The owner of a magical toy shop decides to pass the trade on to shop manager Molly Mahoney who struggles to accept the responsibility, but in the end, finds the magic touch that sets everything straight again.
It is easy to see why this film is in the shadow of 'The Golden Compass', with its relatively simple storyline and effects, but from the opening credits, this film is captivating and imaginative and a lot of fun. Dustin Hoffman, who plays Mr. Magorian, is as you'd expect, an eccentric and very watchable character.
My favourite character was the young boy Eric, who had a wonderful hat collection. His story is the search for a friend. Henry, the accountant brought in to set all Mr. Magorian's affairs in order, goes through a journey of imaginative awakening.
I found the film very compelling, since there was no doubt about what was going to happen from the start, which focussed the attention on the character's reactions. Musically, the film is absolutely excellent and definitely adds to the excitement and character of the emporium.
Other than a few badly delivered lines and some child-acting, which I'm happy to gloss over, the film's main disappointment came in the final scene. Having been musically and visually excellent and kept the tension high waiting for this moment, it suddenly seemed to come too quickly. I don't want to spoil anything, so if you're thinking of watching the film (and I recommend it), you may want to stop reading.
Molly Mahoney is a musical prodigy, but she is not able to find a finish to her piece, as beautifully as it begins. In the final scene, she is told that she must believe in herself and that is where the special 'sparkle' comes from. I don't like this message, because confidence and ability are different things, but anyway...
As Molly begins to believe in herself, the shop comes to life, and it was exactly the ending to be expected. The problem was that the kids who were in the shop were instantly amazed at everything that was happening in the shop, whereas only two days before, the shop had been doing exactly the same things. The gap between discovering how to run the shop was only two days, which in film terms did not seem long enough. As a result, the ending felt rushed, even though the film hadn't felt long at all.
The other problem with the ending was that the music, I felt, was being drowned out by the visual effects. There was almost too much happening on the screen, so that the amazement of everything was lost. It didn't help that Mahoney was conducting unconvincingly and out of time. I imagine it was a hard scene to shoot, but although separately taken the visual effects, the acting and the music would have been fine, the final effect was not as powerful as I'd been expecting.
Not to take away from how much I enjoyed this film, because I did, and it made the ending so much more disappointing.
Monday 24 December 2007
Friday 12 October 2007
Shaun of the Dead
Shaun and Ed fight zombies for an hour and a half.
A comedy that takes a bit of stomach to enjoy, but contains some great characters and action. Unbelievable and flawed in countless ways, this film looks like it was a lot of fun to make.
Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who had even greater success with ‘Hot Fuzz’ work (/play) well together as a comic team.
I enjoyed two aspects of this film particularly.
Firstly, I love how oblivious Shaun and Ed are to the fact that a devastating plague of zombies is tearing across the world. This rings a bell of truth in my head, since only yesterday, there was a tornado less than 3 miles from my house and the only thing I knew about it was that it was very windy. Zombies are walking around throughout the film before Shaun and Ed even notice – and it’s only when they notice that it becomes a problem. At first, they assume the zombies are simply drunk people – which I suppose is no happy reflection on British culture. It was that irony that got me laughing in a sort of twisted, nervous way. What have I missed?
The second great thing about this film for me was the parallel film that was happening alongside. Shaun passes Yvonne – played by Spaced co-star, Jessica Stevenson at frequent points in the film, always with a sense of awkward recognition. I liked the idea of this cross over between stories of survival.
It made me realise the narrowing effect of films – caring only about a certain story and nothing outside it. I wonder how similar to that we are in the way we think. Are we the protagonists in our life story?
A comedy that takes a bit of stomach to enjoy, but contains some great characters and action. Unbelievable and flawed in countless ways, this film looks like it was a lot of fun to make.
Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who had even greater success with ‘Hot Fuzz’ work (/play) well together as a comic team.
I enjoyed two aspects of this film particularly.
