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.

Thor

"Legend tells us one thing; history, another. But, every now and then, we find something that belongs to both"

A thousand years after his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins), king of Asgard defeated the Frost Giants of Jotunheim, his arrogant but powerful son Thor (Chris Hemsworth) returns to take on his father’s old nemesis after an unprovoked attack on Asgard. This is against his father’s will and as a result Thor is cast out of Asgard, losing all of his power and most importantly Mjolnir, his hammer. Landing on Earth, Thor is accidentally run over by scientists Jane (Natalie Portman) and Erik Selvig (Stellen Skarsgard) who are skeptical about his story. Thor must prove his worth to Asgard and protect the Earth from his jealous brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) in order to be able to ascend his father’s throne.

I think that the tone of this film was judged very well. It didn’t take itself too seriously which considering the plot involves caped Viking Gods talking in late Middle English and large blue Frost Giants was a good call. It wasn’t as funny as Iron Man but I laughed several times.

The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo

"Why would they remake something when they can just go see the original?" - Niels Arden Oplev

Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a journalist who works for Millennium Magazine in Sweden. He has recently lost a libel case bought against him by a crooked businessman. Retired businessman Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) asks computer hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to do some background research on Blomkvist before asking the journalist to help him uncover the mystery surrounding his niece’s disappearance in the 1960s. Blomkvist accepts the challenge and begins work on a small island inhabited by many of the Vanger family. Salander, after going through unbelievable hardships is eventually tracked down by Blomkvist and agrees to help him with the case. The two of them attempt to get to the bottom of the mystery but end up uncovering much more.

This is a good film but I have many problems with it. The first and most major problem is that there is no reason for its existence. The novel The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was made into an excellent feature film (review here) in 2009 and this version brings nothing new to the table except that it is in English for all the stupid/lazy tw*ts who can’t be arsed reading subtitles. I do not see the point in making this film other than to fill the pockets of Hollywood and to further dumb down English speaking audiences. It isn’t even as though the Swedish version is difficult to come by. I spotted it in my local HMV for less that £5 just a few days ago. It. Is. Pointless.

Melancholia

Melancholia follows the story of two sisters, Justine (Kirstin Dunst) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) during and shortly after Justine’s wedding. Both, but especially Justine, are suffering from depression which is perhaps being bought on by the fact that the rouge planet Melancholia is on course to come very close to colliding with the Earth.

The film begins with a long sequence of ultra slow motion images that are beautifully framed and shot. While stunning to look at, after a few minutes I did begin to worry if the whole film would be like this and it unfortunately began to remind me of Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life which I really did not get. The remainder of the film is split into two sections, each named after one of the sisters, the first at a wedding and the second shortly after. After the quite wonderful opening sequence I found the cinematography in the rest of the film annoying. Von Trier uses a lot of shaky camera work and at times it is more like a Bourne film than an emotional drama.

Another problem I had with the film was Dunst’s character. While she is excellent in the role and probably the best I’ve ever seen her, I felt that her behaviour at her own wedding was ridiculous. I was surprised that her fiancé Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) would have wanted to marry her in the condition she was in. At the best he should have got her some medical help and at the worst, run a mile. I also found it strange that Dunst was American yet her mother, father and sister were English. It didn’t make much sense and I was confused for the first 45 minutes by who her parents were. I thought that the film on the whole was clunky and like a first draft. There are undoubtedly great moments in there but to me it felt like half a film. I also found it very monotonous. On the plus side, the view of Melancholia as it passed by and approached the Earth was spectacular and stunning.

Considering the last Lars von Trier film I watched, Antichrist had Charlotte Gainsbourg ‘pleasuring’ a man until he bled and then removing her own clitoris, I was hoping for a more enjoyable watch with Melancholia but while Antichrist isn’t an easy watch, I thought it was a better film. I realise I am opening myself up to not getting what von Trier was trying to do and while I do get the idea of depression and someone’s depression destroying the world, I just didn’t think it was dealt with in a satisfying way. The film was confusing and not interesting enough.

6/10