B movies", but you know what? They broke new ground. They tried new stuff. And pooh-pooh or not - we copied them. They are fun, they are not for everyone's taste but hey. They are boldly there and if you want to become familiar with cinematic history, you are simply going to have to deal with them.

Ooh and do check out the trailer for Texas Chainsaw. It is positively vintage YUM. I haven't quite located Foxy Brown's trailer yet, but fear not, that's on its way too!

happy viewing y'all.
Essie

THE HORROR THAT BEGOT A HUNDRED MONSTERS : "THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE"

Oh I know, you’re surprised, right? Appearances by horror films on this blog are rare as it is, much less the much sniggered-at slasher. I mean, I can’t deny it, I snigger at slashers myself. But the point is, the horror genre is there and there to say whether you like it, hate it or are too much of a scardy-cat to watch a film or three and make a judgement on it. And every genre has a history. Forefathers. Films that did things for the first time, that led the way for other films that walked in their footseps and, for better or worse, copied them. You can have a million different opinions on horror films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but you cannot deny its importance. Which is why we are looking at it today. Plus, between you and me, I did rather like it. So, yeah.

The premise of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is simple enough. We start off with a group of five teenagers out on a drive on a barmy afternoon. We have two couples and the invalid brother of one of the girls, a rather difficult young man stuck in a wheelchair.  They are exploring the brother and sisters  grandparents hometown, the old family house etc and well… Getting up to the kinds of stuff young couples get up to on trips like these. But the thing they don’t know is things have changed around these parts since they were children. The old abbatoir is closed, some townspeople have passed on and some of the survivors are getting… Well… Restless…

The film does everything it says on the tin. And it is what has become a “classic” slasher. Characters being picked off one by one, one female survivor… The film is not one to watch for originality. I mean, it was back in the day – but not anymore. This is the film - or at least one of the films- all those slashers you were watched as a teenager and then get bored of, copied. The thing is, this is the original, this is the “first time” that was done and even as someone who is not a great fan of horror films I have to admit, the original idea is a lot more vivid and bright than many of the copies it spawned. I mean take, for example the invalid brother, Franklin. Franklin is wheel-chair bound. He is clearly bitter about his condition and not a little immature. He is an all-round difficult character and all in all not the most pleasant. But the point is, that as a paraplegic, he is an integral cast member and an important part of the story. In fact his disability is, more than anything else, a vessel to create tension and conflict in the film – ultimately red herrings of course given the real antagonists in the film. Now, how many films can you think of that have disabled characters with important roles?  You have the odd “blind sage” type character, a character as old as Homer but can you think of any deaf characters? Anyone in a wheelchair? No. I mean ok, I can see the argument against not having wheelchair users in action films where the acrobatics are almost as important as the storyline if not more important in places (although I can fully imagine some wonderful “acrobatics” being executed with a wheelchair and am a little baffled as to why no one has even tried it) but what about other genres? The hero of a romantic comedy never falls for a beautiful deaf girl… I mean I do know that Hollywood is in the business of showing us “perfect” pictures but hey…  It is the 21^st century. And the indies aren’t doing an overly impressive job of including disabled characters. I mean that, in itself, shows originality.

I was lucky enough to get my hands on the edition of the film that includes a 72 minute “making of” documentary. Do take the time to watch it if you get your paws on this edition. It makes you even better appreciate the amount of work that went into creating the creepy “family home” (you probably know what I’m talking about) and the eerie family. It is a wonderful film that builds atmosphere very subtly and even if, like me, you make a game of “guessing what’s coming next” (yes, watching films with me in a venue where we can talk outloud (i.e at home as opposed to in a cinema) is a very frustrating experience indeed) you will jump. You will get startled and possibly (if you’re anything like me) wave wildly at the screen yelling “Stop it you fool!” The scene that struck me most was the first encounter with the family i.e. the segment with the hitchhiker. This of course was largely fuelled by real life stories of serial killers and hitchhikers, albeit in a role-reversal scenario where the innocent victims actually pick up the hitchhiker. But of course the real life story that inspired the film the most is the horrific recent (at the time) discovery of serial killer Ed Gein. Now, it is not this blog’s aim to talk in length about serial killers but you might want to check here to give you a certain idea of what caused the film’s inception. If you are into the macabre, I would advise you to take a closer look at Gein’s story, it has inspired many a big-name film including Psycho  and Silence of the Lambs. It may be the fact that this film was made relatively closer to the first discovery of Gein’s house of horrors that it’s rendition (or re-rendition) of the story is more visceral, more striking. While other films have taken a character inspired by Gein and put them into various situations, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre creates almost an entire family clan of Gein’s and puts them face to face with a bunch of very normal young people.  In actual fact, the combination of real life horrors put face to face with real people – young people who were more often than not the principal patrons of horror films – meant that the film was a roaring commercial success. And shall I tell you something else? Knowing about Gein, knowing that something very similar to this actually did happen… Coupled with Tobe Hooper’s masterful directing… Makes for… Well a chronic distrust of hitchhikers. And little houses sitting all by themselves. Ehm. 

