Change Your Image
hrothgar19
Reviews
London Fields (2018)
Nowhere near as bad as feared
It's a brilliant book and this makes a fair effort at filming it. Very good cast. Some bits are changed for no apparent reason (the car, the relative location of Sam and Nicola's flats, her age) but they don't detract too much. Some of the plot twist and the redemptive quality of the book lose their impact here but a film of a book is never going to be great.
I can see how it would be a very difficult film to watch if the viewer wasn't already familiar with the story.
Sex Education (2019)
Obviously produced for an American audience
I can't get past the sets, which are obviously designed to appeal to US viewers familiar with big California houses, poor people living in trailer parks and high schools exactly like the ones in "Grease" or "Sixteen Candles". I know it was filmed in the UK - very selectively, the school is actually part of a university - but it really jars; we mostly live in small houses on boring estates and our schools are boxy glass-and-concrete things built in the 1970s or 1990s, and beginning to fall apart.
It's all rather predictable and Gillian Anderson looks and sounds pretty rough.
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
A masterpiece
I expected to be disappointed after seeing the West End show in London and buying the original cast recording. Oh no - Joel Schumacher quickly grabbed my attention with the fantastic Wizard of Oz-style cut from 1870 to 1919 and held it for two hours. Lloyd Webber co-wrote the screenplay and added new incidental music, so his original vision isn't in the least tainted.
Emmy Rossum doesn't sing in the same flowery style as Sarah Brightman - maybe that's a good thing for a movie - but is luminous as Christine Daaé. Gerard Butler is a completely different Phantom to the stage show - very little makeup, vulnerable, sympathetic and frankly a lot more sexy and appealing than Patrick Wilson's foppish Raoul. Just look at his face when he's seated at the organ in his lair and Christine approaches from behind, or as he's listening to Christine and Raoul on the roof of the Opera. There is some fine acting throughout, but Rossum's and Butler's is absolutely impeccable and the theatre managers provide excellent comic relief. The sets are stunning throughout.
There are a few changes from the theatre version - the whole thing is a story within a story (I won't give too much away), the chandelier crash features in a different (and more logical) context and the rehearsal of "Don Juan Triumphant" is cut, but it never worked for me on stage and I suspect Lloyd Webber wisely decided it was pointless. There is also a little more back story and a sword fight replaces some of the theatre pyrotechnics.
The "play within a play" scenes work much better on film because it's readily apparent which ones have an audience present. The performance of "Don Juan", a bit muddled on stage, is gripping here, as the rest of the cast and the police watch the performance paralysed by indecision, and the Phantom is genuinely seductive. Likewise, the transformation from rehearsal to performance after the first verse of "Think Of Me" is something that can only be shown clearly on film.
Other standout scenes are the famous one on the roof of the Opera, where Butler's utterly heartbroken Phantom listens in to "All I Ask Of You" and "Music Of The Night" in the Phantom's lair, where the extent of his obsession with Christine becomes clear.
The only way the film could have been improved would be for Christine to elope with the Phantom in the final scene ;-) The critics didn't like this film, but I suspect most of them weren't familiar with the stage show or the music. This is clearly a film version of the original musical, and Schumacher was suitably restrained from making any more changes to the original. In time I expect it will become a classic.
The Box of Delights (1984)
Excellent, even if the effects are very dated
The book on which this is based is a little-known children's classic written by the 20th century British author John Masefield; a man chosen above W B Yeats and Rudyard Kipling to be Poet Laureate, so you'd expect something special.
The TV series was first shown in 1984 in six parts (during the six weeks before Christmas: the final part was shown on Christmas Eve, which is when the finale of the story takes place). It is largely faithful to the book and much of the dialogue is lifted straight from the page. The main deviation, and a peculiar one, is that the very mad Arnold of Todi is transformed into a malevolent character, which he certainly wasn't in the original story.
Robert Stephens (later "Sir Robert Stephens") hams it up beautifully as the truly evil wizard Abner Brown. All the pentagrams, demons and dark spirits such as the Waterfall Boy are still there, which is refreshing in these politically-correct times, and a whole lot nastier than the average Harry Potter flick. Some children who watched the original series acquired a lifelong fear of clergymen after watching Abner! Foxy-faced Charles "ha ha, what?" is also excellently played. The child actors make a good effort, although (perhaps surprisingly given the success of the series) none of them went on to greater things.
CGI in 1984 was in its infancy, with primitive blue-screen, Quantel effects and animation being used to recreate some of the magical scenes from the book. It was effective at the time but has dated very badly; this could be seen as period charm, but modern kids may not be impressed.
Director Renny Rye improves on the (notoriously weak) ending of the book with a wonderful conceit which makes the viewer wonder what really happened. It leaves a nice warm feeling, and after all, it will always be Christmas in Condicote. Home for the holidays indeed.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Nah....
There's just too much material in the LOTR books to fit into even three long films, and Peter Jackson has done some severe pruning here, losing the rather bloodthirsty "Scouring of the Shire" and the downfall of Saruman. In fact, about a third of this movies is taken up with stuff that should have been in "The Two Towers" but presumably didn't fit.
