The Young Victoria (Sorry, no witty title for this review!)

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, September 27, 2009 , under , , , | comments (1)



Film: The Young Victora (GK Films)
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Starring: Emily Blunt, Rupert Friend, Paul Bettany , Miranda Richardson.
Plot: Chronicles the early years of Queen Victoria’s reign and her courtship and early marriage with Prince Albert.





To be honest, I am not a fan of biopics. I find them overlong, self indulgent and usually lacking a clear focus. I am, however, a fan of period dramas. And in that respect The Young Victoria acquits itself nicely. By focusing on the early years of Victoria’s reign we have a nicely honed film that is part period drama, part political drama and part love story. Of course there are those tropes that plague period dramas; lots of people starring at each other across rooms, and lots of letter writing. And make sure you brush up on your British history, because there are a couple of political events that are unclear.

But for the most part, The Young Victoria is a very nice film.

The material is well handled by director Jean-Marc Vallée. There are some stunning visuals, particularly the opening sequence of Victoria’s coronation. The scene at the coronation ball where Albert and Victoria waltz is a scene of incredible tenderness and intimacy set against the grandeur and sumptuousness of the ball itself. And the costumes (my favourite part of period films) are wonderfully lavish.

The films greatest strength is its treatment of the romance between Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. The film thankfully restrains from being a ‘bodice ripper’ ala The Tudors and The Other Boleyn Girl and instead presents its audience with a quiet old-fashioned love story that is never in danger of veering towards melodrama.

Of course history (and to a lesser extent cinematic convention) tells us that Victoria and Albert will marry, but nevertheless the ride is as entertaining as ever. Rupert Friend as Prince Albert is, dare I say it, adorable. His boyish exuberance, particularly on receiving letters from Victoria, is incredibly endearing.

Emily Blunt is in fine form as Queen Victoria. She navigates the struggle of a young woman in a man’s role with simultaneous innocence and confidence. Neither Blunt nor the film is afraid of exploring Victoria’s faults, which thankfully stops the film from becoming a love letter to Queen Victoria. From what I read prior to the film’s release, I gather that The Young Victoria was supposed to elevate Emily Blunt to Academy Award nominee status. There is no doubt that Blunt is talented, but I don’t think that this film will do it. The performance does not have the impact Helen Mirren’s did as another royal in The Queen.


There is a certain amount of ‘Hollywoodisation” to the story- Albert’s being shot is a prime example, but that is likely to upset only the British history buffs. The scene in question is well executed and adds the required amount of drama to third act, but most importantly one can imagine that this could be historically accurate as fits seamlessly into the story of the film.


This is a good film. A solid film. But I wonder why it is a film at all. This is the sort of thing the BBC loves. It is a wonder that is not a made for TV movie of a miniseries, and I mean that as no discredit to the film makers. I am merely suggesting that the material would be better suited to small screen adaptation.


My only major problem with the film is the way it ignores the condition of England at the time. Of course, both Victoria and Albert demonstrate concern for the plight of the lower classes, much to the objection of some of the political figures present, but this seems merely superficial and to create the appearance of action towards helping the middle classes. I just cannot reconcile my knowledge of Victorian England with its presentation in the film. It seems such a small thing to be worried about, especially as it is not a major factor in the films story, but I have clearly been reading too much Dickens for my own good.


Should I see it?


For a fan of period dramas, Definitely.



The Young Victoria Official Site here.

Praise the Virtuous

Posted by Should I See It on Friday, September 25, 2009 , under , , , , , | comments (0)



Film: Easy Virtue
Director: Stephan Elliott
Starring: Jessica Biel, Colin Firth, Kristin Scott Thomas, Ben Barnes
Plot: Set in England in 1928, young John Whittaker (Ben Barnes) marries glamorous, and older, American Race Car Driver Larita (Jessica Biel) much to the displeasure of his family. Her arrival upsets the family’s very British landed gentry sensibilities.





