2007, Joe Wright, 118 mins, DVD, 15 / R
"The Most Nominated Film of the Year" proudly proclaims a sticker on the cover of Atonement's newly released DVD. Well, not quite: according to IMDb, Atonement stands at 68 nominations while No Country For Old Men has made it to a whopping 108! Nonetheless, it's received a near ridiculous amount of acclaim on its way to awards season, and now, having missed it at the cinema, I can finally offer my opinion, just before it does its best to sweep the board at tomorrow's BAFTAs.
There are certainly a lot of things in Atonement that definitely warrant their nominations, and in many cases the award itself would not be badly placed either. James McAvoy gives a strong lead performance (he is, of course, up for Best Actor at the BAFTAs) and even more astounding is 13-year-old Saoirse Ronan as Briony, wise beyond her years as the over-imaginative girl who causes so much misery. In many ways she's the lead character, but as she shares the role with two other, older actresses, it's no surprise she's up for Best Supporting Actress -- she probably stands more of a chance there anyway. She's certainly one to watch, and can next be seen in Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lovely Bones, again as a leading character who'll probably be designated supporting status because she's so young. Keira Knightley's performance, which has earned her a Best Actress nod, is certainly good, but if she wins it'll be the strength of the film as a whole that carries her through against such tough competition. I should also mention the ever-excellent Benedict Cumberbatch, in a role too small to receive much recognition, yet central to the plot and well played.
Elsewhere at the BAFTAs, Atonement's up for a slew of awards I'm not especially qualified to comment on in depth: production design, costume design, make-up & hair, sound, editing... Suffice to say the film looks luscious all round. The cinematography is certainly beautiful, capturing the lazy summer days of 1935 equally as well as the tumultuous wartime vistas. Arguably the stand-out sequence in this respect is the much heralded five-minute shot of the beach at Dunkirk. It's perhaps over-hyped by this point but is still an impressive achievement, if not in the camerawork itself then in the staging of so many consecutive set pieces without a cut.
With all this considered, Joe Wright is a strong contender for Best Director, and also Christopher Hampton for Best Adapted Screenplay. The story jumps back and forth in time, occasionally to slight confusion but always clear enough to follow. The languid first half never drags, and the second half never feels weak despite the essential mystery already being solved. I won't give away too much here, but the ending is also effectively pulled off, and the final twists feel more natural than tricksy. I haven't read the novel so can't compare it to that, but by all accounts it's a very faithful adaptation. The only thing that really bothered me was that the dates didn't seem to add up -- apparently, World War Two had begun three-and-a-half years after the summer of 1935 (more like four-and-a-bit). A couple of other dates are unclear too, but that strikes me as the main one.
To digress to general BAFTA speculation for a bit (as if I haven't already), for the directing win, Wright has to face (amongst others) last year's winner, Paul Greengrass, though as (to my mind) United 93 was a stronger film than The Bourne Ultimatum, I don't see him winning it again. In both of those awards it's up against strong Oscar favourites No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood -- when we've got our own film to praise, I'm not sure they'll be able to stave off Atonement too much. The same goes for Best Film. But then there's always Best British Film. In theory, if Atonement was good enough to take Best Film then it would take this too, but that's often not the way -- in effect, it's a chance to reward two different movies. I can't see Eastern Promises winning, but This is England, Control and The Bourne Ultimatum are all reasonable alternatives. If Atonement wins British Film I won't be expecting it to go on to get Best Film as well. Of course, you can never be sure.
I appreciate this review has (quite deliberately) focused on Atonement's BAFTA chances as much as its own merits, but hopefully that has still illuminated my thoughts on the film. It's a very strong effort from all involved, with an unusually structured but no less engaging plot, beautiful cinematography, nice direction and admirable performances. All round, it's just about enough to warrant 2008's second...
5/5
Showing posts with label '00s films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label '00s films. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 February 2008
Thursday, 7 February 2008
6) Calendar Girls
2003, Nigel Cole, 103 mins, DVD, 12 / PG-13
Helen Mirren and Julie Walters lead a cast of recognisable British actresses in this popular comedy drama about the true story of a group of Women's Institute members who posed nude for a charity calendar. The film could so easily have been quite a lowly, cheap TV movie effort, what with its apparently farcical premise, worthy cause and older characters. But instead the filmmakers have crafted a movie that is both utterly hilarious and deeply moving -- even for this younger male viewer.
Balancing comedy and drama, and making both work, is quite a feat -- as someone once said, most comedy-dramas are so called because they're neither very funny nor very dramatic -- so it's always impressive to see it pulled off so well. It's surprisingly fast-paced, the central story supported by a number of well-chosen subplots that help shed light on the motivations of the women, making them more than just some older ladies who decided to strip off. Penelope Wilton is especially worthy of mention, as the downtrodden housewife who uncovers her husband's affair. Of all the supporting cast she gets probably the largest role, even if it would seem to be the least heralded, and does an excellent job with it.
