Not really my usual fare, not least because the film's trailer failed to convince me, but Michelle Williams and Kristin Scott Thomas are always worth a punt, so it was off to the indie-arthouse cinema for a Sunday morning preview (yes, the same cinema that had all the monumentally rude people in it last time). As luck would have it, war films set in the 1940s attract a much better class of punter than those set in the 2000s, apparently.
And so, Suite Française sees the inhabitants of Paris being evacuated to the countryside following German bombing raids in 1940. As a sleepy rural town adjusts to its influx of new neighbours, they have to band together to face a greater challenge: the occupation of France by the Nazi forces, and a platoon of soldiers compulsorily stationed in their homes. Tensions rise further as some members of the community seem to be less reluctant than others to give the Germans a cold-welcome…
The good? Suite Française is a fantastic film about loyalty, regret, trust and pride. The dynamic between the townsfolk and their occupying-guests is clinically honest, showing people at their best and worst on both sides*1. Human nature is timeless, it would appear. I'm not sure if it's not a little British for a film set in France, though. That the cast speak largely with Home Counties accents doesn't impact the flow of the film at all (it's not 'Allo Allo, after all), but there's an edge of bitterness and quiet restraint that more usually appears in portrayals of stately homes in England. But like I said, human nature and all that.
The bad? I wasn't sold on the love-story, if I'm being honest (and neither was Mrs Blackout, and she has a far greater reservoir of wartime romantic literature/cinema references to draw upon than I do). It's not so much that I found the course of events unbelievable between Lucille (Michelle Williams), a reluctant landowner whose philandering husband has been drafted to the front-lines, and Bruno (Matthias Schoenaerts), a visiting Nazi officer who writes symphonies in his spare time and doesn't really like all that Being A Nazi stuff, despite Still Being A Nazi. And it's not that their respective portrayals are at fault, either. I just didn't buy the chemistry between them. Or, more to the point, I found the sociological story far more interesting than the romantic one.
Not quite destined for all-time-greatness, Suite Française is still a compelling watch and worth a Sunday afternoon viewing. But if that viewing is at home in about three months time, you probably won't lose too much in the transition…
Probably not unless you know it's your thing before you go in.
Rental, I reckon.
Not the absolute best, but never less than inherently watchable…
Partly.
Not at all.
There bloody isn't.
Michelle Williams starred in 2010's Shutter Island, as did Max Von Sydow, who's due to appear in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
*1 It's worth keeping in mind that while Suite Française isn't a true story, it was written during the war by someone on the receiving end of the hardships, so it's very difficult to pass off as mere fiction on a tonal level.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I have no idea how this film ever got past the pitch meeting. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it did, but someone on the far side of the desk must have asked "…and it's all in the car? And he's alone? For all of it?" Fair play to Steven Knight though, Locke is a triumph of writing, acting and direction. Hardy's performance is absolutely outstanding, and evidence that he's one of the greatest actors of our generation when he gets a role which allows him to show it*1.
So the film covers a car journey, where Locke has near constant phone conversations with people representing the different facets of his family and professional life. The threads which make up his existence are unravelled gradually enough to tease, but still at a rate which allows the audience to catch up and follow the story. Because we hear both sides of all the phone calls, the screenplay doesn't have to rely on Hardy expositing everything, and Knight's supporting voice-cast are also magnificent.
There aren't any huge reveals within the film, but I'd still recommend you see it without reading any spoilers or plot synopses, as watching the events unfurl in near real-time underlines how well Tom Hardy is handling the role. My only wish is that the film had been 20-30 minutes longer, so that we could have had more time and resolution with the 'back seat' thread, although the fact that the Knight's screenplay spins the rest of its plates so successfully in its relatively short screen-time is to be commended.
Intriguing and claustrophobic, telling us everything about its main character without simplifying him or casting judgement, Locke may not be a Saturday-Night-and-beers film, but it's definitely worthy of your attention.
Pretty much.
I think so, yes.
ALmost certainly.
