Seven Pounds

Will Smith is Ben Thomas the IRS agent with the power to dramatically alter the lives of seven people. Thomas whose intentions are not made clear until as late as possible in the film behaves in an unpredictable and secretive way throughout the film. As it seems to be frowned upon to reveal the "twist" of the film, I won't do that. But, then there is not much framework to build a review on.

I think there is an unwitting pun in Will Smith's ability to alter the lives of seven people "dramatically," because from start to finish, the film is set to look like a thriller, unnecessarily. I feel that without the elaborate way the story is told, there is enough emotional strength in the idea to keep the film going. I also feel that the trailers gave me an expectation that there would be seven stories tied together, but in the end it was one story with seven elements to it, the biggest being the final revelation.

The film explores a karma-based worldview and the idea of meriting good and having to make up for evil. Firstly, the guilt and remorse which drives Smith's character and his desire to make amends for his past. Secondly, Smith weighs up whether someone is good enough before he does his act of kindness to them. Do people have to deserve kindness? Smith seems to make an exception when it comes to giving his heart to a woman.

Overall, I was not very satisfied with this film and thought it overly tense to the detriment of the real emotional struggle which could be explored. Although I generally like the style of telling a story in a different order, I think this film, (like Slumdog Millionaire) did not benefit from the way it was advertised.

Plot Spoiler Warning:

It's extreme organ doning basically, isn't it?

Dead Poets' Society

Robin Williams stars in one of his best roles as he guides a group of teenage public school students towards exploring issues of free-thinking against a rigorous and constrictively traditional school system. Williams plays the poet and teacher, John Keating, whose ideas revolutionise the way the young boys think about school, about girls and about life.

The boys in Keating’s English class sneak out at night to entertain themselves with a secret poetry society in full boyish rebellion. This very emotive and powerful film follows the journey of one boy in particular, Neil Perry and his relationship with his demanding, military minded, but well-meaning father. As Perry begins to find a passion in acting, one of which his father heavily disapproves, the tension in their relationship drives him to suicide.

As well as showcasing some excellent poetry (a lost art), the film raises questions about the value of tradition, how open-minded teenagers should be allowed to be, and parental tension, which are penetrating and relevant twenty years on from the production of this film. At some points, a viewer sides with Keating in his enjoyable breaking of the endless meter of living up to parental expectations. At others, however, when Keating’s attempts to broaden their horizons leads them to reckless behaviour, questions are raised about how to balance teaching open-mindedness without restricting and repressing the boys, yet helping them to see the consequences of their actions.

A memorable scene shows the English class in a beautiful courtyard and three of them are asked to walk around. They eventually end up marching in exact step with one another, the whole class clapping along. The film at this point raises the question, why do we take our cue from everyone else? Why not forge our own path?

Yet, the individualistic message of Keating’s questions, leads to insensitivity towards the traditions of the school and, although the teachers are shown up as enjoying the authority a little too much and being disconnected with the boys they are teaching, the real question we are left with, as Neil Perry is found shot in his father’s study, how can we balance these two worldviews? Can we please everyone? Should we do what feels good? How do we live in a system we disagree with?

As a final comment, I think we are ‘supposed’ to side with Keating and his anti-authoritarian free-thinking. But the film does very well not to suppose that too strongly.

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight

The comic book hero is given a more realistic and darker, in his journey to become a symbol of hope in Gotham City’s streets and then to take on the role of villain. He faces psychotic anarchic villains ‘The Scarecrow’ and ‘Joker’ both of whom are unnerving 100% of the time.

I was going to combine the two films in one review, but I think, as good as Batman Begins was, its longer and higher budget sequel ‘The Dark Knight’, with its questions about humanity and standing up for good, has eclipsed its younger brother. Jim Gordon talks at the end of ‘Batman Begins’ about escalation of crime – if police carry guns, criminals need bigger guns. That principle is applied to ‘The Dark Knight’, which, I think, is the first sequel I’ve seen to top its prequel.

Whereas Batman Begins is all about the performance of Christian Bale, ‘The Dark Knight’ adds Heath Ledger’s brilliance to an all-star cast and produces a gem. If you haven’t seen it yet, try and see it before they stop showing it at the cinema. It is utterly breath-taking. The music by Hans Zimmer keeps you on edge the whole way. Rightly I think, my friend questioned whether the film should be a 12A, so if you’re not 12 yet or thinking of taking a young person, be warned.

