Sherlock Holmes (2009)

I'm sure all of you have just been teetering on the edges of your seats to know what I thought about the much-anticipated Sherlock Holmes movie. Well, the fact that if it weren't for the ice currently making my driveway into a skating rink I would be going to see it a second time should give you a clue.

But first, the trailers which were on beforehand.

First of all, thanks be to all that is good in the world: there's a new Orange ad. Murray warned us that we'd get sick of the last one what with our constant cinema-going but I hadn't quite expected to be able to sing along. I'll enjoy this brief window of novelty for as long as possible, but before the month is out I expect I'll be sick of this one too.

But then, ladies and gentlemen, there came on the most wonderful thing possible: the trailer for Iron Man 2. It alone could silence the entire audience! It looks good. Really good. Well, as good as you can tell from a trailer; but it did it's job - I am now very excited and, more importantly, so are the people who haven't been following any scraps of news they can find (example: my sister). It was also very savvy to put it on before RDJ's other big movie, Sherlock Holmes.

I was pretty scared about this film to be honest. High expectations and literally months of anticipation can set a person up for a crushing disappointment, and I half thought that it would be unable to live up to the hype (speaking of which, I may do a seperate blog on the marketing campaign because it was pretty brilliant). But I put my fears aside and on Boxing Day me and my sister went to out nearest cinema to give it a go (the fact that it was an Odeon and thus, for the first time in months, I had to pay, shows my dedication).

And WOW. It managed to live up to what those trailers promised!

First of all, Robert Downey Jr... What an actor! Playing the loveable bastard genius is a tricky act, but he balances it perfectly, managing not to undermine the bastard aspects (thus making it ring false and trite) but instead luring you in with his brilliance (and Holmes is brilliant) and his sheer personal magnetism. There's a very nice touch (which occurs right at the start, so no fears about spoilers) where he analyses in slow-mo how exactly he's going to physically best his opponents, then does it. It's an excellent compromise between the canonical Holmes' dependence on his mind and the audience's desire for action. I don't mind the changes by the way, but that could just be because I'd only read a couple of stories.

Next must be Watson. Ah, dear Watson... I'm not an absolute Jude Law fan - he's been bad easily as many times as he's been good. But I chalk this one up for the Good Column: he's wonderfully active, Watson holding his own alongside Holmes. And I love their relationship, full of banter and co-dependency. It's perfect.

I love the way the setting is realised. It's grotty and muddy, but still pretty cool - it's like a steampunk vision of Victorian London, and in my books that's no bad thing. There was a bad moment when I thought it was going in an undesirable direction but thankfully my fears were in vain - it stays true to the spirit of the source. Easily, it's Guy Richie's best film. (But... I really dislike all ofhis other films, so that means nothing.)

So this was a rare case when the hype lived up to the fact: it's an exciting action adventure mystery with fun banter and great characters. A perfect winter blockbuster! All I could want more would be some insane Iron Man / Sherlock Holmes crossover. Think of it: two Robert Downey Jrs. I'm a genius.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPod touch

Constantine (2005)

I said in my Hellblazer post not to mention the film version, and then what did Channel 5 go and do? They put the film on last night! It was just a bit too much of a crazy random happenstance to let go, so I tuned in.

Now, I made a big effort to turn off the crazed fangirl part of my brain and enjoy it as a film and for the most part I succeeded, with only minimal shouting at the screen. I still need to geta few things off my chest:

John Constantine is British.

He is also blonde.

His name is NOT pronounced Constanteeeeen, it's Constanteyene.

However, none of those will make this a bad film, just irritate people who should really just relax (ie: me).

And actually, it's a pretty slick movie! The direction is excellent, with some beautiful shots - I especially love the penchant for symmetrical compositions, they're supposedly against the rules but I think they're structurally graceful. The CGI is of a very high standard, both in execution and visualization. A lot of imagination went into it and I really like the way Hell was a mirror image of the rest of the world.

Even the plot tweakings were good - I've just read the arc this was partially based on and the changes were good. Certain simplification were made (I'm being vague for the spoilerphobic!) but it worked within the shape of thr film. The writer really got the characterisation right too, with Constantine the compelling bastard he should be.

Which is where I will stop being so relentlessly positive for a spell, because the quality of the writing is let down by its vessel - a certain Keanu Reeves, destroyer of sci-fi. I can see why he's a popular casting choice - as well as the association with the ridiculously successful Matrix films he does possess a way of moving which is wonderfully graceful. Watch him walk - it's beautiful. Unfortunately, from the neck up it's bad news. He's just a bad actor! It's not even that no emotion crosses his face, because entire roles have been based on stony exteriors. It's that there is zero life in his eyes; soulless putting it kindly. That works occaisionally, like in a moment where he has to seem terrifyingly cold and emotionless. He deserves an Oscar for that! But when you need a character to show some emotion or even just put some expression into a line it pollutes the whole movie.