Easy Virtue’s biggest asset is undoubtedly its director, Stephan Elliott. Elliott, who also brought us Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, has an energy and, most importantly, a vision for the period piece. In less capable hands, Easy Virtue would be considered tired, outdated and, well, boring.


But there is something incredibly refreshing about Easy Virtue. Usually the ‘period country house drama’ is a showcase for glamour and beautifully preserved buildings. But in Easy Virtue, we see the idyllic country setting is deteriorating. Hidden amongst all the laughs, is the knowledge that the devastation of the Great Depression is lurking just around the corner. There is something poignant about Mrs Whittaker’s (Kristin Scott Thomas) desperation to cling onto a social order that is becoming obsolete.


Elliott’s directorial style is enhanced by wonderfully adapted screenplay of Noel Coward’s 1924 play of the same name. Elliott (who also serves and screenwriter) and Sheridan Jacobs provide dialogue that has more witty lines than I can remember; “she’s a lot like death by drowning; quite pleasant once she stops struggling”, being one of my particular favourites.


The soundtrack keeps the film bouncing along nicely. While there are plenty of period songs, lots of Cole Porter and Noel Coward himself, the real surprises are the versions of ‘Sex Bomb’ and ‘Car Wash’ that are almost unrecognisable with their 1920s style orchestrations.


Solid performances also abound. Kristin Scott Thomas is superb as always. Colin Firth has moved from playing the dishy hero to playing the dishy dad. But don’t worry ladies, the dark and broody Colin Firth still abounds, sporting plenty of stubble. Ben Barnes is probably the biggest surprise. He exhibits a youthful charm that he lacked in The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Barnes also contributes to the soundtrack, demonstrating a lovely, smooth tone that makes me hope he will play Billy Crocker in Anything Goes one day.


But the real scene stealers are Katharine Parkinson and Kimberley Nixon as the Whittaker daughters. Parkinson is incredibly funny, with some of the best line deliveries in the film. Nixon, almost unrecognisable from her role in BBC’s Cranford, is delightful. Nixon is definitely and actress to look out for over the next few years. She is clearly talented, but there is a warmth about her that is appealing. Given she makes the right choices, she is certainly in line for a successful career.



Unfortunately the films biggest down fall is its leading lady, Jessica Biel. What should be the film’s greatest asset, is a dead weight dragging the film down and stopping it from reaching its full potential. Lines such as “it’s awfully dispiriting” fall awkwardly, and her British cast mates run rings around her in every scene. Biel is certainly glamorous, but her athletic figure seems out of place in the waif world of the twenties. Also, Biel is only 27, not nearly old enough to be the ‘harlot sneaking into the nursery’ that Larita accuses herself of being.

Biel, as an actress, is an outsider here. She does not fit in a film with British greats Firth and Scott Thomas. And while her conspicuousness should work in the context of the film, it unfortunately does just the opposite. She is swallowed up by the Britishness surrounding her, instead of rising above it. Her performance feels like a performance.


Mostly because of Biel, the films more dramatic third act feels awkwardly at odds with the rest of the film. But the other performances make it worth it.






Should I See It?

Fortunately the film is strong enough to withstand Biel's performance. There is still 97 minutes of fast paced frivolity to enjoy. A definite yes.





Easy Virtue Official Site here







A Very Potter Musical Review

Posted by Should I See It on Monday, September 21, 2009 , under , , , , , , , , | comments (9)





Show: A Very Potter Musical
Presented by: TeamStarKid
Directed by: Matt Lang
Starring: Darren Criss, Joey Richter, Bonnie Gruesen, Jaime-Lynn Beatty, Lauren Lopez, Joe Walker.
Plot: Combining the best bits of JK Rowling's books, Harry Potter sets off to Hogwarts for a music filled adventure!

Harry Potter loves Ginny Weasley, his Firebolt and…… Zac Efron?

Yes, you read correctly, ZAC EFRON.

