The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

(Image from IMP Awards)


The Adjustment Bureau
Romance and sci-fi are not genres that sit well together very often, so chalk this one up as one of those rare exceptions. Based on a Phillip K Dick short story, it tells the story of a an impulsive politician, David Norris (Matt Damon), who on the eve of losing a Senatorial election meets a woman, Elise (Emily Blunt), in the men's (!) while rehearsing his concession speech. The two hit it off immediately and the inspired Norris subsequently knocks his speech out of the park.

Turns out this wasn't all random chance. A secret organisation of what appear to be angels are actually pulling the strings and directing the fate of mankind, including Norris's. His meeting with Elise was orchestrated. Unfortunately this 'Adjutsment Bureau' aren't perfect and a second unplanned encounter between the two puts their grand plans for Norris in jeopardy as the pair threaten to fall in love and alter their destinies.

The film is part romance and part sci-fi thriller, and while it never gets your pulse pounding it does tell its story very well. Much has been said by critics about how well Damon and Blunt play off each other, and it's true, they do - this seems to be half the battle in any kind of on screen love story, and in this the two make a believable pairing - helped along by some decent writing - which makes their dilemmas and choices feel earned instead of contrived. Damon's the star and his affable demeanor helps sell the premise together with the very capable supporting cast of agents/angels played by Anthony Mackie, the ever icy Terence Stamp and scene stealer John Slattery.

In an era of bigger is better blockbusters, Adjustment Bureau is defiantly low key. It never gets bogged down in its grand themes of fate vs free will (though it does raise the issues) and instead focuses on the characters. Nor does it try to be large scale in terms of action or effects, though there are very effective action sequences and some wonderfully understated effects. The mechanics of the Bureau are only explained as far as is necessary for the plot, and to be honest I never felt the need for any further explanation.

This isn't going to go down as a classic, but it achieves what it sets out to do very well. It's entertaining and charming and funny, and despite there never being a genuine sense of danger in the story it manages to remain consistently engaging and even somewhat thought provoking at times. I enjoyed it and it's definitely worth a watch, even for those without an inclination towards science fiction.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)

(Image from Wikipedia)


Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)

This film is probably more famous for what it's about than for being a classic of cinema. And that's probably because it ain't all that great a film. The story in a nutshell - Matt and Christina Drayton (Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn) are a well off liberal married couple whose daughter Joey (Katherine Houghton) surprises them by bringing home a black man she intends to marry, Dr. John Prentice (Sydney Poitier). The parents are forced to confront their own, probably subconscious and unacknowledged racial bias while coming to terms with their daughter's whirlwind romance and the consequences an inter-racial marriage might have for the entire family. The film is basically a talky drama where the characters awkwardly discuss the situation and all of its ramifications as the parents try to decide whether they can give their blessing.

It's an interesting film, one that touches on many of the race issues that were (and are, I suppose) prevalent at the time. The problem is how obvious and unsubtle the film is, verbalizing its ideas in a didactic manner that borders on patronizing. Subtle the script ain't, and it's a testament to the film's powerhouse stars that they managed to allay its failings and elevate the film into something that commands one's attention. While all of the characters are given a fair amount of personality, in the case of daughter Joey her overly overt sweetness and naivety starts to grate after a while.

My main qualm with the film is the way it stacks the odds in favour of its argument before arriving at an ending that, despite all of the hand wringing by the characters, is a foregone conclusion. Consider that the character of Dr. John Prentice is so impossibly awesome and decent that he beggars belief; black or not, the guy's a hell of a catch by any standard. And this is the part that bugs me - it's like the film is saying "look, this guy's black but he's also an incredible human being, alright?" What if he hadn't been such a great guy, would he have somehow been less acceptable to Joey's parents? Now that would have been an interesting scenario! I get that part of what the film is saying is that, despite how great Dr. Prentice is the parents are still filled with doubt, but I think this aspect of the story winds up being a betrayal of the broader theme of racial equality. It's like Dr. Prentice is acceptable because he's exceptional.

The other thing that bugs me is how the parents sit around contemplating the race issue while ignoring the more salient fact that their daughter is about to marry someone she's just met, a notion that would concern parents in the real world, especially ones who have children as seemingly naive as Joey.

Ultimately 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' is a decent enough film with a message that it delivers very clearly, but with little subtlety or intelligence. Definitely worth watching at least for its historical significance and for the central performances, but don't expect to be blown away or have your world view shaken, as the film really is unquestionably a product of its time.

The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

(Image from IMP Awards)


The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

Michael Mann seems like a strange director to be associated with this film - his filmography veers strongly towards contemporary dramas and thrillers that have a very modern aesthetic. The man is, however, flexible enough to step outside that zone, as 'The Last of the Mohicans' ably demonstrates.

