I got the feeling when I first saw the trailer for Pride that it could be something of a mixed bag, and that feeling was indeed borne out in full with the film's screening tonight. Stephen Beresford's screenplay is at times touching and delicate, and at others almost overbearingly condescending. Thankfully, the former outweighs the latter, although when the moments of shrieking tweefulness do arrive, they do so with all the subtlety of a hen party locked in a sex shop.
The biggest problem, for me, is that there are just too many characters for the runtime. Although the film doesn't shy away from issues facing the LGBT community in 1984, there's also the feeling it's sanitising them somehow, with each of the London-based activists sporting a different problem (and regional accent), most of which seem neatly tied up by the end-credits (their problems, not their accents). It seems odd that a film which is all about unashamedly being who you are and following your heart often feels like it's pretending too hard. The group's counterparts in the Welsh mining village receiving their support are treated a little more evenly, although the initial feeling of stand-offishness between the mining community and the metropolitan fundraisers doesn't play as large a part as you might expect. As a whole it works very well, but I can't help feeling that a six-part TV drama could have explored the motivations and backgrounds of everyone better than a two hour film really can.
But despite my nitpicking there's not a duff performance in the whole movie, with Ben Schnetzer, Paddy Considine, Faye Marsay, Dominic West and Bill Nighy slightly underplaying their roles to perfection. George MacKay also fares well, and Joseph Gilgun is criminally underused. In all honesty, it's the cast that make the film what it is, and while I don't think it's perfect, it could certainly have been handled more poorly in less caring hands. I'm just worried that the inevitable comparisons to the likes of The Full Monty will detract from a story which is far, far greater.
Pride is a picture painted in very broad strokes, which works for and against it, but makes for a very effective film and has its heart is in the right place, which counts for a lot. If you're not at least smiling by the final reel then you really have no soul.
Close enough for jazz, yeah.
Mostly, although I also found my eyes rolling a couple of times.
Almost certainly.
As much as I enjoyed it, this is a DVD-movie.
Nah.
I will, but probably not for a while.
There ain't.
It's not just me that had it with the shrieking though, is it?
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.
Maleficent Cert: PG / 97 mins / Dir. Robert Stromberg
In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I didn't get round to re-watching Disney's Sleeping Beauty before going to see Maleficent. And I say re-watching, but I honestly can't remember the last time I saw it. When I was very, very small, certainly. I seem to have more recollection of the accompanying story-book than I do of the film itself. No matter though, I was familiar enough with the story to catch up as I went, right?
Well largely, yes. Although I did clock several moments in the sequel/retelling that are signposted like massive callbacks, and I imagine they'd be quite neat if I had the knowledge to connect them fully. I'm just very aware that this film isn't really aimed at me, while at the same time, it's not not aimed at me (hence the casting of Ms Jolie). Anyhow, despite all this, I really enjoyed it. More a retelling than a prequel, Disney retool their classic iteration of the story from the titular evil fairy's point of view. And while it's not without its fair share of saccharine, the result is a lot more engaging that I was expecting. Not as doom-and-gloom as the trailer would suggest, but not entirely pink-fairy-wings either.
Visually, it's about as close to its predecessor as you can get with live-action, and Disney have gone to great lengths to make Maleficent look and feel like a companion piece. Although part of me (the awkward, old-school, traditionalist part which doesn't always walk in-step with the marketing divisions) thinks that a traditional drawn-animation would have looked just as good, if not better. The film struggles at times with the sheer amount of sprites, fairies and magic flowers on-screen, to the point where it looks like a CGI animation. To have the live-action Angelina walking/flying around in the middle is jarring, and almost reminded me of the fox-hunting sequence in Mary Poppins (except in that film, the effect was intentional). That said, the flying sequences are absolutely astounding in 3D, largely because of the amount of CGI, and there's no doubt as to how meticulously the film's been assembled.
The acting's a slightly different story, however, with poor old Angelina left carrying the load as she plays the role completely straight. Jolie's quite magnificent as the evil/misguided fairy, and it's clear she had a lot of fun while also taking things completely seriously. The rest of the cast are a mixed bag, mostly passable, but I had a problem with Michael Higgins playing young Stefan, and the fairies Flittle, Knotgrass and Thistlewit played by Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple respectively, were slightly too close to Irritating™ for my liking. But as I said, I doubt if anyone in a demographics meeting at Disney HQ had a picture of me on the flipchart as they were planning this out.
Maybe I'm getting old and soft, but the recent Frozen and now Maleficent have both managed to bring a fresh lick of paint to the Fairy Story genre. Well written and fantastic to look at, if you can get over the Disney Princess™ hurdle, there are great things here.
Well, ish. It's not as consistently 'dark' as the trailer.
For the most part, yes.
That's not really for me to say, but it's got to come pretty damned close.
Cinema for full effect (although the 3D is optional, obviously).
Nah.
Yes, but probably not for a while. It's done its job.
I think (think) I heard one low in the mix, but don't quote me on that.
Is Sharlto Copley meant to be attempting that Scottish accent? Is that what the king was like in Sleeping Beauty? Is he taking the piss out of how bad the original one was? Because if that's the case, he's doing it very well…
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.
The Awakening (Spoiler-free)
Cert: 15 / 117 mins / Dir. Nick Murphy
More of a supernatural thriller than an outright horror, The Awakening is the story of an author and sceptic who accepts a job at a boys' boarding school after the first World War (the trailer says 1919, the movie says 1921, what can you do?), after sightings of a ghost have lead to the death of one of the pupils. As the building is emptied for the holidays, hallways echo and voices from the past make themselves heard…
On the plus side, the desaturated colour palette and wisely used camerawork gives the film a beautiful antique, claustrophobic feel reminiscent of The Others. The frights and chills are wholly expected, but delivered with a restrained perfection. As a ghost story, it sets out its stall and sells its wares beautifully. Rebecca Hall, Dominic West and Imelda Staunton all give solid performances perfectly in keeping with the atmosphere.
That said, it seems to owe a lot to stories you've already seen or read. That's not a deal-breaker when it's told as solidly as it is, but the further in to the film you get, the less it has to offer. Don't focus too much on the destination, and just enjoy the ride. As is usual with this sort of thing, a lot of the story's power lies in the first telling, so avoid spoilers if you can. Best watched in the dark.
Yes.
Yes.
Just about.
Pay to rent.
A little.
At some point.
There isn't, no.
Where can I get me one of those torches that seems to illuminate nothing but my face as I'm tiptoeing around the house at night?
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 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• 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.