Heath Ledger, who shockingly died as a result of the medication he took during the film, performed stunningly. I have to admit, I thought people were saying that just because he’d died, but I was blown away. It was partly the make up, partly the cold look in his eyes, but right down to the repetition of his victim’s words as he filmed them reading out a speech, he was the creepiest villain I’ve seen. The Joker’s design, to turn Gotham upside down is seen best in two brilliant examples of ‘social experimentation.’ [Plot Spoiler Warning]

Firstly, he gives Batman the choice of saving Rachel or saving Dent. Batman chooses Rachel and ends up saving Dent. That is sick! But not as sick as the choice he gives two boats – one of convicts and the other of ‘ordinary innocent civilians’ – destroy the other and live, or both wait till midnight and die. My favourite moment in the film was the big black prisoner facing up to the guard and taking the detonator say ‘I’ll do what you should have done 10 minutes ago’ and throwing the detonator out of the window. That was sweet! (I actually punched the air, which was a new experience to me in the cinema.) The other boat was left to a democracy, in which three quarters of the people wanted something, but (in this case, thankfully) nobody went through with it. This boat speaks volumes about a passive democracy that expects everything to be done by the government they elected. It also shows that, just because it is the majority feeling, that does not make a feeling right, nor does it make the feeling effective. The ship of fools has long been an image in satire – but here the fools wise up and, make the right choice.

The film’s message was overall very positive. Down to the shockingly loud sound of the guns, there was a feeling that to kill someone is something not to be taken lightly and it is a victory when someone is given the choice to leave someone alive and chooses to do so. Batman particularly shows this, with multiple opportunities to make the film an hour shorter, he decides not to kill the Joker. At other points we wonder why they don’t just kill the villains – it would make it easier. But I think that showed me my mindset towards onscreen killing most clearly and so I am grateful to the director for that.

Again, there is so much more that I would like to say – about both films. But one last nod in the direction of Heath Ledger. I think he has raised the bar for villains in these films. He is colder and more calculating, yet faster and more unpredictable than any I have seen. All other villains will be measured against the psychotic character that even killed him for a very long time to come.

The Pursuit of Happyness

Will Smith plays a down and out portable osteo-density scanner salesman turned multi-millionaire, starring alongside his adorable son.

This film is another opportunity for Will Smith to shine. He is one of the best actors and potentially the most magnetic screen presence about today. From the tinkling piano music that opens the film, you can tell exactly the type of feel the film was going for – based on a true story – man strives after American dream –at great cost - against the odds – comes good in the end – with plenty of speeches and powerful emotive scenes – like Patch Adams. And the director did it perfectly, if you like that sort of thing, even throwing in a few cute knock knock jokes and a commentary on the American constitution.

I think I would put myself in the camp of ‘I like this sort of thing’. Although it’s easy to be cynical about it after the time, I found myself thoroughly on Will Smith’s side (except when he didn’t pay the taxi fare). Disaster after disaster mounts against him, even though you know he’ll make it, we are put through the mill emotionally as we watch the film.

Dan Castelaneta, best known as the voice of Homer Simpson, I think, plays an excellent cameo role, though I enjoyed the fact that this was what Homer Simpson really looks like.

The message the film gave me left me a little dissatisfied. On the one hand, there was the fatherly role, with Gardner (Smith) determined ‘that his son would know his father’, together with his tenacity and hard work. However, the goal in the film seems to be money almost more than relationships and although Gardner succeeds, there seems to be a lot of other people in the film who are in desperate need of help and have no way out. Perhaps though that is the appeal of the film – the majority of people are looking for the lucky break, frustrated and waiting for it to happen. Perhaps, the film says…perhaps your time will come. Hold on and believe in yourself! (Incidentally, I disagree – if you need help in anyway, visiting a local church is a good way to find a supporting community of people.)

The Painted Veil

A hastily married couple face up to their differences against the backdrop of a 1920s cholera epidemic in China.