Set during the 18th Century 'French and Indian War' in North America, the story is quite lean. The English are fighting the French who are allied with several Indian tribes, and they enlist the help of the American colonists to fight with them; this requires that the colonists leave their families exposed to raids by the Indians allied to the French while they go off to the front lines. Hawkeye (Daniel Day-Lewis), Chingachgook (Russel Means), and Uncas (Eric Schweig) are the last of an Indian tribe called the Mohicans who refuse to get involved with the war but are inadvertently caught up in events when they rescue a British Colonel's (Maurice Roëves) two daughters, Cora (Madeleine Stowe) and Alice (Jodhi May) Munro, from a Huron Indian attack. It turns out that a Huron man named Magua (Wes Studi) has sworn to take vengeance on Colonel Munro and his children. As a romantic relationship develops between Hawkeye and Cora, the three Mohicans find themselves guiding and protecting the two women and a British officer, Maj. Duncan Heyward (Steven Waddington), from Magua.

Simple enough, but it makes for a relentlessly thrilling adventure film with a touch of romance set against a well flushed out historical backdrop. The historical aspects are deftly interwoven into the story without ever overriding it, which allows the film to work as purely an adventure even though there is much to appreciate with respect to the military conflict, American colonial life, and the native Indians and their uneasy relationships with the foreign settlers. The script presents these aspects quite neatly and the film is well paced, providing some excitement right from the opening scenes and only slowing down for brief periods. The dialogue is a little weak at times and it sounds very awkward initially but seems to click after a while (or perhaps I just got used to it). The production values are quite excellent, and Mann stages the film as a grand war epic complete with a fort under siege, a large scale battle (keeping in mind that this was in the pre-Gladiator / Braveheart days), several skirmishes, and a lot of running through stunning landscapes (some of this reminded me of The Two Towers)! The action isn't as intense and brutal as some newer films, but the set pieces are still very impressively executed, with the leads in particular being convincing in the action department.

Russel Means and Eric Schweig have little in the way of dialogue and are really supporting players, but they deliver pretty strong performances nonetheless, with their characters being defined as stoic, devoted, and lethal; both performances are defined mostly by physicality. Daniel Day-Lewis is, unsurprisingly, excellent even when he just seems to be posing in statuesque positions for the camera. Hawkeye is noble and decent, but can also be a complete badass when the situation calls for it. Physically he's more than a match for his two fellow 'Mohicans', but as is always the case with Day-Lewis the character appears to have depths only hinted at in the script. One of the weaknesses of the script is the romance, which is severely undercooked, but Day-Lewis and the stunning Madeline Stowe make it convincing. Stowe's Cora is that slightly modern period character who often seems jarringly contemporary and out of place, but here it works and she comes across as tenacious and strong willed without any of that forced female empowerment nonsense. As Cora's sister Jodhi May is, like the other Mohicans, mostly quiet and in the sidelines but makes a decent enough impression as the more fragile of the two women. Wes Studi is terrific as the hellbent Magua, cutting a striking, frightening figure obsessed with vengeance. Also pretty good are Steven Waddington as Maj. Heyward, Maurice Roëves as Colonel Munro, and Patrice Chéreau as the noble French General Montcalm.

All in all 'The Last of the Mohicans' is an adventure film that is surprisingly action heavy but one that still delivers on all fronts. It's an engaging, exciting historical epic that is rousing and propulsive right up to its somewhat melancholy finale. Strangely it seems to be a tad underrated if the IMDB consensus is anything to go by, but that shouldn't put anyone off watching what is an excellent cinematic experience.

* Edited to add - I forgot to mention the magnificent score by Trevor Jones and Randy Edelman, which includes a stirring and memorable main theme (which is, understandably, a little overused).

The Hidden Blade (2004)

(Image from IMDB)


The Hidden Blade (2004)

Yoji Yamada's follow up to The Twilight Samurai is similar in many many ways, but still offers enough that is new, and perhaps more importantly, enough in the way of quality, to make it worth watching. As with its spiritual predecessor, 'The Hidden Blade' is a Samurai drama that takes place in 19th century Japan. It tells the story of a low ranking 'working class' Samurai, Katagiri (Masatoshi Nagase), who following the death of his mother, the marriage of his sister, and the departure of the servant girl Kie (Takako Matsu), lives alone in his family house. It is a time of social change; the Japanese are embracing Western warfare techniques, and the Samurai of Katagiri's town are forced to learn the way of the rifle. There is also unrest, and Katagiri's loyalty is put to the test when an old friend is caught rebelling. Offsetting his troubles is Kie, whom he rescues from an abusive family and once again employs as his servant. Despite enjoying her company and having strong affections for her, their relationship is tinged with hopelessness because their caste differences will never allow them to be together.

I recall someone calling these Yamada films "Samurai stories as Jane Austen might have written them". Whoever said it wasn't far off the mark! There is one terrific fight sequence in this, and an interesting scene where we learn why the film is titled as it is, but by and large it's purely a drama about social norms and people struggling to cope with the rapid changes occurring to their once immutable, rigid world. Katagiri makes for a compelling, heroic character who tries to live decently and with honour while remaining true to the spirit of his code, even as many around him merely regurgitate hollow rhetoric. The conflict within him to choose between friendship and loyalty to his clan, and to sacrifice his own personal happiness to conform to societal expectations take their toll on him, leading to two conclusions that make the story both tragic and uplifting at the same time.