When I sat down to watch Calendar Girls I was expecting a pleasant bit of fluff that would make a lazy afternoon pass by amiably enough, even if it made an hour-and-three-quarters feel like two-and-a-quarter. I was surprised on most fronts: funnier, pacier, more dramatic, and more affecting than I had any reason to expect. Recommended, especially if you didn't think it was for you.
4/5
Helen Mirren and Julie Walters lead a cast of recognisable British actresses in this popular comedy drama about the true story of a group of Women's Institute members who posed nude for a charity calendar. The film could so easily have been quite a lowly, cheap TV movie effort, what with its apparently farcical premise, worthy cause and older characters. But instead the filmmakers have crafted a movie that is both utterly hilarious and deeply moving -- even for this younger male viewer.
Balancing comedy and drama, and making both work, is quite a feat -- as someone once said, most comedy-dramas are so called because they're neither very funny nor very dramatic -- so it's always impressive to see it pulled off so well. It's surprisingly fast-paced, the central story supported by a number of well-chosen subplots that help shed light on the motivations of the women, making them more than just some older ladies who decided to strip off. Penelope Wilton is especially worthy of mention, as the downtrodden housewife who uncovers her husband's affair. Of all the supporting cast she gets probably the largest role, even if it would seem to be the least heralded, and does an excellent job with it.
When I sat down to watch Calendar Girls I was expecting a pleasant bit of fluff that would make a lazy afternoon pass by amiably enough, even if it made an hour-and-three-quarters feel like two-and-a-quarter. I was surprised on most fronts: funnier, pacier, more dramatic, and more affecting than I had any reason to expect. Recommended, especially if you didn't think it was for you.
4/5
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
4) Churchill: The Hollywood Years
2004, Peter Richardson, 84 mins, TV, 15
What if the Americans made a movie of Winston Churchill's life, prone as they are to re-write World War 2 history to show they won it all by themselves? This is ostensibly the premise of this spoof from some of the team behind Channel 4's The Comic Strip. I say ostensibly, because the film is bookended (for padding, I suspect) with scenes that suggest that the real Churchill was an American GI, and the British simply re-wrote history using a somewhat chubby actor called Roy Bubbles. Sadly, the joke was funnier when it was riffing on those US historical re-writes.
The problem with killing that joke is, it's the best one the film's got. It's also just about suitable for a five-minute comedy sketch, or, at a stretch, a series of sketches. The strategy for drawing this out to movie-length seems to have involved those bookends, as well as bunging some outtakes at the end and including a bunch of ridiculous, irritating, and unfunny subplots with Hitler and his entourage. It's a shame to see the talents of actors such as Antony Sher and Miranda Richardson frittered away on such material.
This is all being a tad harsh, because Churchill actually has its fair share of amusing moments. The supporting cast of British TV comedians are mostly very good, Neve Campbell's posh English accent (usually such a stumbling block for Americans-as-Brits) is as good as anything a British actress could have delivered, and Christian Slater and Romany Malco make for a likable pairing. But, again, most of the best bits are of sketch length, and so wind up spread out among the padding. In that respect it's quite a shame, because there's a good idea, good potential, and some good laughs in here.
2/5
What if the Americans made a movie of Winston Churchill's life, prone as they are to re-write World War 2 history to show they won it all by themselves? This is ostensibly the premise of this spoof from some of the team behind Channel 4's The Comic Strip. I say ostensibly, because the film is bookended (for padding, I suspect) with scenes that suggest that the real Churchill was an American GI, and the British simply re-wrote history using a somewhat chubby actor called Roy Bubbles. Sadly, the joke was funnier when it was riffing on those US historical re-writes.
The problem with killing that joke is, it's the best one the film's got. It's also just about suitable for a five-minute comedy sketch, or, at a stretch, a series of sketches. The strategy for drawing this out to movie-length seems to have involved those bookends, as well as bunging some outtakes at the end and including a bunch of ridiculous, irritating, and unfunny subplots with Hitler and his entourage. It's a shame to see the talents of actors such as Antony Sher and Miranda Richardson frittered away on such material.
This is all being a tad harsh, because Churchill actually has its fair share of amusing moments. The supporting cast of British TV comedians are mostly very good, Neve Campbell's posh English accent (usually such a stumbling block for Americans-as-Brits) is as good as anything a British actress could have delivered, and Christian Slater and Romany Malco make for a likable pairing. But, again, most of the best bits are of sketch length, and so wind up spread out among the padding. In that respect it's quite a shame, because there's a good idea, good potential, and some good laughs in here.