A WHOLE LOTTA WOMAN AND A WHOLE LOTTA FILM HISTORY - "FOXY BROWN"

Aaah the ‘70s… A wonderful, intriguing era. If you’re one of those people who reckon they were born too late, chances are you wanted to be a teen in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. I know I’d like to give it a try. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I will always be an ‘80s child. But I have a soft spot for the ‘70s, kind of like a cool older sibling or something. It wasn’t the luckiest of eras as far as special effects went. I defy you not to giggle at the opening sequence of Foxy Brown, it’s almost a video clip but with ‘70s special effects…  But that aside the decade through up some iconic films, characters, actors and actresses that continue to set the standard for the rest of us today. This is how we get to Pam Grier who starred as one of the first female action stars of cinema, the legendary Miss Foxy Brown… And you better not be just pooh-poohing this one off as just another old blacksploitation movie… Because this one is a whole lotta film!

Foxy Brown is excited. She is about to embark on a wonderful new life with the man she loves. Michael used to be a government agent – but all that was in the past. He has got a new identity and even a new face; they are both ready to ride off into the sunset together. However, you do not double cross the mob and then just waltz away from everything “scot-free”. The mob gets to Michael and kills him before he and Foxy can so much as enjoy one day of happiness together. Now Foxy is heartbroken but she sure isn’t a damsel in distress. And if she knows anything about anything, the mobsters who killed Michael are getting their come-uppance…

Now a cursory glance at this film might make you want to put it down and walk away. It is not high art, this much anyone can vouch for. But the fact that it has labels like “Blaxploitation” and “B movie” attached to it does NOT mean this film is not both an important part of cinematic history and when all is said and done, really, really good fun.

First of all, let’s talk about Foxy herself for a second. Pam Grier is, without any shadow of a doubt, one of the most important and impressive leading ladies of all times. And Foxy Brown is one of the screen’s first female action heroines. I mean I grant you, the genre of the film means that Foxy is highly sexualised – there is nakedness galore and sex is in almost every frame of the film. We would tut at a lot of that today and it does have something to do with the film’s genre but we must not forget that films today highly sexualise all the characters, especially the women, so the issue is more that of explicit content than anything else. Plus, even if she is highly sexualised one thing Foxy most definitely is not is a trophy. She takes an active part in shaping her own destiny; she is assertive and aggressive – traditionally “male” cinematic qualities – without letting anything go as far as femininity goes.

What I like the most about the film itself though, is the fact that the film tries to make itself as realistic as it possibly can. For example take the villains Steve Ellias and Katheryn Wall. They are two of the most horrible villains you can find. Steve has the looks of a typical psychopath of the era mixed with an actual psychopath. His partner in love and crime Katheryn is a cold hearted “madam” selling poor young women into prostitution. She is such a horrible character that the final “I want you to suffer” from Foxy hits right home. And yet they are clearly and truly in love. It’s rather sweet in a bizarre kind of way. “True love strikes in all kinds of places it seems” says Foxy at some point, referring to the two villains, and she couldn’t be more right. The other good “realistic” touch about the film is that Foxy actually gets hurt and harmed. Now, let it not be said that I am rooting for our heroine being harmed. But come on, in real life, if you  are harmed by the mafia and decide to take it on, chances are, even if you do win, that you will acquire a couple of substantial scars on the way.  Of course this is a film so ultimately Foxy defeats the mafia but hey… At least she does not just spectacularly destroy them “Punisher” style. There is some actual conflict in the film with actual danger to the characters success but also her life. I reckon that’s one of the things I dislike the most about action films. The way the hero seems to end up “destroying” the enemy and just winning so easily. No matter how many “acrobatics” you insert, it just doesn’t give me something to get my teeth sunk into. Foxy, on the other hand, gives you a lot to chew on.