Well that’s according to A Very Potter Musical, a deliciously warm musical parody of the world’s favourite boy wizard that’s setting YouTube ablaze.

The musical, written, directed and starring students and recent graduates of the University of Michigan combines the best parts of the seven novels by JK Rowling to create nearly three hours of music filled magical mayhem.

The songs by AJ Holmes and Darren Criss are incredibly catchy. The opening number, 'Goin’ Back to Hogwarts', filled with witty lines like "No way this year anyone’s gonna die", is a light rock style tune imbedded deep within musical theatre tradition, reminiscent of 'Good Morning Baltimore' from Hairspray or 'Twenty Million People' from My Favourite Year. The big Act 2 ballad 'Not Alone', while played for laughs, accurately reflects themes of love and friendship from the books. And all that is missing from the 11 o'clock number 'Voldemort is Going Down' is a big flag to make it a true parody of Les Miserables.

Lauren Lopez as Draco Malfoy



The script by Matt Lang, Nick Lang and Brian Holden is remarkably clever and also incredibly skillful. They have expertly slimmed down the seven novels into one cohesive and, most importantly, entertaining story! They also delivered some great lines: "Oh My God, Hermione! Shut Up!" being one of my particular favourites! There are so many great lines that if I tried to list them all I would end up writing out half the show!

The direction (something that has been overlooked in the praise of the show) is also very good. Matt Lang navigates the material with confidence. There is a scrappiness to this production that makes it endearing. While taking on the beloved series would seem like a challenge to some, this production is happy not to take itself too seriously.

However, what really brings this show to life is the incredibly talented cast. They are all clearly excited and passionate about their show. They all ‘get’ the humour and know exactly what kind of show they are putting on.


Joey Richter (Ron), Darren Criss (Harry) and Bonnie Gruesen (Hermione).

Darren Criss, Joey Richter and Bonnie Gruesen as Harry, Ron and Hermione have a chemistry and a believability that is surprisingly missing from their cinematic counterparts. Ironically, I never noticed how weak the chemistry was between Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson until I saw Criss, Ritcher and Gruesen’s performances. Criss is particularly appealing as Harry. They also fit the roles better physically: Harry actually has messy black hair, Ron is actually tall, and Hermione has bushy hair.

There seems to be a lot of fan love for Lauren Lopez (Draco Malfoy) and Joseph Walker (a very buff Lord Voldermort), and deservedly so (they are both hilarious), but my personal favourites are Tyler Brunsman as Cedric Diggory (sincere apologies to the Robert Pattinson fan girls, but this guy is loads better) and Lily Marks as a scene stealing Molly Weasley.

Though, I feel it is unfair to single out any of the performers. There is not a weak link in the bunch. It truly is an ensemble production. Everyone seems to be having a great time and their energy spills over onto the audience.


Joe Walker as Lord Voldemort

As goofy and screwball as the musical is, there are moments of seriousness that show just how talented the cast is. Several times during the show I closed my eyes and hoped that the upcoming Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows film would deal with certain plot points half as well as A Very Potter Musical did (the aftermath of Ron’s encounter with the Horcrux being one of them). Actually, the people a Warner Brothers could learn a thing or two from the StarKid team about how to condense a book and still have a cohesive story. The also could learn how to intergrate Ginny Weasley into the plot without having a totally whatthe? moment! (For more details, please see my rant on Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince).

I can't help but compare A Very Potter Musical to the Lynn Ahrens/ Stephen Flaherty musical Lucky Stiff. They both share the same kind of wacky humour, with characters being thrust into increasingly ridiculous situations that make perfect sense in the world of the show, they both have witty lyrics that you can listen to over and over again and, most importantly, tunes that are memorable.

I know that a Broadway (or Off-Broadway) transfer is impossible, but if my fantasy world were to become a reality and it dd transfer to Broadway: what musical number would they sing at the Tony Awards???

I can’t wait to see these guys in a Broadway show (obviously no AVPM). Or somebody give these kids a guest spot on GLEE, at the very least!


