The Theory of Everything (2015)

This movie made for a good start to the 2015 film scene. A heart warming biopic with a near perfect balance of fun, sadness and warmth. The film, based on the memoirs of Jane Hawking, follows the story of how the pair became to be a couple and the deterioration of Stephen Hawking himself after he is diagnosed with motor neurone disease.

Screen writer, Antony McCarten and director, James Marsh have beautifully put together a delicate and charming film. Eddie Redmayne effortlessly portrays Hawking with care and intelligence. Felicity Jones plays Jane, who eventually becomes Mrs Hawking. Their relationship is honest, complicated and real. Jane's dedication and strength motivates Stephen Hawking to continue his work and push through his illness.

For me, the outset of the film is a little rushed. The meeting of Stephen and Jane, his diagnosis and deterioration all come fairly quickly, while the latter half of the film feels much slower. This, however, is the only real quarm I have with the film. It questions human relationships, how far we are willing to go for loved ones and what effect that love has on us.

A well made, carefully considered and heart-warming film. Perhaps it's pace needs adjusting but otherwise, absolutely worth the viewing time.

Paddington (2014)

 

Last night I went with my mum and sister to our local multiplex for a screening of Paddington. As my mum's childhood favourite, me and my sister were bought up on the stories of the bear that found himself far away from his home in Darkest Peru and landed in the busy streets of London. It is safe to say that we were all eagerly anticipating this film for a good dose of nostalgia.

I am happy to announce that not one of us was disappointed. It is always dangerous, I feel, to see a modern creation of something you loved as a child, it is normally at least, never quite the same. However, director, Paul King, has done great justice to the bear and encapsulated the charm and heartwarming nature of Michael Bond's stories. 

I may be biased given my already present love of Paddington, but its hard to see how anyone could not like this film. Though admittedly I found it something of an emotional rollercoaster, quickly going from happy to sad, to tense, to happy, to nervous, to happy and back round again. The films naratative is well balanced, to me it feels short, though not rushed, but I think this is due to the increase in rather lengthy features (Interstella anyone?) that have been produced in that last few years.

Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins play the well-meaning parents wonderfully. Bonneville's cross dressing moment was enough to stir a child at the back of the screening in an uncontrollable fit of the giggles.  Normally, sitting in a screening full of children is not what I'd like, but in the case hearing the reaction of the scattered few only added to my enjoyment of the movie. The giggling and gasping and commenting made for an interesting insight into how this generations youngersters feel about movies. It is safe to say, that, if Paddington is anything to go by, they love it every bit as I do. Julie Walters was of course as excellent as ever, providing several laughs whilst being something of a voice of reason behind some plot points. Perhaps a little more of Capaldi and Broadbent wouldn't have gone a miss but that is simply being pandantic.


Paddington is contemporary enough for new audiences, without losing any of its original sinserity. Paul King is sure to maintain references to the time in which Bond stories were created. The suitcase and tag around the neck offers chimes of the war.

Paddington film exceeded my expectations, the charcaters indosyncracies and every other little quirk make for a delightful 95 minutes of screen time. It is sweet, warm and fun. Just what it should be.



Now, maramaldae sandwich anyone?

'Her' Review

Her - Spike Jonze, 2013. 

I had the pleasure of going to a screening of 'Her' at Birmingham's Electric cinema (http://www.theelectric.co.uk/home.php)
The Manger gave a short talk to the students we took on the runing of the cinema, a little about the film and also some disscussion regarding sci-fi, which with regard to this particular film makes for interessting disscussion. We got to have a nosey inside the projection room too which was pretty amazing.

Her follows the story of Theodore Twombly, as he deals with the break down of his marriage to Catherine (Rooney Mara) and falls in love with his OS. Set in a Utopian Los Angeles, though with definite elements of dystopia, this postmodern film deals with something of a contemporary topical issue. Human relationships. Or lack of, may be more accurate here. Shot in a dreamy soft light, with plenty of graceful lens flare, director Spike Jonze poses the idea that people are more attached to technology than they are other people. Human intereaction is rapidly disappearing dispite the fact that 'social media' is designed to increase interaction.

Scarlett Johansson voices the Operating System that Joaquin Pheonix falls for and is every bit as loveable as you'd want her to be. Joze has meticulous thought through every detail of this film. Twonbly (A reference to the artist here?) himself works as a love letter writer for those who cannot find the words themselves. Something that seems a fairly feesable profession in the none too distant future.The very real possibilty of such a thing happening is exactly what makes this flim work. Sci-fi films begin by setting out ideas and rules that the world of the film can live by, thereby convincing the audience that such a world could exist. In the case of Her, we are placed in a hyper-real world, the set of rules laid out feel entirely possibly. Jonze has explored a societal issue that many of us can, in some way, relate to.