Firstly, I love how oblivious Shaun and Ed are to the fact that a devastating plague of zombies is tearing across the world. This rings a bell of truth in my head, since only yesterday, there was a tornado less than 3 miles from my house and the only thing I knew about it was that it was very windy. Zombies are walking around throughout the film before Shaun and Ed even notice – and it’s only when they notice that it becomes a problem. At first, they assume the zombies are simply drunk people – which I suppose is no happy reflection on British culture. It was that irony that got me laughing in a sort of twisted, nervous way. What have I missed?
The second great thing about this film for me was the parallel film that was happening alongside. Shaun passes Yvonne – played by Spaced co-star, Jessica Stevenson at frequent points in the film, always with a sense of awkward recognition. I liked the idea of this cross over between stories of survival.
It made me realise the narrowing effect of films – caring only about a certain story and nothing outside it. I wonder how similar to that we are in the way we think. Are we the protagonists in our life story?
Twelve Angry Men
Twelve jury members crowded and locked into a room on the hottest day of the year. The decision of whether an 18 year-old lives or dies is left in their hands.
This is a brilliantly simple, brilliantly acted and brilliantly engineered film. It is a court room drama where all the action happens in one location, there is no new evidence thrown in, except what is there to start with. It is a triumph in the examination of human reason.
Henry Fonda fronts the cast and is also the producer. He is surrounded by interesting, quirky and believable characters, each with their own agenda. With a distinguished balance of humour, logic and frustration, the plot unravels in a predictable, but engaging way.
A few moments are a little lack-lustre, but generally, the pace is quick enough so that these moments pass.
There are some beautiful moments of repartee, challenge and powerful silences. It is a treat to watch the changes of heart within each of the characters and to see what the reason is – from the passionate, the apathetic, the unsure, the stubborn and the coldly logical.
Through the dialogue, the film explores prejudice and its influence on persuasion. Masculine pride is at stake and that too is seen as a stumbling block for the truth. In the end however, the truth comes out clearer than day and justice is done.
The close of the film is as captivating as the rest, with a silent exchange between Fonda and his effective antagonist (if he can be called that). The film closes with the first naming of a character and only the fourth change of scenery.
The simplicity of this film is a wake-up call to the writers of blockbusters and is an encouragement to anyone interested in writing that it is possible to write a compelling film which is all contained in one space. I thoroughly recommend you have a look at this 1957 all-time classic.
This is a brilliantly simple, brilliantly acted and brilliantly engineered film. It is a court room drama where all the action happens in one location, there is no new evidence thrown in, except what is there to start with. It is a triumph in the examination of human reason.
Henry Fonda fronts the cast and is also the producer. He is surrounded by interesting, quirky and believable characters, each with their own agenda. With a distinguished balance of humour, logic and frustration, the plot unravels in a predictable, but engaging way.
A few moments are a little lack-lustre, but generally, the pace is quick enough so that these moments pass.
There are some beautiful moments of repartee, challenge and powerful silences. It is a treat to watch the changes of heart within each of the characters and to see what the reason is – from the passionate, the apathetic, the unsure, the stubborn and the coldly logical.
Through the dialogue, the film explores prejudice and its influence on persuasion. Masculine pride is at stake and that too is seen as a stumbling block for the truth. In the end however, the truth comes out clearer than day and justice is done.
The close of the film is as captivating as the rest, with a silent exchange between Fonda and his effective antagonist (if he can be called that). The film closes with the first naming of a character and only the fourth change of scenery.
The simplicity of this film is a wake-up call to the writers of blockbusters and is an encouragement to anyone interested in writing that it is possible to write a compelling film which is all contained in one space. I thoroughly recommend you have a look at this 1957 all-time classic.
The Bourne Ultimatum
Jason Bourne back to tear up the CIA’s corrupt fat cats in a masterfully-made, exquisitely written trequel. Tense from first to last, it is possible to take in about three breaths of air in the whole film. The stunts, which in themselves are breath-taking, are backed up by a thoroughly intriguing plot. Visually stunning – the camera-work always keeps the eye moving and dialogue is exchanged with a pace and wit that sets the adrenaline racing.