I'll get my other big gripe out of the way at the same time so I can end happily: they cast Lucifer absolutely wrong. This is what their Lucifer looks like:

This is what he should look like:

This isn't me with my nerd cap on, it would have made the film better. He should look like he belongs on the cover of GQ! I'd cast Cillian Murphy and dye his hair strawberry blonde, and I really quite want to adapt the Lucifer comics with this casting because WOW that would be good. (Jennifer Connelly as Mazikeen.)(This is after I make Good Omens with James MacAvoy as Crowley.)

Anway, back to the good stuff.

The rest of the casting was pretty genius. Rachel Weisz was reliably good, Djimon Hounsou stole every scene as Midnite, Shia LeBeouf popped up enexpectedly as poor put-upon Chas and Tilda Swinton... well. She has a knack for being brilliantly weird and she played Gabriel amazingly, with a creepy equilibrium and androgeny. It helpedthat the prosthetic wings were well done - really well done.

So having reconsidered, I can look at Constanteeeen as a good film, if somewhat of a missed opportunity. There, haven't I grown?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPod touch

My favourite Christmas movie...

Those who know me will know that this is a rather awkward request. Those who know me even better will be reminded of when my sister was told off in standard grade French for not co-operating. See, we don't do Christmas, and as such it isn't a time of year which induces fuzzy, nostalgic feelings; at best it's a very cold holiday when I couldn't even take the scooter out for ice on the roads. I'll give it a shot though.

I do spend the holidays gorging on films, mainly because there's nothing to do, and there are a great manyi can think of which I did watch last Christmas, but then they don't really fulfil the brief because they don't remind me of it, it's just a coincidence. I'll have to go with The Great Escape, because it was on every Boxing Day, and I watched it a fair few times. It's a very enjoyable film, full of famous moments and iconic images. If nothing else, it taught me to be wary of Germans wishing me good luck, and that nothing is cooler than Steve McQueen on a motorbike, not even me on a motorbike in sub zero temperatures.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPod touch

Dr Caligari (1919)

I got into watching German Expressionism films through my habit of relating every subject in high school to films. So, when I did Germany in history, I took a good look at the cinema of the time. I especially loved learning about Nazi propaganda, my essays generally read like film reviews. (Still, this is something I'm lookng forward to doing more of.) It came up again when I studied Brecht the next year and we were investigating the cultural landscape of Weimar Germany, a weird and fascinating time for film, theatre and music. I didn't find the experience today completely alien then.

Some aspects were inevitably tricky for a modern audience: the lack of sound means actors had to be theatrically expressive, and it does come across as hammy these days. Also, it's not exactly frightening to see a murder thanks to our general desensitization.

That said, I do think "Dr Calligari" is still a mightily impressive film. Visually, it's braver and more inventive than most big-budgetted films and the skewed geography is brilliantly disturbing. Maybe now there would have been more Dutch angles to show it off even more, but perhaps cameras weren't so flexible, I don't know. The intertitles, too, are a world away from plain black functional ones, evocing the madman's voice.

Overall, I enjoyed it. It still isn't the kind of film I would put on if I was sick, but it holds great fascination and I reckon we can learn from the early filmmakers.

Hellblazer (1988)

As promised, my latest blog about what I've been reading will be about comics! Those of youfollowing my terror on Facebook will know that I've been reading Hellblazer. A little background: the character of John Constantine first appeared in the DC comic "Swamp Thing" (which, as far as I can tell from a couple of issues, is about a swamp creature who falls in love with a human... Anyway...) and from there got his own series,"Hellblazer", as well as going on to appear in "Swamp Thing", "Sandman" and "Lucifer" occaisionally.

One of my favourite things about Constantine is that he breaks the mould of superheroes by having no super-powers to speak of. He's just a bloke, and not a particularly good bloke at that. When he jumps off a moving train he gets hurt (though luckily he has friends and enemies willing to help mortal out).

Altogether, the Hellblazer universe is different to what you might expect - it's gritty, grimy and, crucially, set in Britain. The storylines, while supernatural, address the kinds of problems besetting Britain at this point at the tail end of Thatcherism; bigotry, unemployment, pollution. That last one is tackled most thoroughly in the most disturbing issue of the run I've read: "On The Beach." It captures the paranoia around nuclear power and nuclear hollocaust in a horrific dream sequence.