2/5
Friday, 11 January 2008
3) Easy Riders, Raging Bulls
2003, Kenneth Bowser, 113 mins, DVD, 15
Documentary, based on the best-selling acclaimed book by Peter Biskind, about the decade in Hollywood between the death and effective re-birth of the studio system. It's a broad story, with many threads, which means this film has a tendency to sprawl all over the place as it attempts to take an overview of it in chronological order. Consequently it's short on great insight, but does provide an overview of what went on in this period -- that is, the story of how Hollywood made the transition from the old studio system to the era of the blockbuster (a method which still more or less exists), via a brief period where directors truly had auteur-level control.
There are numerous interesting interviewees to help the story along, all of them people who were actually there, who lived through it and helped create it. This makes for a refreshing change, as most documentaries of this ilk seem to be full of film historians and journalists. Of course, there are many big names notable by their absence, so when the film makes its rambling way onto the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg that familiar sense of historic detachment does begin to creep in.
All told, it gives a good overview of the shape of what happened in this period, and how Hollywood became what we know today. Anyone after deeper explorations (of the period, the people, or the films themselves) will want to look elsewhere. I suspect the book may be a good place to start.
3/5
Documentary, based on the best-selling acclaimed book by Peter Biskind, about the decade in Hollywood between the death and effective re-birth of the studio system. It's a broad story, with many threads, which means this film has a tendency to sprawl all over the place as it attempts to take an overview of it in chronological order. Consequently it's short on great insight, but does provide an overview of what went on in this period -- that is, the story of how Hollywood made the transition from the old studio system to the era of the blockbuster (a method which still more or less exists), via a brief period where directors truly had auteur-level control.
There are numerous interesting interviewees to help the story along, all of them people who were actually there, who lived through it and helped create it. This makes for a refreshing change, as most documentaries of this ilk seem to be full of film historians and journalists. Of course, there are many big names notable by their absence, so when the film makes its rambling way onto the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg that familiar sense of historic detachment does begin to creep in.
All told, it gives a good overview of the shape of what happened in this period, and how Hollywood became what we know today. Anyone after deeper explorations (of the period, the people, or the films themselves) will want to look elsewhere. I suspect the book may be a good place to start.
3/5
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
1) The Simpsons Movie
2007, David Silverman, 83 mins, DVD, PG / PG-13
And so 2008 begins with one of last summer's biggest hits: the long-awaited big screen debut of America's most well-known family. I'm not a big Simpsons fan, unlike many film critics it would seem -- I like the show, undoubtedly, but I've never watched it regularly and haven't sat through a whole episode for years (not even the recent-ish Ricky Gervais or Kiefer Sutherland ones).
This might explain why the movie didn't feel tired to me, as some have described it. It might not be laugh-a-minute, and there are some sections where the plot has taken precedence (not always with good reason), but the gag count is nonetheless high and some are genuinely excellent. The plot is suitably epic, mostly justifying the need to be on a big screen at feature length. Some of the subplots feel like episodes of the show, but that's fairly inevitable when converting a format such as this. Everything looks bigger; the quality of the animation is high; and while I'm sure the events will have no lasting impact on the characters, it does feel like a simple TV episode or two wouldn't do it justice.
It may be that The Simpsons Movie wasn't the ground-breaking best-comedy-ever that it needed to be to impress some. But it made me laugh, and often; at least as much as any other recent comedy, if not more so. That makes it a success in my book.
4/5
And so 2008 begins with one of last summer's biggest hits: the long-awaited big screen debut of America's most well-known family. I'm not a big Simpsons fan, unlike many film critics it would seem -- I like the show, undoubtedly, but I've never watched it regularly and haven't sat through a whole episode for years (not even the recent-ish Ricky Gervais or Kiefer Sutherland ones).
This might explain why the movie didn't feel tired to me, as some have described it. It might not be laugh-a-minute, and there are some sections where the plot has taken precedence (not always with good reason), but the gag count is nonetheless high and some are genuinely excellent. The plot is suitably epic, mostly justifying the need to be on a big screen at feature length. Some of the subplots feel like episodes of the show, but that's fairly inevitable when converting a format such as this. Everything looks bigger; the quality of the animation is high; and while I'm sure the events will have no lasting impact on the characters, it does feel like a simple TV episode or two wouldn't do it justice.
It may be that The Simpsons Movie wasn't the ground-breaking best-comedy-ever that it needed to be to impress some. But it made me laugh, and often; at least as much as any other recent comedy, if not more so. That makes it a success in my book.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)