The villains were frightening – from the blood hungry CIA director to the brutally efficient assassination machines, called ‘assets’. The assets looked a threat to Bourne, even out-smarting him, their dead gazes reminiscent of Bourne’s dogged hunting look throughout. Strangely, you felt the similarity between both men, and wished that they would meet up for a coffee and exchange thoughts. The assets were most frightening because they were as extreme as Bourne, ready to die for the cause, without asking why.
Perhaps the most thrilling part of the film is the three-part chase, in which Moroccan police chase Bourne, Bourne chases hardcore assassin and hardcore assassin chases fine young thing (played by Julia Stiles). The chases converge in a brutal exchange of martial arts ending in a trickle of blood. It is a choking moment.
From a writer’s point of view, this film was exemplary – with a combination of complicated, but well explained plot, great exchanges and classy little moments where you lean back in your chair and just whisper to yourself, ‘genius’. To keep this up for three films (or novels) takes writing of a unique calibre.
As usual, some of the subtleties that took my fancy. I loved the way a question would be planted in your mind – why is she breaking her phone up? Why did he call the police? How are they going to find him? These mini-mysteries within the plot are compelling in the moment they appear and give thinking on a whole other level. As a spectator you are left second-guessing (speculating spectacularly falsely) the whole time.
The ongoing themes - of names, and a search for identity – add depth to this film that many action films lack. Bourne struggles (on a more extreme level than most of us) with identity, the importance of a background, a foundation. Bourne’s last line – ‘do you even know why you’re supposed to kill me?’ raises questions of conscience, responsibility and purpose. Would you kill if you told it would be killing a serious threat to your nation?
Rounding off how thoroughly this film was entrenched with wit: two lines spoken by the villain – ‘you can’t make this stuff up’ and ‘you can’t try and second guess this’ seem to me like the proverbial silk toilet roll.
The villains were frightening – from the blood hungry CIA director to the brutally efficient assassination machines, called ‘assets’. The assets looked a threat to Bourne, even out-smarting him, their dead gazes reminiscent of Bourne’s dogged hunting look throughout. Strangely, you felt the similarity between both men, and wished that they would meet up for a coffee and exchange thoughts. The assets were most frightening because they were as extreme as Bourne, ready to die for the cause, without asking why.
Perhaps the most thrilling part of the film is the three-part chase, in which Moroccan police chase Bourne, Bourne chases hardcore assassin and hardcore assassin chases fine young thing (played by Julia Stiles). The chases converge in a brutal exchange of martial arts ending in a trickle of blood. It is a choking moment.
From a writer’s point of view, this film was exemplary – with a combination of complicated, but well explained plot, great exchanges and classy little moments where you lean back in your chair and just whisper to yourself, ‘genius’. To keep this up for three films (or novels) takes writing of a unique calibre.
As usual, some of the subtleties that took my fancy. I loved the way a question would be planted in your mind – why is she breaking her phone up? Why did he call the police? How are they going to find him? These mini-mysteries within the plot are compelling in the moment they appear and give thinking on a whole other level. As a spectator you are left second-guessing (speculating spectacularly falsely) the whole time.
The ongoing themes - of names, and a search for identity – add depth to this film that many action films lack. Bourne struggles (on a more extreme level than most of us) with identity, the importance of a background, a foundation. Bourne’s last line – ‘do you even know why you’re supposed to kill me?’ raises questions of conscience, responsibility and purpose. Would you kill if you told it would be killing a serious threat to your nation?
Rounding off how thoroughly this film was entrenched with wit: two lines spoken by the villain – ‘you can’t make this stuff up’ and ‘you can’t try and second guess this’ seem to me like the proverbial silk toilet roll.