And John Constantine is a very British hero in that he smokes like a chimney and has very few redeeming qualities. I do love a good anti-hero, and it doesn't get better than a man who manipulates everyone around him and loses them as a consequence, quite probably by getting them killed. What sustains the series is that this is a character who realises his tragic flaw but is never able to overcome it, only use it to his advantage (and to help him save the world). Even when he gets a little respite it's shortlived.

He also has an iconic look. It's a good bet that even if you don't have a scoobie what I'm on about you would recognise the image: dishevelled hair, tatty trenchcoat and suit and a cigarette always hanging from his mouth. I may have actually cheered when he shed the hippie look for the sharp and dangerous man you can't help but love. There's even a TV Tropes page about it! (And if you've never wasted any time on there before give it a try, it's addictive!) The most obvious rip-off to me is Castiel in Supernatural, which bears a lot of comparison to Hellblazer anyway, who was purposely modelled after JC.

I've been reading the very earliest issues, only the first two years' worth, and the artwork so far is a dark horse. Some panels are beautiful and perfectly done while others are horrible likenesses, barely recognisable as human expressions let alone the characters in question. Overall the writing carries the drawings when they're poor but I do think a few panels could have done with a redraft. The actual covers are brilliant - if I saw those on a stand I would be compelled to look further.

Now, since I've only skimmed the surface here I guess I had better get myself down to the Mitchell Library to enroll. It's one of the cruelest ironies that now that I have moved within touching distance of a good comic book store, I no longer have a regular job and can't afford to indulge. Let's just hope the library is well stocked, since I think that a little bit more of this could convert me from being a Marvel* girl to DC.

Oh, and for everyone's sake don't mention the film.


*though I still love the ensemble basis of the Marvel universe

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPod touch

Noises Off (1992)

This was recommended to me by Murray, who said that anyone who's ever been in a stage production will recognise their own experiences. My, was he right. Parts were a little too realistically cringe-worthy to make me laugh out loud since I was too busy hiding my face.

Calling each other "darling" is acceptable when you're there but just embarrassing to look at from outside. Then there's actors who need constant reasurance and directors who bullshit answers which could conceivably be genuine, and midnight rehearsals with exhausted, wired stage staff. The line "treat opening night as the dress rehearsal" gave me shivers.

I especially liked Michael Caine as Lloyd the director, thoroughly without redeeming features and full of his own importance. I wonder whether Caine drew on his own experience with directors for that?

The really clever high concept edge, though, is that the play being performed is a sex farce, but that what is going on backstage is just as farcical. It puts a clever spin on the old "play within a play" device. I am in awe of the choreography which must have gone into the elaborate business with costume, props and entrances and exits. Because that's what farce is - entrances, exits and business. My favourite part was the increasingly bathetic series of bouquets, from a beautiful bunch of lilies and roses to a potted cactus which, inevitably, is sat on.

I'll even forgive the overly cheery ending since it's only inkeeping with the traditions of farce.

So thank you Murray, got any more recommendations?

Coronation Street (4th December)

This is actually my first time watching Corrie, so I had absolutely no clue what was going on. Also, I don't know what any of the character names are, but then if I met 10 people for 20 minutes I probably couldn't get their names anyway.

One of the major plotlines was clearly the affair going on between the girl who works in the shop and the married man with two daughters. I liked the way they did it, it was obvious without being absolutely spelled out. He has troubles of his own, with one of his daughters about to sit her GCSEs and also, I think, about to be baptised. She feels like she never gets any attention, whereas her tearaway sister does. I would guess that this plotline is going to end up with the man's wife finding out about the affair, and much heartbreak for all involved.

Another is the golf rivary between the shop owner and another guy (sorry about the lack of names, I just really couldn't catch them!) which offered some comic relief from the more serious stories.

There was more comedy from the two girls preparing for the panto, who were great friends while acting (there were lots of actor-friendly jokes about warming up the facial muscles etc) but who quickly wound up fighting once they'd had a few drinks. I reckon their rivalry is a long-standing thing, and that they have never really gotten along and have only recently buried the hatchet.

The other main plotline was about the man wanting to open a pub, and the obstacles to that. He is a recovering alcoholic, and his father is set against his plan. George, the ex-alcoholic's son, Simon's, grandfather I think, is quite wealthy and has offered to invest in the business, but the other grandfather is jealous of his wealth and thinks this is just an attempt to buy Simon's affections. At the end of the episode there has been a big fall out, with the other grandfather threatening to do anything he can to stop his son from opening a pub, and the son accepting George's money. I can see this story continuing for a very long time, possibly months as the pub is opened and character's motivations become clear. I want to believe that George is being genuine, but who can tell? This is the sort of slow-burning suspense which draws you into soaps, you have to watch for a very long time to see the pay-off.

