Change Your Image
tvordlj
Reviews
King Arthur (2004)
A little long, a different take than usual.
The back story of the movie has to do with the conquering of a far eastern country of Sarmatia by Rome. The warriors that were left standing were allowed to live and were taken into the Roman army, so where their sons and grandsons etc. These Sarmatian knights were the cream of the crop but their servitude has left generations of them wanting to return home. Arthur, also known as Artorius, is a convert to Christianity in these last days of the Roman Empire. He is in command of what's left of the last of the Sarmatian knights, mainly pagans. They are based in a fortress at Hadrian's Wall where Arthur has his round table for war conferences. It is the even of their final day of obligation to the Roman army and they are all anxious to return to Sarmatia and their freedom.
But the Bishop has arrived to announce that Rome is pulling out of Britain and they have one last mission to conduct before they are allowed their freedom. They must rescue a Roman family from north of the wall, territory that the heathens and pagans, called Woads, call their own which is in inherent danger of a mass invasion by the Saxons. Arthur feels obligated to his duty and eventually his knights decide to join him too. It seems a bit unbalanced sending an away team of 7 knights against impending thousands of Saxons and hundreds of Woads.
They reach the home of the Roman nobleman and discover a walled in prison filled with mainly dead prisoners but manage to rescue a boy and a beautiful "Woad" woman, Guinevere. She's tough, brave and seems to have a fascination for Arthur and he for her. And yet there are stolen glances from Arthur's best friend Lancelot but other than one quick seduction scene the night before a battle, there is no blatant love story here. This movie is not the traditional Arthur tale you know but it tells the tale of how Arthur earned the right to be king of a united Britain, the indigenous armies and the displaced Romans. We know it won't be for long as history points to the Saxons as ruling the island for several centuries before the Conquest.
Arthur is played by the lovely green eyed Clive Owen and Guinevere is portrayed by Keira Knightly who continues her feisty chick role. You will remember her from Pirates of the Caribbean, also a Jerry Bruckheimer production as is this. Ioan Gruffudd plays Lancelot and some of you will know him from the Hornblower series, also Poldark. Ray Winstone plays Bors, a character i quite enjoyed. The action and battle scenes are very well done, with a minimum of computer graphics though they are there but not that obtrusive. The fortress representing Hadrian's wall is real, not generated. Actors walk on the walls, the huge gates are solid and ominous. It all adds to the 5th century Britain feel of things. Lots of armour, swords, and archery, Guinevere kicks ass, Arthur and the knights fight bravely. The Saxons are rather understated but clearly the bad guys. The dialogue is a bit lame though. I mean "I'm Arthur. You're safe now" ???? sheesh. The costumes are wonderful, very authentic feeling and the scenery is spectacular. Filmed in Kildare and Wicklow, Ireland, I liked this movie for the fact that it was more historically accurate, assuming there may have been a warrior king named Artorius. There could have been, even if events are fictionalized. There's lots of action and swordplay that maybe goes on a little too long at times. I was a little unclear about whether the knights actually were taken from their homes in Sarmatia or if they were in Britian. I think it was implied that at least Lancelot was from the eastern country but the initial conquest of Sarmatia was 100 years previous to the start of the movie and it seemed like once in the army, most of the soldiers wouldn't likely make it back home to start families and have their sons and future generations then seconded into the army. It was mentioned that Arthur's Roman father married a Briton so it seems likely he was not from Sarmatia. Anyway, that was their ancestral home so i suppose it's irrelevant in the long run.
I liked the movie, it was exciting and had some great adventure in it. There's lots of good info on the official site about the movie and the history.
Calendar Girls (2003)
I couldn't find a thing wrong with it
Summing up the movie in a paragraph is probably just as well quoted from the Famous Players website:
This film tells the true (but slightly fictionalized) story of 11 middle-aged women, ages 45 to 60, from the small village of Rylstone in Yorkshire, England who posed naked for the annual calendar of local branch of the Women's Institute, to raise money for medical research, after one of the husband, John Baker, of one of the members, Angela Baker (Walters), becomes terminally ill from leukemia.
It stars Helen Mirren and Julie Walters. Those were the only two names I knew other than Ciaran Hinds but you will recognize faces if you are a fan of British TV or film such as Annette Crosbie who played the wife in One Foot In The Grave. The man that played Tom in Waiting for God plays her husband.
