Showing posts with label Nicole Kidman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nicole Kidman. Show all posts

Saturday, 18 January 2014

The Railway Man



The memoir of Eric Lomax, a man held as a Prisoner of War and forced to work on the Thai-Burma railway, had the potential to form the basis of an excellent movie. Unfortunately in the hands of director Jonathan Teplitzky it’s a flaccid hodgepodge of sentimentalism and redemption with an overbearing amount of romance crammed in to satisfy its grey haired target audience. The film goes to great lengths to show the impact that those harrowing years had on the central character but in doing so waters down its effects. Over and over again we are shown Lomax as a reserved, quiet man who is screaming on the inside and the more we see it, the less it holds sway. Instead of focus, Teplitzky meanders through the aging Lomax’s mind, boring his audience when he should be shocking them.

The film works using flashback to show tantalising glimpses as to what happened between 1942 and the end of the war and this is when the film is at its strongest. The numerous scenes in later life do little to add to the story before a terrific climax in which Lomax is reunited with the Japanese soldier who tortured him while a prisoner. The elder Lomax is played by Colin Firth who while always watchable, sometimes looks as though on auto pilot. His younger self is an excellent Jeremy Irvine who captures the mannerisms and speech of his older co-star. The remainder of the film is miscast with a doe eyed and wooden Nicole Kidman as Lomax’s long suffering wife and Stellan Skarsgård as his Swedish sounding superior officer. Skarsgård makes no attempt at affecting an English accent despite the strong and pronounced accent of his younger self (Sam Reid). Tanroh Ishida is capable but hardly threatening as the young Japanese torturer who is played by Hiroyuki Sanada in the later scenes.

Saturday, 15 June 2013

Nine



Nine is a 2009 movie adaptation of a Broadway musical of the same name which was in turn inspired by Federico Fellini’s semi-autobiographical film, . Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a gifted film maker on the cusp of his fiftieth birthday. Struggling for ideas on the back of a series of flops, he flees to a remote health spa and turns to the women in his life for inspiration. The movie is notable for containing several fleeting performances from some of the most beautiful and talented women in Hollywood as well as Kate Hudson. Although poorly received by critics and a certified box office failure, the movie garnered four Academy Award nominations and in my opinion contains some superb cinematography as well as a couple of great performances.

The main problem with the movie for me is that it isn’t . There are a few scenes, especially those featuring Day-Lewis and Penelope Cruz, which look like shot for shot recreations of Fellini’s masterpiece and these bought back happy memories of watching that movie. During a lot of the other scenes I just wished that I was watching Fellini’s film. The problem with making a movie based on such a well respected source is that you’ve got to make it pretty special to make people want to watch yours instead of the film you’re basing your work on. In the case of Nine, it just made me remember how good is.

Sunday, 3 March 2013

Stoker



When I first heard that one of my favourite directors was leaving his native Korea to make an English language film I was excited but also as worried as when I heard Spike Lee was remaking Oldboy. My worry grew when earlier this year Kim Ji-woon’s US debut The Last Stand failed to live up to his back catalogue. In Stoker though, director Park Chan-wook has created a film which I believe can sit happily alongside his previous films. Stoker is unmistakably a Park Chan-wook film and he has lost nothing in translation. It is as dark and stylish as you’d expect from the director of Thirst and I’m a Cyborg and features a typically bold and beautiful colour palate.

Following the death of Richard Stoker, his enigmatic younger brother Charlie (Matthew Goode) comes to stay with his wife Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) and teenage daughter India (Mia Wasikowska). Uncle Charlie was previously unknown to India as he was never mentioned by her father. India is slow to accept Charlie into the family but a tender bond slowly forms between the two cold and indecipherable people. India remains apprehensive though and Charlie’s motives for the sudden visit remain unclear.

Monday, 7 January 2013

Eyes Wide Shut



Completed mere days before his death in 1999, Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut is an erotically charged thriller starring the then married Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Based on the 1926 novella Dream Story by Austrian writer Arthur Schnitzler the plot revolves around a rich New York City doctor Dr. William ‘Bill’ Harford (Cruise) and his wife Alice (Kidman) during a tumultuous few days in their marriage. The sexually charged Bill is accused of flirting and wanting to make love to women at a party and to his patients by his jealous and paranoid wife who then gets upset when her husband tells her that he isn’t the jealous type and trusts her implicitly. She drops a bombshell on Bill who then receives a call to attend to a patient. During the night Bill ventures into the city on a journey of sexual discovery and mystery which leaves him worried for his safety.

Eyes Wide Shut is split into two distinct halves, the first of which is an often explicit tale of sex, debauchery and passion. The second half mostly drops the erotic nature of the story in favour of all out thriller. Both halves were massively tense but equally enjoyable. I thought the film was fantastic and although it could be argued that in the hands of a lesser director and without the A List cast this would end up as a straight to video release, in the capable hands of Kubrick it is a taut and creeping film which I couldn’t take my eyes off.

Monday, 2 April 2012

Happy Feet

2006’s Academy Award for Best Animated Feature winner, Happy Feet is the story of a young Emperor penguin called Mumble (Elijah Wood) who is born with an inability to sing but happens to be a fantastic tap dancer. In the film, a penguin must choose a song to attract a mate so Mumble finds it difficult to fit in. His dancing puts him on the outskirts of penguin society and he eventually leaves his colony in search of aliens (humans) who are stealing his colonies fish. Along the way he meets some Mexican (for some reason) penguins and has an adventure on his way to saving his colony.

For me the film can be viewed in to ways. The first is as a children’s animation and the second is as a contemporary political analogy. As far as being a good children’s film goes, I don’t think it is funny enough and lacks the adventure of the likes of Finding Nemo. The penguins are cute though and it is funny to see a penguin tap dance. I think the film is much more successful in its subtle look at modern political, racial and religious tensions. The film goes to great lengths to have its lead character treat religion as superstitious nonsense which is very brave for a children’s film. Mumble is at logger heads with the religious establishment throughout the film and tries to uncover rational explanations for questions that the rest of the colony attributes to their penguin god. Like the fantastic Wall-E, the film has strong ecological themes. It is a damming study of the problems caused by human activity in and around the Antarctic.


Where the film’s solid political stance falls down is in its racial stereotyping. The only black inspired penguin is portrayed by Robin Williams as a jive-talking religious preacher while Mumble is joined by four Latino inspired penguins that are all party animal, women harassing Adelie penguins. The female Adelie’s are even more stereotypical than the males. I think that this type of stereotyping is lazy at best.

The songs are all fairly modern and well performed and the dancing is funny. Unfortunately, not much else is. The jokes are cheap and fall flat. Also the films central romantic thread feels a bit forgotten. On the plus side the animation looks great. Some scenes look real and the film makes great use of camera angles.

Overall, the film is a bit of a letdown. While I think its attitude towards religion deserves praise and the animation is very good, it is quite boring and not very funny. It has a good idea at its centre and I liked the central character but little else.

5/10