The Princess Bride
Tongue-in-cheek fantasy fairy tale adventure with a touch of class. Princess Buttercup is rescued from a horrific looking marriage to the one she loves while a sick boy comes to appreciate his grandfather a little more.
This film began in a cleverer way than it continued. The three different tests – of sword play, strength and brains – stood out in conforming to the fairy tale medium. I particularly enjoyed the third test, which is a fiendishly good idea, (without giving too much away).
After this, I felt that the film changed in how the story came across, to become much more self-aware and ironic than it had been. This was still entertaining, but in a more slap stick way.
Inigo Montoya is one of the most likeable characters I have seen in a film and like others who have watched the film, I found the interjections from the little boy occasionally annoying and occasionally excellent.
Cameos from Billy Crystal, Peter Cook, Mel Smith and in particular Carol Kane add an energy and humour to the action that make the film a gem.
This film began in a cleverer way than it continued. The three different tests – of sword play, strength and brains – stood out in conforming to the fairy tale medium. I particularly enjoyed the third test, which is a fiendishly good idea, (without giving too much away).
After this, I felt that the film changed in how the story came across, to become much more self-aware and ironic than it had been. This was still entertaining, but in a more slap stick way.
Inigo Montoya is one of the most likeable characters I have seen in a film and like others who have watched the film, I found the interjections from the little boy occasionally annoying and occasionally excellent.
Cameos from Billy Crystal, Peter Cook, Mel Smith and in particular Carol Kane add an energy and humour to the action that make the film a gem.
The Last Blood Diamond of Scotland
Blood Diamond
Leonardo DiCaprio’s accent manages not to spoil a hard-hitting, shocking film that is anything but a comfortable watch.
Diamond smuggler Danny Archer crosses paths with Solomon Vandy, who has found a rare diamond. The action takes place in Sierra Leone, during a civil war between the government and the R.U.F. It would be interesting to know how much of this film was based on a true story.
It is difficult to watch children with guns mowing down streets full of ordinary undefended people. It is difficult as well to hear them swearing and using the kind of language of ghetto America and dirty hip hop. The shock of the film lies in how boys have their hands cut off, are turned against their parents and injected with drugs.
There is a great sense of reconciliation at the end. Danny changes, realising the value of life being more than money, but beauty as well. Solomon gets his family, in full, safe and receives a standing ovation for his bravery and values. Maddie gets her story and it has a huge impact.
Yet, this glamorised ending leaves me feeling a little uneasy. The film ends saying there are 200,000 child soldiers in Africa. There seems to be, if not a happy ending, some sort of resolution to this film. This seems to go against the whole direction of the film, with biting satire on those who are only involved for their own personal gain, and those who, perhaps more damningly, are not involved at all. The worst dismissal is aimed at those who see it and yet do nothing. Seeing ‘Blood Diamond’, we are challenged to seek good people in this world, and see that we fall very short.
This is not a bleak film – it is sewn through with hope. This hope swings on Danny Archer’s change of heart– a realignment of his view – and one which costs him everything. Choices he did not want to make turn out well.
Having said this, this is perhaps the most shockingly realistic portrayal of human character I have seen in a major film. Human’s are not inherently good or bad, according to this film. The worst part is that we are bit of both and when the bad comes out, it is too destructive for words. What lingers is the stark reality – This is real life, this is the world we live in, This Is Africa.
The Last King of Scotland
A young graduate doctor goes to Uganda in search of adventure. He is appointed to a position within the government of the likeable, yet terrifying Ugandan president, Idi Amin. I think this film is better than Blood Diamond.
Cut off from the atrocities that Amin is committing, the growing uncertainty in Dr. Nicholas Garrigan’s mind is compelling, particularly to an audience already in the know. About halfway through the film, there is a total change in atmosphere, where previously everything has been hidden, suddenly we are shown horrendous murders and brutal activity. The whole film turns on its head. It is as if to say, ‘is it ok - if you suspect this is happening, but haven’t seen it - simply to ignore it?’