Though at times this film can be a little slow, it acheives what I feel it sets out to do. Jonze has successfully created an intelligient film, cleverly creating a world we can fully believe in. He puts in a world of relative lonliness, yet still makes it feel warm. Its heartfelt and poetic style offers the audience a fascinating take on the rom-com. It is a beautifully crafted, quirky, postmodern love story that leaves you thinking about the all-to-credible prediction of our societies future.


This is a great article on the film ... http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/why-em-her-em-is-the-best-film-of-the-year/282544/

Lia Ices

This has been on repeat for days.
Beautiful.

Set Fire To the Stars

Set Fire To The Stars

With the release of Set Fire The the Stars on a couple of days away, I thought I'd post my review of the biopic. I had the pleasure of seeing the film when it premiered at Edinburgh Film Festival in June. This also included a question and answer session with director and actor, Ceyln Jones and Elijah Wood.

This film is semi-biographical peice about Welsh poet, Dylan Thomas (played and co-wrote by Ceyln Jones). We follow the story of John Malcom Brinnin (Elijah Wood) as he attempts to get Thomas across America to give readings in universties. This turns out to be a lot more difficult than Brinnin gives it credit for, given Thomas' boisterious nature and his love of partying and drinking (far too much).

The beautiful high contrast monochrome, adds element of nostaligia and touch of artistic flare. Celyn Jones gives a excellent performance, a certain highlight of the film. Jones is a life long fan of the poet and it can truly be felt through the script and through his bolshy performance depicting the poet. It would have been only too easy for him to fall into playing the caricature. Instead he injects the film with much needed energy, without detracting from the more serious tones. This contrasts well with sutble performance given by Wood as Brinnin. The subtlty too Wood performance gives a good balance to the films narrative structure.

While this movie surrounds a small, destructive fragment of Thomas' life, I feel that actually its John M Brinnin that we discover in more depth. He is faced with the relisation that, perhaps, as the saying goes, you should never meet you idol. His charcater develops more during the screen time than Thomas' does. He begins by wanting to succeed on this venture, not only because he idolises Thomas but also because he wants to prove himself and further his career. But by the ends, it seems to me, that Brinnin forgtes about pretecting his career and moves to wanting to protect his friend.

So while the film develops enough to keep you from being bored and stylistically it is well made, it is the performances that really carry this movie. Narratively I feel something is missing, something got a little lost along the way. The unruly ways of Dylan Thomas are notable but somewhat neglected. Instead we noticably focus upon the frustration of Brenin, his disappointment in his idol and then his fight to succeed and save his friend. For me, the full force of Thomas' poetry is just not quite captured. We get elements of Dylan Thomas' persona, yet they do not seem to explored as deeply as I'd have expected.

Saint Saviour

Saint Saviour is this weeks musical discovery. Her voice is wonderful.

                                                                    

Hunger (2008)

In anticipation of Steve McQueen's, Shame being on channel four this week, I rented a copy of his first feature film, Hunger. Both starring the brilliant, Michael Fassbender.

I think it is fair to say I was in no way prepared for the brutal and unrelenting nature of this movie. Hunger (2008) depicts the last few months of radical protester, Bobby Sands life. McQueen doesnt hold back in showing the gritty, harsh reality that came from 'dirty protests' through to Sand's final days during a hunger strike. The film begins as it means to go on, unfolding slowly, very little movement with regard to camera work. This film is beautifully shot (expected given McQueens artist background), each image is meticulously considered. There is minimal dialogue throughout, with the exception of one scene - a 17 and half minute long take of Sands speaking to a priest. McQueen seems to throw typical film making convention out the window, especially with regard to shot type. When you'd usually expect a cut, McQueen lets the camera linger. This builds an air of tension, you're never quite sure where you might be and what might happen next. Right from the outset, this film is borderline unwatchable. We see men dehumanized and emaciated by the torturous conditions of the prison sentences. Brutally beaten by police, living in small cells with walls covered in their own faeces, rotten food and very little light.
Bobby Sands (Micheal Fassbender) appears almost half way through the film. We are given a little context with regard to his story and his reasoning behind the extreme protests during the conversation with the priest. It is from here that we being to view his decline in health as he stubbornly endures the starvation. We see his body wither and weaken. In one scene his doctor is applying cream to his broken, sore, malnourished skin and each shot is so carefully considered that as a viewer I found myself flinching from the pain along with the character.

This movie is a visceral experience, it plays with the senses and evokes emotion. It's finds a beauty in the horrific and challenges the viewer on every level. Fassbender is, of course, wonderful in his role. You can feel the determination of Bobby Sands right through to the end. The raw, brutal and gritty nature of material is almost perfctly presented in Steve McQueens film. The subject matter is difficult and McQueen does a fine job of making that point, even if it is occassionally too slow and narrowly avoids being boring. It is a film that will stay with me for the forseeable future. Yet, despite all of these things, I found the film too relentless and I don't think I will be able to watch it again any time soon.