So you know the basic story. But it's not just about the making of the calendar, it's about how it affects their lives when the publicity takes off, with far greater notoriety than they ever expected.
Helen Mirren is Chris, who runs a flower business with her husband. Her oldest and best friend is Annie who's beloved husband, John, dies early on in the movie of leukemia. They belong to a group called the Women's Institute, a chapter branch of a national Institute, dedicating themselves to good works. But the monthly meetings and guest speakers are so boring that watching paint dry would be more exciting. The WI produces a yearly calendar to raise funds for various charities, usually views of churches, bridges or the spectacular scenery of the Yorkshire Dales where this movie was filmed. Chris sees a girly calendar in the garage of the local mechanic and is inspired.
She and Annie manage to persuade their closest friends that it's a very good idea and the project takes flight in spite of the tight lipped disapproval of the WI chapter president and a few other like minded women of the committee, one in particular, the biblically named and equally minded Ruth. They find a photographer and even line up sponsorship to help with the printing costs. A few glasses of Dutch Courage and off come the dressing gowns. The husbands all seem to be supportive but there's a comical scene where they are all gradually gathering in the pub to wait while the deed is done, anticipating the completion like the birth of a baby!
And indeed, a calendar is born, nay, it takes off with unprecedented vigor. When something like this takes the fancy of the press, it's got a life of it's own and soon we see each of the calendar girls with her own entourage of journalists. The rest of the story shows some of the effects the publicity has on their family members, some supportive, some not but you know it all ends up all right in the end.
This is what most would call a 'chick flick' and most of the very packed Sunday afternoon audience was women, a good percentage of them over the age of 50. But my father went with my mother and I and really enjoyed the story. I love movies made in the U.K., Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. The actors don't seem to have that Hollywood shine and very few flags are waved. The actors aren't always pretty, the stories don't always end on a happy note, but they are always interesting and I've not been disappointed in a performance, usually played with just the right understatement.
Helen Mirren, usually seen in serious drama, is wonderful as a funny, somewhat scatterbrained but more-organized-than-she-looks villager with beautiful comic timing. Julie Walters is, as always, perfect and so believable as a recently bereaved widow who tries to cope and wants the project to succeed for her husband's sake. Ciaran Hinds plays Mirren's quietly supportive husband, donning his well worn Wellies and an extra 30 or 40 pounds on his large frame for the role. Even the lovely Yorkshire stone village and the green Dales against the mostly blue sky has it's part to play.
Even if this wasn't based on a true story, it would feel very real and believable. The grief, the humour, the dignity and beauty of women in their last glorious stage of flowering carries this movie confidently through the choppy waters of the competition. It's a huge sleeper hit in the U.K., having been released last year, and though it's not in wide release here, it is a gem worth seeking out. I honestly couldn't find anything wrong with it.
Big Fish (2003)
Not just another big fish story ... or is it
Some people are big fish in a small pond, their own world of family and friends. Some people tell 'big fish' stories, the 'one that got away' and all that. Both kinds of people are Edward Bloom, the central character in the movie I saw last night, named, you guessed it, Big Fish. Previously, I was hesitant to see it. I knew the basic premise of the story and I thought it might be a bit overly sentimental even if the director was Tim Burton.
I'd heard it was good. Then I read a review by a good friend of mine, someone who's opinion I value even if I don't always agree with it. He gave the movie top marks and though didn't give much of the plot away, reminded me that Tim Burton has never made a conventionally sentimental movie in his life, to my knowledge. I had an email from a woman I have known since school and we made plans to see it since she hadn't seen it yet either. When we left the theatre last night, we were both very moved by the words spoken by the narrator at the ending but she did comment that she wasn't sure if she loved the movie, or hated it. I said, wait awhile, I think it needs to sink in.
I was right.
The movie is about Edward Bloom, now dying of cancer, and the efforts of his son who is trying to reconcile the man he doesn't seem to know very well with the man he wants his father to be. Edward Bloom tells stories. He tells exaggerated stories and spins fantastical, hardly believable tales about things that happened to him in his life. His son, William, is about to become a father himself and has been estranged from his dad for several years, embarrassed and frustrated by his father's stories, or, 'lies' as he sees them. His father was away a lot while his son was growing up which further aggravated the resentment William has always felt.