Amin is presented in a fearsome light – completely changeable in mood. One second he will call a man his friend, the next his paranoia will bring him into an insane rage. He is unpredictable, great to watch, yet at the same time, it is sobering to think that the facts that this film is based on are real lives brutally disposed of.
I was disappointed to discover that James McAvoy’s character Dr Garrigan is fictional. The main appeal of this film, I think, comes from the insight into an African dictator’s mind. Without the realism in this, it becomes a fiction. The weight of this film is, for me, entirely what is real about it, what actually happened.
Shocking and disturbing (particularly, Amin’s punishment for his unfaithful wife), this film leaves a spectator feeling pretty helpless – as if all you can do is watch. Probably, satisfyingly from the director’s point of view, it leaves you asking, ‘what can we do?’
Leonardo DiCaprio’s accent manages not to spoil a hard-hitting, shocking film that is anything but a comfortable watch.
Diamond smuggler Danny Archer crosses paths with Solomon Vandy, who has found a rare diamond. The action takes place in Sierra Leone, during a civil war between the government and the R.U.F. It would be interesting to know how much of this film was based on a true story.
It is difficult to watch children with guns mowing down streets full of ordinary undefended people. It is difficult as well to hear them swearing and using the kind of language of ghetto America and dirty hip hop. The shock of the film lies in how boys have their hands cut off, are turned against their parents and injected with drugs.
There is a great sense of reconciliation at the end. Danny changes, realising the value of life being more than money, but beauty as well. Solomon gets his family, in full, safe and receives a standing ovation for his bravery and values. Maddie gets her story and it has a huge impact.
Yet, this glamorised ending leaves me feeling a little uneasy. The film ends saying there are 200,000 child soldiers in Africa. There seems to be, if not a happy ending, some sort of resolution to this film. This seems to go against the whole direction of the film, with biting satire on those who are only involved for their own personal gain, and those who, perhaps more damningly, are not involved at all. The worst dismissal is aimed at those who see it and yet do nothing. Seeing ‘Blood Diamond’, we are challenged to seek good people in this world, and see that we fall very short.
This is not a bleak film – it is sewn through with hope. This hope swings on Danny Archer’s change of heart– a realignment of his view – and one which costs him everything. Choices he did not want to make turn out well.
Having said this, this is perhaps the most shockingly realistic portrayal of human character I have seen in a major film. Human’s are not inherently good or bad, according to this film. The worst part is that we are bit of both and when the bad comes out, it is too destructive for words. What lingers is the stark reality – This is real life, this is the world we live in, This Is Africa.
The Last King of Scotland
A young graduate doctor goes to Uganda in search of adventure. He is appointed to a position within the government of the likeable, yet terrifying Ugandan president, Idi Amin. I think this film is better than Blood Diamond.
Cut off from the atrocities that Amin is committing, the growing uncertainty in Dr. Nicholas Garrigan’s mind is compelling, particularly to an audience already in the know. About halfway through the film, there is a total change in atmosphere, where previously everything has been hidden, suddenly we are shown horrendous murders and brutal activity. The whole film turns on its head. It is as if to say, ‘is it ok - if you suspect this is happening, but haven’t seen it - simply to ignore it?’
Amin is presented in a fearsome light – completely changeable in mood. One second he will call a man his friend, the next his paranoia will bring him into an insane rage. He is unpredictable, great to watch, yet at the same time, it is sobering to think that the facts that this film is based on are real lives brutally disposed of.
I was disappointed to discover that James McAvoy’s character Dr Garrigan is fictional. The main appeal of this film, I think, comes from the insight into an African dictator’s mind. Without the realism in this, it becomes a fiction. The weight of this film is, for me, entirely what is real about it, what actually happened.
Shocking and disturbing (particularly, Amin’s punishment for his unfaithful wife), this film leaves a spectator feeling pretty helpless – as if all you can do is watch. Probably, satisfyingly from the director’s point of view, it leaves you asking, ‘what can we do?’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