As masterful as it is, you may not to see it more than once, so either cinema or rent.
Nah.
Yes, but probably only once.
There isn't.
Did no-one in the production team question why Locke doesn't wear a seatbelt for the duration of the entire film?
*1 I'm looking at you, Bane.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Saving Mr. Banks (second-pass)
Cert: PG / 125 mins / Dir. John Lee Hancock
(You can read my first review of Saving Mr Bankshere)
Watching the film for a second time is a fascinating experience. For one thing, you get to focus more fully on Emma Thompson's magnificent performance as P.L.Travers, being able to apply the full scope of the film's 1906 timeline to Thompson's 1961-era performance, right from the beginning. There are certain nuances which, although by no means hidden when viewed for the first time, carry more weight when you already know of all the baggage she insists on carrying. It also makes the unravelling of her childhood a more staid affair. Although there's initially a sweetness to the scenes between Colin Farrell and Annie Buckley, we know that all of the gags are in the 1961 Los Angeles thread, and as an audience we're as powerless to stop the downfall of Farrell's Travers Goff as the attendees of the Town Fair, looking on in horror as he slurs a speech then topples off the stage.
But for all the familiarity of the plot, the execution is just as powerful upon re-watching, and the final half hour is every bit as uplifting. Although I think you won't lose too much by watching this on DVD, there is a remarkable parallel in being in a cinema audience and watching Travers, Disney and the L.A. Premiere audience as they view the film for the first time. Clips of the actual Mary Poppins film are used sparingly*1, so as not to distract from the reactions it's evoking in the Grauman Chinese Theatre.
After last weekend's Doctor Who and Kennedy events, it occurred to me that 2013 is an odd time to release this, given that next year is the 50th anniversary of Mary Poppins. Then after about a second's thought, it also occurred to me that by the time of that anniversary, both of these (Mary Poppins remastered, no doubt) will be in retail-friendly DVD and BluRay formats. Gotta love Disney.
All I can tell you is that you should see Saving Mr Banks as soon as you can, and that if you aren't moved by it on some level then you're probably not human.
Yes it is.
Yes I did.
Yes it does.
It's cold, dark and wet out there, but this film is worth leaving the house for, yes.
I will, yes.
Probably not until it hits DVD now, but yes.
There isn't.
You've got to feel sorry for Paul Giamatti, haven't you? In 1961 he's a limo-driver for a studio, and two years later he's worked his way up to making his own movies! Then, on his first day's filming, something goes a bit wrong on set and the Secret Service are commandeering his footage. No wonder he gave up, after that.
It's a shit business.
*1 In a sort of 'well, of course we've got the rights, but that's not what you're here for' type of way.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
It's not every day that I go and see a film starring two leads I don't particularly care for, the subject of which being another film which I don't particularly care for. Then again, it's not every day that I love it, either. Maybe it's just the right movie at the right time, but I found the whole thing entirely charming, powered by a well-earned tweeness that's entirely in keeping with the surrounding narrative.
Emma Thompson is outstanding as Mary Poppins author P.L. Travers. You never forget that it's Thompson you're watching, if you get my drift, but she inhabits the role so well that you can't help but feel for the emotionally crippled writer in not wanting to let go of the one aspect of her life that brings her any joy and control. Similarly, Tom Hanks supports her ably with his Walt Disney impersonation*1, and manages to bring some warmth to the character who only wants permission to play in the same sandbox. Colin Farrell puts in a restrained turn as Travers' troubled father Robert, but seems to play the character in a way which suggests it was initially written for Johnny Depp, somehow. Other highpoints in the cast are BJ Novak, Jason Schwartzman, Bradley Whitford and Melanie Paxson, starring as the long-suffering Disney staff who gently shepherd Travers through the screenwriting process.