The stories are told in flashback, with Ewan MacGregor playing the younger Edward Bloom, played in the present by the wonderful Albert Finney. Jessica Lange plays the love of Edward's life, Sandra and Marion Cotillard plays Josephine, William's wife who provides a buffer between them, guiding William to his discoveries of his father's life and personality. All the actors they cast to play various younger versions of the adult characters look eerily like their grownup parts, I found, which made for great continuity.
It ended much as I expected but I won't spoil it, a fine mix of fantasy and truth. The flashbacks, the tall tales and characters that inhabit them, are wonderfully quirky. The scene that had me dangerously close to being unable to stop giggling involved two Chinese soldiers and a pair of night goggles. The love between Edward and Sandra was touching, evident even as Edward's life was ending. I imagine that William's childhood was further affected by the devotion between his parents that might have shut him out a bit.
The ending had us both in tears and if you have a father or relative that loves to tell stories, stories which become family legend, you will understand. The movie is classic Tim Burton who saves it from being overly sentimental with his off center sense of humour and classic Tim touches of the macabre at times. Is it weird? Sometimes, but you will enjoy it. Just sit back and let it carry you away and enjoy the ride.
Love Actually (2003)
I came away with a smile on my face and that's enough for me
Love Actually is all around us, so we are told. And it is too even if you don't always find it for yourself. You may have it, you may find it , you may lose it, but it's there. Love is faithful, loyal, lost, found, it is perfect timing, bad timing and a near miss. Love is taking risks, taking that opportunity when it comes along because you never know, you might not get the chance again. Love is playing it safe, it is unrequited, it is full of grief, full of joy. There is first love, last love, new love, unrequited love, old love; father and son, brother and sister, best friends, the meeting of strangers. Love is dark, tempting, lustful (or is that really love at all?). It is not restricted to adults. Love Actually is a movie about love (no kidding!). It is so real that you will most certainly identify with at least one character, more likely several. It is pure fantasy. On the surface, it is all the traditional definitions of the words and phrases i just mentioned, and it is many other meanings of the same things. It will make you smile with sentimentality or nostalgia , and it may make you cry because you feel the pain from your own experience. Ok there are some of you out there that are skeptical of this kind of movie and it won't be something that everyone would enjoy. It's an ensemble British cast under the debut direction of Mike Curtis, who wrote Four Weddings and a Funeral among other things and i think he did a pretty good job. If this movie had been made in Hollywood it would have been utterly unwatchable dreck, overacted and very, very twee and trite. It has it's sentimental moments but those moments are broken unexpectedly at times. I thought it was a fresh view on most of the situations.
There's no point in going into all the subplots to do with all the various couples involved in the movie, it would be too confusing. Most of my favourite actors are in it, Liam Neeson, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman and that alone was reason enough for me to see it. I came away with a smile on my face and that's enough for me :)
Falling Angels (2003)
Learning to survive your family
Another Canadian offering at the film festival from director Scott Smith who also did indie film `rollercoaster' a few years ago. It's based on a book by Barbara Gowdy and was filmed in Saskatchewan though it takes place in Ontario. The story centers around 3 sisters in their late teens, still living at home under the imperious rule of their father, Jim. He has long since succeeded in bullying his wife, Mary, into a defeated alcoholic who spends her days in her dressing gown, staring remotely at the television and sipping whiskey from the ever present coffee cup. He continues his tyrannical reign over his daughters but the year is 1969 and things are changing. Authority is being challenged and the traditional `father rules the roost' values are being shot down left and right. The sisters are all trying to discover who they are and how to break free but are tied to the family out of duty and concern for their mother.
The family doesn't talk about secrets. They bury them and there lies a lot of the problems. There was a firstborn son that died in a `fall' over Niagara Falls and then there was a two week enforced confinement in a bomb shelter that the father built in the back yard about 10 years ago. We see this through some flash back sequences. Norma is the oldest, chubby, plain, she is the one that takes care of everyone else. She follows father's rules like a good girl yet there's a lot about herself that she won't accept. Lou is the middle smart mouthed daughter, bent on rebellion. She sees her father with other women, she hangs out with a new boy in school, riding in his van, smoking dope. She hates her father and loves yet has contempt for her mother's weakness. Sandy is the youngest, blonde, pretty and sweet looking and seems attached to her mother. Sandy sews her own clothes, high necklines, ruffles and peter pan collars but wears a ton of makeup and has no compunction about starting up an affair with a married man of her father's age. It certainly doesn't seem to be her first time either.