Should I See It?
Yes, especially if you are a fan of Harry Potter or musicals! Or both!

The cast of A Very Potter Musical.



Just be warned: make sure you have plenty of time to kill. The show is nearly three hours long. Remember to factor in time for YouTube to load.

View A Very Potter Musical here.

Download the soundtrack from here. Since you don’t have to pay for the soundtrack, remember to donate to StarKid so they can keep producing totally awesome stuff!)



Harry Potter and the Totally Random Film

Posted by Should I See It on Thursday, September 17, 2009 , under , , , , , | comments (3)



Film: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Warner Brothers Pictures)
Director: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Tom Felton, Michael Gambon, Jim Broadbent.
Plot: Harry Potter is back for his sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He finds a Potions book that says "this book is the property of the Half-Blood Prince." Romance is on the Rampage and Harry finds out important information of how to defeat Lord Voldemort.


I never thought it possible, but David Yates has done it again. He has managed to suck the spark and life and, dare I say it, the magic out of yet another Harry Potter film.

Not that there isn’t magic, of course. It’s just that it isn’t, well, magical. It is mechanical and sparse, not organic the way Alfonso Cuaron made it when he directed the third instalment Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (which, for the record, is the best in the series).

For a two and a half hour film, not a lot happens. I question whether the film makers could have done the same amount of exposition in less time, or if they could have used to their time more effectively and let the audience in on a lot more and had a complete story.

Yates produces some fantastic moments in the film, but, unfortunately great moments do not mean a great film. There is no flow, no cohesion. The focus on raging teenage hormones feels like filler, until the last 45 minutes where the story really kicks in. And that last 45 minutes (where stuff actually happens) feels at odds with the rest of the film.

I could handle all the romance if it was actually done well. The ‘romance’ between Harry and Ginny Weasley suffers incredibly in its translation from book to screen. Ginny Weasley is a character that has been shafted in the previous instalments, leaving her underdeveloped coming into the sixth instalment. Unfortunately, the creative team struggle to reconcile the otherwise background character in the films with the funny and feisty character in the novels, leaving her without a distinct personality. Without that, the romance between the two characters seems forced and unexplained. It seems a case of bad writing, but also more specifically bad direction. Radcliffe’s Harry does not seem to be interested in Ginny for the most part of the film. At the point where the two characters do come together, is incredibly awkward and, dare I say it, random.

My biggest complaint about Yate’s direction is that the film is devoid of energy. Half the time the cast seem to be mumbling their lines (only the superb Alan Rickman can escape this criticism.)

To be fair, it isn’t all Yates’ fault. The score by Nicholas Hooper is intrusive, (most of it sounds like it has been recycled from The Order of the Phoenix) and the editing is sloppy. After a promising performance in Order of the Phoenix, Daniel Radcliffe is disappointing as the eponymous hero. He seems to just stand there and watch everyone else act. He doesn’t seem to be engaged on the same level as everyone else. Though the Felix Felicis scene does allow Radcliffe to demonstrate hitherto unsuspected comedic abilities.

Steve Kloves’ screenplay is a bit of a mixed bag. At times he gets things so right- the speech he gives to Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) about Harry’s mother is so perfect that I had to think twice as to whether or not it was in the book- and at other times he gets it really wrong. The Death Eater’s attack at The Burrow is full of plot holes and is jarring in context with the rest of the film.

However, it is not all bad news. There are some really fantastic performances in this film. Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy proves that he actually can act. There is a moment after Dumbledore’s death, when Draco and the Death Eaters are fleeing the castle, and he turns around and watches Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter) destroy the Great Hall. In that moment, the look on his face conveys not only the recognition of the end of his childhood, but also the pain of knowing that he can never return- not only to Hogwarts, but to that innocence of childhood. That is one of my favourite moments in the film. And I think that this performance from Felton guarantees him a career beyond the Potter films.