The major problem is that (as in TTT) Jackson has inserted yet more of his own Aragorn-Arwen scenes to try and keep some romantic plot going, and presumably maintain the interest of female viewers dragged to the cinema by their boyfriends and husbands. It's a waste of screen time which should have been better used.
Visually - as with the other films - it's almost impeccable (a few obviously painted backgrounds here and there such as the Grey Havens), and the acting is first class, although I do find Legolas' stunts increasingly ridiculous.
One day someone might make the definitive LOTR films, but Jackson has ensured it won't be for a long time yet.
Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)
Does it so much better than Hollywood
European filmmakers produce a far more quirky, surprising and artistic vision than Hollywood directors, and this film is a fine example. The odd camera angles and movements, the enhanced colour (everything is bathed in a golden hue) and the focus on tiny character details wouldn't be found in anything coming out of America.
The film bears translation into English subtitles pretty well, with the subtle jokes and throwaway lines still intact (my favourite is the flippant "If he was touched, she'd become a regular do-gooder. If not, too bad").
Basically it's a comedy love story about two Parisian oddballs who fall for each other, with numerous subplots involving the other people Amelie meets and works with. It certainly isn't "Pay It Forwards"; although Amelie changes brings magic to some people's lives, she meticulously plots the downfall of others.
It's almost worth a 10, but there are a few elements of the plot which don't quite seem to resolve - it's not quite clear whether the grocer becomes a reformed character or what the Glass Man's videos are for, and I'd have liked to know more about the failed writer. Still, it leaves the viewer with a warm feeling.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Spielberg loses the plot!
I'm not sure what the film is trying to achieve. It starts off as sci-fi, metamorphoses into a Gilliam-esquire fairytale (via the redneck county fair from Blues Brothers 2000 and the set from The Day After Tomorrow) and finishes with the usual saccharine Spielberg ending. For some reason the film is narrated for the last 20 minutes, but not before that.
Visually it's all very clever but failed to excite me at all. There are gaping plot holes and the sci-fi element is laughable.
One of those films where I felt I ought to hang on until the end because I'd already spent 2 hours of my life on it, but really just wanted to turn off the TV and go to bed.
A film doesn't have to be accessible to be enjoyable - Donnie Darko is a fine example of a baffling film that still works out - but AI made no sense at all.
Drowning by Numbers (1988)
Works on many, many levels
There are some rare films where you discover something new each time you watch, and this is such a case. Initially you might watch it for the simple fairy-tale story (like all good fairy tales, there is repetition and a good deal of nasty goings-on). Then you might try to spot the ascending numbers that are sometimes obvious in the frame, sometimes spoken by the characters or sometimes really obscure (can you spot 86?). You may wonder whether any of the games - some of which are brilliantly conceived, like The Great Death Game - have ever really been played, or whether they are just products of Greenaway's imagination. Then you start seeing strange connections, like the one between the water tower conspirators' names - all from the apocryphal last words of famous people - and the way each of the Cissies destroys an object symbolic of her husband's occupation at the time of each murder.
Even after ten viewings, the film will still have you wondering. The star names at the beginning, for example, contain other Greenaway characters and "Adnams", which is the Suffolk brewer based in Southwold (the Skipping Girl's home is a real Southwold house, by the way, called Seaview House, although there is no Amsterdam Road!).
Ultimately the characters' motives are the hardest to understand. Each of the three Cissies (mother, daughter and niece) encourages the next to dispose of her unsatisfactory husband, with Madgett used as a pawn to cover up the murders. However, there are several strong suggestions that a fifth person is behind the whole plot, with its twin themes of counting and death. There is a twist at the end, however, that means things don't quite work out as intended.
It's fantastic and surreal to look at, with the typical garishly coloured and deliberately over-lit scenes used by Greenaway in his other films, and quite affecting, although it's hard to feel sympathy for many of the characters involved. I give it 10/10 for its sheer uniqueness and ability to make the viewer think.
Die Another Day (2002)
Passes the time
This film has two main problems: firstly, all North Koreans look pretty much the same to the average Western person, which makes things confusing. Secondly, the makers used a lot of CGI instead of models, and a lot of this CGI is crap. The second surfing scene looks like something from Quake 3 instead of a live-action film, and there are numerous "zoom" effects that are far from realistic. Give me the blue screen ski-ing from OHMSS, all is forgiven!
Get Carter (1971)
Haunting classic
OK, it's a Seventies period piece and won't strike a chord with many outside Britain, but it's masterfully directed, photographed and acted. Although Caine's character originally came from Newcastle, years in London have left him as a clear outsider in the criminal underworld back up North and his sharp-dressed menace makes him stand out like a sore thumb among the rougher local gangsters.
It's a fairly simple revenge tale with a moral, unlike the execrable Stallone remake. There are some famous set pieces such as the Gateshead multi-storey car park, the High Level Bridge and the ultimate denouement on Blackhall Rocks. The final scene will stay with you for a long time after watching the film.
A couple of small negatives: Britt Ekland is wasted - she's probably just in there to ensure an 18 certificate; and the opening London scene is badly acted. The reason for this is apparently that it was re-dubbed for American audiences, to fit their preconceptions of how gangsters ought to speak!
Eminently quotable and with locations that are familiar to many viewers, this is one of the most important British films of the late 20th century.