The movie starts off showing the mother in a coffin and the father drunkenly lurching into the funeral parlour. The rest of the movie retraces the steps that lead up to the mother's death on New Year's Eve. The actors are all very believable in their roles. Miranda Richardson plays the remote mother, so immersed in apathy and alcohol that she can't even react to anything in her daughters' lives though she does show glimpses of not being as oblivious as we might think she is. The flashbacks in the bomb shelter show her a little more spirited than she is now but the destruction of her self esteem has already begun. Callum Keith Rennie plays the bully control freak father with just the right balance of domination, control and a glimmer of insecurity and affection for his family that does lurk under the surface. Katharine Isabelle plays Lou, she was also in Ginger Snaps and she's terrific.
The director stayed after the movie for a few questions and when asked where he got all the `stuff', the houses and props and cars, replied `We filmed it in Saskatchewan!' implying Sask. was stuck in the past. Made the audience chuckle. Wherever and however they got all the props, they did a great job. The whole style of the movie was SO 1960's Canada as I remember it right down to the coffee cups, the turquoise blue paint in the kitchen and the wood paneling and stripey tweed carpet in the rec room. The clothes had me in flashbacks as well. The ending was a bit ambiguous but it comes down to whether the girls will reject or stick by their father in spite of everything. Again, I can't see it being everyone's taste but if you like Indie films, you should see it. Canadian films have come a long way but you know, you can still pick one out of the crowd. There's just a certain atmosphere and I think that comes from the fact that most of them are made with independent money and means and don't have the gloss and high budgets that Hollywood movies have. There are good actors, both Canadian and from other countries. The writing is getting better as well but there is just always something quintessentially Canadian about them, this one included.
I Capture the Castle (2003)
First love, eccentricity, great period piece
This was shown at the local film festival and the audience was all ages though there were a lot of younger people in their teens and 20's, mostly female but as the movie is based on a novel by Dodie Smith, written in the 1950's for just this target audience, it was no surprise. Two young women (and doesn't using that phrase make me feel old!) were standing in the lineup behind me and had just read the book this summer, like I have, and were excited to see it had been made into a movie. They were worried they'd be disappointed but I told them I had heard from a British fan of the book that the movie version wasn't half bad. Yes! They squealed. So was it a disappointment to me? Not at all!
This story takes place in a drafty old castle in the mid 1930's England. It's a classic coming of age story about first love told from the point of view of Cassandra Mortmain, the 18 year old middle child of a very eccentric family. Cassandra keeps a diary and `captures' the essence of her world for us. Her father is or was a writer. His first book caused a sensation but after a 4 month jail sentence for assault, hasn't written anything in 12 years. Topaz is the young bohemian stepmother. Rose is the oldest daughter, who wants out to start her life and rescue her family from the hard times they have fallen upon. Thomas is the precocious younger brother. Cassandra is out of school yet at a bit of a cross roads. There's also Steven, a young hired hand who has more or less been adopted by the family. He loves Cassandra but she only thinks of him as a brother.
And then there's the castle in which they live, bought when their father was still enthusiastic about his own future and confident in his abilities to continue to write great things. It's a crumbling shadow of it's former glory, much like the fortunes of the family itself. This year they did not receive a royalty cheque from the book that brought Mortmain fame. No income. No apparent way of getting any. The castle is part of a larger estate. The owner has died and it is to be inherited by two American grandsons. The very lovely Rose decides it's up to her to save the family and sets out, with Topaz's encouragement, to marry the oldest inheritor, the serious and intelligent Simon though the younger, Neil, is more carefree and fun. Rose wants to marry to escape the poverty but also as a way of providing for the family. She is successful in her pursuit but in the process, Cassandra also falls in love with Simon.
The family members each shine under their own light and the actors portraying them really do bring them to life but the movie really is all about Cassandra coming to terms with her heart, learning to be a woman. The movie was filmed in London, Wales and on the Isle of Man and I thought the lighting, style and atmosphere really did suit the era it portrayed. There are lots of funny moments and a few bittersweet ones. The book is fairly well represented on the whole, if you've read it, the main characters are there. Some of the secondary ones have little more than cameos and some as always the case, are lost. The voiceover diary entries for the most part, don't come across to sentimentally trite like they could have so they do work. Most of the actors won't be that familiar to those who don't see a lot of UK movies or productions. One of the brothers is played by Henry Thomas which was a bit disconcerting. He's all grown up but I still heard the echoes of the little boy from E.T. Neil is played by the same fellow who has been on Buffy the Vampire Slayer but I don't watch that so I don't know the character.