Edward Norton and Naomi Watts produce and act in this period drama about reconciliation of the two protagonists. This film, which is based on the novel by W. Somerset Maugham is an emotionally powerful film exploring human relationships with each other and with God. The cholera epidemic adds an edge to the drama which revolves around the desire for forgiveness.

I loved the way this film built up the relationship between Norton and Watts. Norton is a notable absentee in much of the film, which follows Kitty’s (Watt’s) loneliness and feeling of utter helplessness. We are prepared for a tragic ending throughout the film, hoping for the husband and wife to forgive their differences. A glimmer of hope is offered, but very quickly eclipsed as a fresh wave of cholera patients arrive at the town.

The tension of colonial authority is another issue that dances around the fringe of this film. Though it is not fully developed, the comment by a Chinese soldier – ‘I would feel differently about you if your guns were not pointed at my people’ is one of the most poignant and resonant in the film. There seems to be a detachment between the actions of the democratically elected government and the individual.

The way tragedy is piled up in the film is the only question I have about whether I enjoyed the film or not. As I mentioned before, one glimmer of hope is very quickly extinguished and a seeming reconciliation is tainted by the inability to enjoy it. It is not a dissatisfying ending, but, in my opinion, if there had been a longer scene expressing the delight of the villagers at their salvation, the tragedy would not have felt so spliced in.

There is a lot more that I would like to say about this film, and I may write again another time, but for now, the last thing to briefly mention is the final scene, which I thought had a touch of class. I enjoyed the way it slickly showed through revisiting a past acquaintance, how Kitty had changed totally through her experience.

Mamma Mia

A young girl invites her three potential fathers to her wedding, hoping her real father will give her away. Based on the hit West End musical based on Abba’s hits before it.

This film, it goes without saying, could have gone without seeing. I took my seat as one of five-seven blokes in the cinema (you can’t be too sure in the dark) and sat through the whole thing, which had its moments, but generally left me cringing throughout. Part of the point in fact was to have characters ridiculously bursting into song, and backing singers appearing from nowhere to enter the fray. Some songs were good, Meryl Streep and Julie Walters produce great performances (on the whole), but I feel the film could have been done better. Sometimes even Streep looked like she was in attacks of spasms, but may be that was dancing.

I don’t want to be horrible about the film, because it’s easy (in this case more than others), so what I would say is that it looked a lot of fun. If I were a multi-million pound actor, I would probably have agreed to be in this film. But would have regretted it later.

The Darjeeling Limited

Three brothers meet a year after their father’s funeral to go on a spiritual journey together to find their mother who has become a nun in the Himalaya’s.

I watched this film with my brother and neither of us were particularly sure what to think about it. The Darjeeling, starring Adrian Brody and Owen Wilson, also has cameo roles from Bill Murray (in a fantastic scene at the start) and Natalie Portman. While Portman’s role is unnecessary, in my opinion, it raises questions about the ironic self-awareness of the film, which effectively involves three brothers carting their baggage around India before leaving it behind, joined together again.

The way the film was shot as well as the repetition and echoes in the film betrayed the fact that a lot of hard thought and preparation had gone into how the Darjeeling was structured. Generally, I came away with the feeling however, that I was supposed to like the film because it was clever and made me laugh in a few places, but that I was supposed to enjoy it grudgingly as I searched for hidden meaning within it.

The film explores brotherhood – Owen Wilson playing a dominating role which echoes their mother later on, Adrian Brody hoarding their Dad’s old things, the passing back and forth of a belt as a present – and the healing power of communication and simply being together without words. Some of the more poignant details are when the brothers seem to find more sense of fulfilment by shopping for ridiculous paraphernalia in the market place and swapping drugs than in the temples and shrines. While praying in ‘one of the holiest places in the world,’ the youngest brother asks the oldest ‘is it working?’ to receive the reply, ‘it has to be’.

I don’t know what values this film was advocating, if any. Perhaps that is the riddle of it. Certainly brotherhood seems to be the key to unravelling the film’s complexity. If I’m honest though, Adrian Brody put in the only performance that I enjoyed, and I never really felt that the three were brothers. Despite many memorable moments, I was not very interested in the development of the relationships – perhaps it was too clinical and structured, or perhaps I missed what the writer was on about. In fact come to think of it, that is the overriding feeling you get at the end of the Darjeeling; a feeling that you have no idea what the writer was getting at.