After ho-hum performances in Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix Rupert Grint is back in full force as Ron Weasley. Part of the success of his performance is that he is (finally) given some decent material to work with. His comic antics one again prove that he is the one most likely out of the trio to have a successful career post- Potter.

Emma Watson gives her best performance since Philosopher’s Stone in 2001. She seems to have let go of the overacting and the excessive eyebrow wiggling and actually found the vulnerable side of Hermione. I felt I was actually watching Hermione, instead of Emma Watson playing Hermione. However, I will put out a note to the wardrobe and makeup designers on the Potter films. Yes Emma Watson is a gorgeous girl, but Hermione is not. Watson’s Hermione is too thin, too pretty and too well dressed. It’s such a small thing to get worked up over, but Hermione would not have pink as the staple colour of her wardrobe. She is meant to be a bit frumpy. Oh well (*sigh*). Hermione’s prettying up is just another example of Hollywood’s superficiality, and propagation of ultra thin and glamorous women however wrong it may be for the character.

Frank Dillane as teenage Tom Riddle is excellent. Such a great find by Yates. I expect to see him in films for many years to come.

But the real scene stealers are newcomers Jessie Cave as Lavender Brown and Freddie Stroma as Cormac McGlaggen. Both inject a comedy and an energy into their scenes that is unmatched by any other their other young co- stars.

Should I see it?

If you are a fan of the Potter books or films, there is plenty to enjoy. However, if you are not you will have a hard time following the story (or lack of).






Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Official Site here.

Good Night, Sleep Tight, Twilight.

Posted by Should I See It on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 , under , , , , | comments (0)



Film:Twilight (Summit Entertainment)
Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson.

Yes, say good night when you see Twilight because I promise that if you are not a female aged between 13 and 17, you will be catching up on some sleep!

In case you have been living under a rock, Twilight is the film adaptation of Stephenie Meyer’s harlequin-type romance for teens. Seventeen year old Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) who moves to Forks, Washington to live with her father and falls in love with vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). Thrilling stuff, huh? Well, it should be, but unfortunately the film never rises above being an overhyped teen soap opera. The film doesn’t even embrace that status; it is too busy trying to be “deep” and “intense” and “romantic.” This film is as dull as the grey, cloudy skies in Forks, Washington; Edward is too busy being broody, and Bella too busy being moony for any actual character development to occur.
Catherine Hardwicke’s self indulgent direction does not do the film any favours. Neither does Melissa Rosenberg’s screenplay. The dialogue suffers from being pulled straight from Meyer’s novel, coming off awkward and stilted and, at times, almost embarrassing. Take for example Bella’s line “I am unconditionally and irrevocably in love with Edward Cullen.” Puh-lease. When did you ever hear a seventeen year old girl use the word ‘irrevocably?’ Come to think of it, when did you hear anyone this side of the millennium use that word?

Robert Pattinson is okay, but is better once he lets go of his “this is Edward being intense look” and scrounges up some sort of personality. Kristen Stewart is the weakest link, which is unfortunate since Bella is the character the audience is supposed to empathise and engage with. Stewart is frustratingly emotionless and bland. Indeed when Edward is lamenting the fact that he can read the mind of everyone in the room bar Bella’s, I found myself exclaiming “that’s because she’s BORING!!!!”

The special effects are laughable, as is the sequence where Edward reveals why he can’t go out into the direct sunlight. No, it’s not because the sun burns his chalk white skin, causing him to shrivel up and die, it’s because he glitters. And I’m not talking a little sparkle; he glitters like a drag queen’s favourite sequined dress under the spotlight.

Ironically, it is in its most ‘human’ moments where Twilight delivers some promise. The scene where Edward takes Bella home to meet his family has elements of awkwardness and embarrassment, especially from Edward, that are just right. Similarly the montages of Bella and Edward just sitting and talking help settle the film into something more real. However, we never hear what they are actually discussing. Heaven forbid we get dialogue beyond-

EDWARD: We can’t be together. It’s too dangerous.
BELLA: But I don’t care! I love you!