Creative Beginnings: football (aka: How I Learned How To Stop Worrying And Love The Cold

Is the stadium half full or half empty? For Partick Thistle vs Dundee it was definitely on the half empty side.

Thanks first of all to the drivers of the group, we really couldn't have done it without you! Murray with his navigational skills and Julia with her intrepid following ability...

I really don't think we could have looked more out of place; even if the BBC hadn't already advertised our presence we would have stuck out. All I knew was that I was grateful for every layer I had on. We were sat right at the front, mostly under the cover but we did get stray gusts of wind carrying raindrops to remind us that we were outside. It gave us an excellent view, and a rather unusual one for those of us who'd only watched on tv before. (Quote of the day: "I keep looking for the score at the top left and it just isn't there!")

For  added authenticity, I sampled the Bovril and nibbled on a piece of the promised "half time pie" but regretted it very quickly. Even worse, the attempt to wash out the taste with coffee just formed some kind of unholy trinity in my mouth that just wouldn't shift.

Aside from all this griping though, I had a good time. We had the adventure of getting there, and then trying to park (kudos to Julia again!) and the chat was, as usual, excellent. I also think I got the point of the exercise:

I was completely disengaged from what was going on in front of me. It's not because I don't know the rules because I do in fact know the basics - definitely enough to follow a match - it's just because I have no emotional investment in it. So when I watched England vs Brazil all those years ago I could cheer them on because I felt represented somehow; the point of your football team is that you're a part of it, even if you couldn't kick a stationary ball more than two feet. And I wasn't a part of either team, so it didn't impact me when Mr Blue scored a goal aside from the cold appreciation of their reflexes.

How is this a point, let alone anything relevant you ask? Well first, for me, football doesn't make all that much sense, but for some people sitting and watching a play or a drama doesn't make sense either. And also, it really is important when you're writing to make people join a side. If they aren't engaged, like me at a football match, then they won't care about anything that happens.

Now I'm just off to check how defrosting my toes is going, wish me luck.

Chaplin: The Kid (1921), Goldrush (1925)

It is really isn't hard to imagine Charlie Chaplin being the most famous man on earth, and the Little Tramp being universally loved. He's still instantly recognisable - show anyone a picture and I'm pretty sure they would have a vague understanding of who it was, even if they'd never seen any of his films. He's iconic, it would be like asking someone what a dalek was before 2005 - they'd probably know, but they wouldn't know how. And the Litttle Tramp is such a loveable character - he's the everyman, with the same problems  and weaknesses as the rest of us, but with a sweet naivety and a heart of gold.

Neither films seemed horribly outdated to me. The film stock was lower quality, yes, but the way Chaplin used it was masterful. I could spot the editing grammar we still use creeping in, and some of the technical effects were still impressive: running the film backwards so it looked like Charlie was catching the bricks instead of dropping them. Simple genius.

And they're just so funny. The bricks I mentioned above were hilarious, and then there's the whole extended scene with the lift and the gag you kept expecting to happen but never came, instead there was a different, even funnier, gag. In Goldrush, even something as simple as the little tramp being followed by a black bear and only turning round when it has left him was funny.

Both films also have bags of emotion to them. In The Kid, it's the heart wrenching part where you think Charlie and the kid have been permanently parted, and it's unbearable. The silent emoting should look ridiculous and as overblown as a panto actor in a tv drama, but it works and it feels real. As does the kiss at the end of Goldrush, which we found out was in fact real, which explains quite a bit. Also the beauty of the moment when the little tramp, now a millionaire, finds that Georgia does in fact care about him, without even knowing about his wealth. And the reason this all looks and feels real for the viewer must be that it was real for Chaplin - he lived this.

The coincidence of these screenings with Richard's lessons on opening us up and making us look at ourselves as fodder for scriptwriting is either very very cleverly joined up, or just a happy accident. But it has made me think that you really can see when someone is creating truthfully from something they know, whether it's acting, writing or directing. And the strength of Chaplin's films are that he did everything, so it was his vision we see, and it happened to be brilliant. Of course, not everyone is Charlie Chaplin, but it does motivate me to try to achieve that unity of purpose in what I do, whether I'm holding the reigns or realising someone else's idea.

I seem to have a thing for internet musicals...

...especially ones featuring Neil Patrick Harris...

Anyway, Proposition 8 - The Musical is hilarious, astute and only 3 minutes long. Check it out!