And lastly, of course, it’s not just a female action hero we have here; we have a realistic female villain too. Katheryn Wall is both odious and a complete character in her own right… I mean you can argue how realistic it is to have a woman “running” the mafia like that but hey… I refer you to the websites online deconstructing the physical possibilities of the much admired “acrobatics” on some of the high market films. For all it’s “B” quality, Foxy Brown is an entertaining, exciting film with the rare added bonus of very realistic female characters that would stand up to the Bechdel test any day of the week… And given the rarity of the last type of film these days, if that alone does not make it worth watching, I don’t know what does. 

ESSIE SHORT AND SWEET

I know. 

I said we were back to two updates. And we are - fret not, we still are. The thing is, because of my schedule this week, I was torn between either giving you mediocre work or making you wait inordinate amounts of time or... Just giving you one good update this week and hoping you'll forgive me. 

Especially if I promise you a timely double-bill this weekend! 

In the meanwhile - happy viewing my darlings!

Essie

IN WHICH WE REMEMBER THAT MOST SECRETS "COME OUT" EVENTUALLY... "PHILOMENA"

And as if as to purposefully contradict what I have just been going on and on about, we have this little number. A true story, no less, of one woman’s quest to learn the truth about her past and the bitter-sweet revelations that are born from this quest…  Oh how that description would fluster the real Philomena. “It’s nothing as grand as all that” she might say. But you see, it was. Along with Martin Sixsmith, accurately described in one review as a “world weary political journalist” we follow Philomena through her quest and learn, maybe to our surprise, that in the midst of the darkest and saddest tales there may well be something truly beautiful and life-affirming.

Philomena (Judi Dench) is an unassuming little old lady of Irish descent. But she is harbouring a secret. A secret she is so ashamed of, even her adult daughter has only just found out. The daughter approaches Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) with this story. She has met him completely by chance and could not have come at a better time really as Martin has recently been dismissed from the Labour party under a cloud and rather unsure of what to do with himself. A nice human interest story is what he thinks he needs to get his name out there – and this sounds just up his street. Philomena’s secret is that she had had a son when she was only a teenager herself. Her family had forced her into a convent where her son had been removed from her and given up for adoption. All this was nigh on 50 years ago of course. But Philomena still hopes against hope she may find him some day. Martin decides this quest is just what he needs to re-ignite his journalistic career so offers to help her. The quest will take them further than they ever expected to go and reveal more than either ever hoped to discover – not just about the fate of Philomena’s son, but about themselves too…

Now its stories like this that make me realise how hard it is for any fiction of any kind to actually match reality. You know how we (ehm, well, I) sometimes accuse films of being “unrealistic” because the endings are too happy or they are overall “too” optimistic? Well what do we make of stories like this then? Because Philomena’s story is sad, don’t get me wrong, it’s about as sad as they get. I have written a previous article on a similar convent in Ireland  - the Magdalene Laundries, check the review out here if you missed it – and what they did to the girls who were forced to live there, what they did was nothing less than utterly soul-destroying and horrendous. And yet Philomena is a very positive if slightly naïve little old lady who has kept everything that is positive within her soul. She is even quite devout, despite all the odds that seem to push her to lose her faith entirely. Her positivity is such that she ends up at first annoying, but later actually changing the rather hard-hearted Sixsmith.

And then there is the story of Anthony – Philomena’s son. Because as you can probably guess, there wouldn’t be that much of a film if they hadn’t discovered what happened to him. Now, I won’t give anything about “what happened” away, simply because it would ruin so much of the story if you went into the film knowing the answer. But suffice it to say he didn’t quite turn out how one thought he might. The story is a truly wonderful mixture of sadness and real beauty. Not trappings, but the real stuff that matters. One has to remember, I suppose, that life is really almost always a balance and that we need to learn to see the beauty in every single thing no matter how tough it may seem.

You rolled your eyes when you read that, right? I know. It sounds like such a cliché. But I reckon this is one of those things that became a cliché for a reason. I won’t go as far as making a really sweeping statement as to there being good in every evil – sometimes there really isn’t. But a lot of the time, if you’re prepared to give it a real chance, you’ll see something in there. A spark. A tiny light. Something. I think this is why this message comes so well from experienced actors such as Coogan and Dench – both equally spectacular throughout. I can’t seem to shake my impression of Coogan as a comedian above and beyond everything else but it’s complete nonsense of course. Anyway, I think coming from a perspective of greater experience ,I think this message has even greater realism;  it takes a bit of experience – and not all of it good – to know that this “cliché” about beauty in everything is actually true.  

Even if you think I’m getting a bit soppy, you guys go ahead and watch Philomena. Sixsmith didn’t see himself being fundamentally altered by the story of this little old lady either – she was literally just a meal ticket back to journalism. But then what happened? Why, he ended up writing this very book that became the film… So that should tell you something…