Yawn!

This film has some serious issues with pacing. The first two- thirds are extremely trite. It is not until the final act where Bella is in danger of being attacked by some ‘bad’ vampires that the film really picks up. A little drama and suspense after ninety minutes of aforementioned boring dialogue is refreshing.

My main concern with Twilight in both its book and cinematic forms is the message it is sending to its target audience of young women. I do not mean to sound like a day time talk show host in saying this, but Twilight seems to exist in a world which second and even third wave feminism did not occur. Bella is not a heroine for today. She is constantly fainting, in constant need of rescuing, and cannot exist without defining herself in relation to a man, be it her father or Edward. Indeed, she believes she cannot exist at all without Edward.

All the female characters in the novel and the film seem to be defined by their relationship to a man- her mother to her stepfather, her girl friends in relation to their boyfriends, even the vampire clan are nicely paired off. Furthermore, Bella’s belief in Edward’s perfection identifies the male as a perfect, god- like creature, and therefore determines Bella (read the female) as inferior.

The success of the Twilight series is built on the readership of thousands of teenage girls, which begs the question, what kind of influence is this ‘phenomena’ exerting on its target audience? Do the filmmakers realise the image they are propagating? Probably not, as all the cast seem to regard the Bella/Edward relationship as terribly romantic.

The film is as misguided as Edward’s sneaking into Bella’s room to watch her sleep. It’s not romantic. It’s just creepy. And a little bit wrong.

Should I see it?


Unless you are 13 years old and a hardcore Twilight fan, wait for DVD.

Twilight official site here

I'm Just Not That Into This Movie

Posted by Should I See It on , under , , | comments (0)



Film: He’s Just Not That Into You
Director: Ken Kwapis
Starring: Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore, Jennifer Connelly, Ginnifer Goodwin

The strangest thing about He’s Just Not That Into You is that it bills itself as a romantic comedy. Romance is thin, the laughs are thinner, and it somehow leaves the viewer downtrodden and exhausted by its end. It is NOT a comfort for a woman to know that her happiness is reliant on merely being in a relationship, as the single life is reserved for ‘finding oneself’ (codeword for misery).

The interweaving relationships make the film come off as a try-hard Love Actually without any of the joy of what it means to love or be in love. Indeed love doesn’t seem to figure much in the minds of characters of this film, who seem to prefer the status of being in a relationship or being married as opposed to love.

Without the star studded cast, it would be difficult to keep track of all the story lines. The script is so weak that the audience can only identify the characters by the actors playing them as opposed to good storytelling and well drawn characterisation.

And I use the term “characters” loosely as the women in the film seemed to be distinguished only by their levels of ‘neediness’. Ginnifer Goodwin needs a boyfriend, and is suitably cloying, neurotic and needy. Jennifer Aniston wants to marry Ben Affleck (a sentiment that he does not return) and is suitably upset, withdrawn and needy. Jennifer Connelly fears the husband she demanded marry her is lying to her and is suitably self conscious and needy. Likewise Scarlett Johansson is a struggling singer attracted to a married man and is suitable selfish, vain, and needy.

The’ gimmick’ of the film is the interspersing of interviews with ‘real’ women discussing how men are just not into them. Unfortunately for the film, these thirty second cameos are far more interesting and engaging than the film itself.

The film is two hours, and feels like it, especially since it has more endings than The Return of the King; endings which are far less deserved and far less satisfactory than Peter Jacksons epic. The ending(s) are incredibly forced, and only serve to reinforce that

1. WOMEN ARE NEEDY IRRATIONAL CREATURES, and

2. Things only work out in films where people have designer apartments to match their designer wardrobes and little else to concern themselves that the prospect of not being in a relationship.

Should I see it?

While the all star cast might be a draw card, I wouldn’t recommend it. Especially if you’re single. A real downer.
He's Just Not That Into You Official Site here.