The movie was introduced by one of the executive producers who related the story of how the movie came to screen. As I mentioned, it was written in the 1950's by the woman who went on to write 101 Dalmatians. Disney bought the rights to the book as a vehicle for Hayley Mills but never made the movie. 40 years later, Disney wanted to make 101 Dalmatians as a live action movie and had to go back to the estate of Ms. Smith for permission. They received it for a fee and the return of the rights to Castle. Mike Newell championed the movie (he directed Four Weddings and a Funeral among others), two different writers worked and reworked the script and Tim Fywell ended up directing it. Fywell is mainly a television and stage director and some reviews I have read seem to think it shows. I don't know really but I thought it all flowed together quite well. All the changing in writers and directing could have been a recipe for disaster but luckily it wasn't.
I really enjoyed the movie. There's a little bit of nudity in it but it's not sexual at all. Other than that it's a fine family movie though it will appeal especially to the female of the species :)
The Republic of Love (2003)
Overall i liked it.
This is the new offering by Deepa Mehta, most recently she of Hollywood Bollywood, a Canadian hit last year. In fact there is an `in' joke in Republic of Love and if you have seen H.B. you'll spot it. The movie is based on a book by the late Carol Shields and surmises that each of us is our own `republic'. The theme of the movie is based on `geography is destiny' and it seems so in this case.
Republic of Love is a love story between two very different people, Tom and Fay. Tom was illegitimate and his mother, we are told, suffered from post partum depression. Tom was used as a practice baby for a class of young homemakers to be and thus had his start overlooked and spoiled by 27 `mothers'. This seems to have shaped his destiny. He is now in his early 40's, married and divorced 3 times and he wonders what love really is. He gets told every night by his listeners - he is a late night radio talk and music show host - and he gets a wide range of opinions from bitter to sentimental. He is also surrounded by good relationships so why is it so difficult for him to find one that lasts?
Fay is a museum curator, never married, whose parents have been happily married for 40 years. This has shaped her destiny. She too us surrounded by happy relationships. In addition to her parents' marriage, Her brother is married with kids, her godparents have never been married but are devoted to each other. All of this perceived perfection has the effect of making Fay keep her relationships at arms' length, a little detached. They never work out because they couldn't possibly measure up to her parents' shining example. She has just pushed away her current boyfriend because he wants to move in.
Tom and Fay turn out to have several mutual acquaintances. She even knows all of his ex wives. Tom and Fay meet at a children's Halloween party and it's literally love at first sight. Tom realizes what love really feels like and she in turn, is suddenly and inexorably ready to take that leap of faith into the sea of commitment. Serendipitously, they even live in the same apartment building, two floors apart. Clearly, it's meant to be.
Ah, but why bother making a movie at all if it was as open and shut as that? Fay's parents split up out of the blue which rocks her to her core and she doesn't deal with it very well. See? Even perfect relationships don't last!
I saw it at the Atlantic Film Festival and we had a brief introduction to it by one of the producers who described the movie as being about the different colours of love, different kinds of relationships and how they work for the different couples including the dynamics between Fay and her father and Tom and his mother who found the love of her life finally at age 52.
We all know that our relationships with our parents can have a profound effect on our adult relationships with others and all that is reflected here. Not in enough detail, however. You always feel like there should be more to the story, or that some link is missing. That is often what happens when adapting a book for the screen. The performances are all very good including a delightful one by Jackie Borroughs as Tom's mother. Most of us Canadians will remember her as Aunt Hetty from The Road to Avonlea. There are one or two other faces that will be familiar to Canadian film fans (Rebecca Jenkins). The cast seems mainly Caucasian yet the background music is most definitely Indian-Asian in flavour which seemed out of place to me so many I missed something there.
It's not a bad movie, but it was predictable as well. Fay's main area of expertise at the museum of Folklore, currently, is documenting and researching sightings of mermaids, a mythical unobtainable creature of perfection. Duh. Tom works nights in an underground `city', deserted once the overhead office blocks empty for the day (Toronto's PATH system it looks like). He's out of touch with the day to day reality, comings and goings of most people he knows and aside from his producer, spends his nights talking to lonely insomniacs.
It all works out in the end. It's a love story and nobody would go to see it if it didn't. Is it worth seeing? Yes. It's a good movie, but not a great one.