The story takes place in 1906 in Australia*2, and 1961 in Los Angeles, focusing on two key periods in Travers' life. We cut between them throughout the film, and even though the outcome of each thread is fairly clear*3 the events of the past are revealed in a way which builds the emotional resonance in the 'present' of 1961. The revealed sadness of Travers' early life comes not from any twist in the story, but the crushing inevitability of it all. In terms of the depicted drama, I don't know how true to life this telling of the story is, but it's told earnestly enough to work in this context. There's also a great audio sequence played under the end credits which at least lends credence to one scene in the film. On an emotional level it's hugely manipulative, but then again, it's a Disney film about a Disney film, so I expect nothing less; they've got a track record of doing that well, and it's upheld here.
It won't be to everyone's tastes, and it hasn't made me see Mary Poppins in a new light*4, but Saving Mr. Banks achieves its goals perfectly.
Very sweet, very funny, eminently watchable. Enjoy.
You won't lose anything by watching it on DVD, but the cinema's going to be more immersive.
Probably, yes.
I will.
There isn't.
Despite the very touching visual tributes to David Tomlinson, I can't have been the only one thinking that the sketches of Mr Banks on the storyboards (three years before the film was released) wouldn't look that much like the actor who hadn't yet been cast, can I?
*1 Hey, I never met the guy, I imagine he's doing it very well.
*2 They did say (and show) where in Australia the family move to, but I didn't catch it. Sorry Australians, I am terrible, I know. I'm not familiar with your geography, I'm afraid.
*4SPOILER! Travers decides to grant Disney the rights to make the Mary Poppins film, in the end.
*4 Yeah, I'll be honest, I tried to watch it again last weekend in prep for Saving Mr Banks, but only made it an hour and a half through. That film is slow. The main character doesn't appear until 25 minutes in. It's mad.
*5 Despite Thompson's character being constantly referred to as Pam and Pamela, I like to think that her nom de plume was Pave Lee Travers. Yes, I know I'm not normal. Especially as this footnote #5 has no corresponding asterisk in the above review.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
There really isn't a lot to say about this latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie*1, other than it does exactly what you expect it to, exactly when you expect it to, and for far too long.
There's nothing inherently bad about the film; it's just not interesting enough. There are flashes of greatness sprinkled here and there, but they're outnumbered by flashes of 'yes, get on with it', as dull characters with no backstory fail to develop because they're supporting Johnny Depp Wearing A Hat™. Visually, the film is beautiful, with some stunning landscapes and a mixture of colour palettes. Audibly, Hanz Zimmer scores the film like only he can*2, so we're in tried and tested hands there. The lead players are all comfortably ensconced in their roles, giving 'reliable' performances. It's just...
…why isn't a film featuring a man riding a horse on the top of a train more exciting? Probably because it feels like it doesn't know what it wants to be. There's a great action movie struggling to get out, bound by a Disneyfied gun-toting hero who steadfastly refuses to shoot anyone until the final climactic scene (and even then he pretty much misses), and a sidekick who's the star of the show, whose Pidgin English becomes remarkably fluent when the plot requires it.
It made me smile, it made me yawn, it made me fidget*3. Despite what I've said about PotC, the framing device with Old-Tonto talking to the child, combined with the horse/train action set-pieces reminded me a lot of Indiana Jones. Only… without the fun.
Interestingly, the pre-trailer ads featured, amongst other things: Haribo, Jack Daniels, Nerf Guns and Cidre. Even the advertising companies don't know who this is meant to be aimed at.
Pretty much..
Sometimes. Not enough. Although the 'hi-ho Silver' line is funny.
Make money for Jerry Bruckheimer? Not from what I hear…
*shrugs*.
Nope.
Only in advance of the sequel.
I think I heard one, yes. When Ian Ranger and Ian Tonto jump off the train (that narrows it down, I know).
Johnny Depp is capable of much better work. When is he going to prove that to everyone?
*1 Seriously, though; you know that's exactly what this is.
*2 Or, 'the only way he knows how', depending on how fond you are of his work.
*3 Not with my phone, that goes without saying. I just lost interest to the point where I was reminded how uncomfortable my non-aisle-seat was.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