The film is deliberately paced but is never boring, and the characterization is excellent, with well rounded protagonists. As with 'Twilight', the film evokes a believable sense of place and manages to demythologize Samurai culture by showing them as ordinary folks who had to deal with ordinary family and domestic problems same as everyone else. Not that there's anything wrong with the conventional Samurai film - indeed, many of them do touch on these elements as well - but it's always interesting to see things from a different and unique perspective. While fairly small scale the film is quite appealing visually, with many of the domestic scenes in particular evoking a sense of warmth and homeliness. It's all rounded out with a fine sedate and unobtrusive score. The actors manage to be expressive while still behaving within the emotional constraints of their characters' places in the class structure. The two leads, Masatoshi Nagase and Takako Matsu, are terrific; Nagase's portrayal is infused with dignity despite his low position and circumstances, while Matsu is immensely endearing as the sweet natured, devoted, but somewhat damaged servant girl. The rest of the cast are supporting, but they're all effective in their roles, particularly Yukiyoshi Ozawa as Katagiri's deranged friend Hazama.

'The Hidden Blade' may surprise many people who watch it expecting something more action packed, and based on comments I've read it doesn't seem to appeal to a lot of people, but I think it's a wonderful film. It is narratively and stylistically incredibly similar to 'The Twilight Samurai' but there are enough thematic and character differences to make this feel like it's own thing. Though I can certainly understand the viewpoint that there is often a strong feeling of deja vu if you've watched 'Twilight'. I think 'Twilight' is ultimately a better film, but this is also definitely worth watching.

Moonlighting - Season 3 (1986-87)

(Image from Amazon)


Moonlighting - Season 3 (1986-87)

I've left this write up way too long, and it'll probably be even shorter than my blog post on Season 2 ('Explanations can't do it justice'? What a cop-out!).

The winning formula continued to work wonders during the third season of the definitive comedy mystery drama; if it ain't broke, why fix it? The show did however introduce a new element in the form of Herbert Viola (Curtis Armstrong) as an up and coming junior member of the Blue Moon Detective Agency and a potential love interest for Ms. DiPesto (Alice Beasley). The stories are as out there as ever, and Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) and David Addison (Bruce Willis) trade barbs as regularly as they draw breath. It's all quality, with the weirdest episodes including an interpretation of Shakespeare's 'Taming of the Shrew' and a take on 'It's a Wonderful Life' where Maddie sees how things would have ended up if she hadn't kept the agency open (Addison marries Cheryl Tiegs!). Even the potentially rubbish clip reel episode turns out to be quite good, as does the one focusing on DiPesto and Viola as they investigate a haunted mansion. Standout guest stars include Brad Dourif, Donna Dixon, Mark Harmon, and Gary Cole, and there's also a brief hilarious cameo by Pierce 'Remington Steele' Brosnan.

The biggest development in the third season is the progression of Maddie and David's relationship, a mini arc that drags on a bit in the latter episodes of the season but is still full of great material and some surprisingly serious dramatic moments. Oh, and they end up consummating their relationship. If you think that's a spoiler... erm, it's a twenty year old show.

The season ends with a rather apt scene of a car freewheeling downhill. Apt because this was the show's last great season; it went downhill from here and truth be told I'm not really interested in watching the rest again to be reminded of how bad it got. The first three seasons, however, are dynamite and are enough to ensure Moonlighting's place as one of the great, classic TV shows.

Really, explanations can't do it justice!

Knocked Up (2007)

(Image from IMP Awards)


Knocked Up (2007)

Judd Apatow and crew follow up the fairly funny '40 Year Old Virgin' (a film whose unrated extended version really drags) with this irreverent, profane, heartwarming tale of a chubby loser-ish guy named Ben (Seth Rogen) who has a drunken one night stand with a hot blonde named Alison (Katherine Heigl) and gets her pregnant. When she decides to keep the baby, Ben agrees to help and support her despite being an unemployed irresponsible stoner who lives with his stoner friends and works on a website that tracks female nudity in movies. Alison is a successful professional TV presenter, completely out of Ben's league, and there's naturally a lot of hurdles the two have to surpass. In addition to Ben's friends (Apatow alumni Jason Segel, Jay Baruchel, Martin Starr), the supporting cast also includes Alison's sister and her husband (Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd).

On the face of it Knocked Up is crude, a real guys film, but counter intuitively it's also full of heart. While there's no doubt that it veers heavily towards the male perspective of the equation, it gives the fairer sex a fair shake and is in some ways an indictment of the man child. Although one that still shows how that irresponsible lifestyle can be fun and appealing. The film is a mix between the typical rom com and the crude Animal House inspired comedies. There's a lot of rudeness but also a lot of, I think, fidelity towards the schism between the sexes. It's often laugh out loud funny, but still poignant at certain moments. And while the ending is a little too neat and convenient, it works and is quite satisfying. Like 'Virgin', the film runs a bit long however. Rogen is the star of the show and proves to be a capable and endearing leading man, and his dry deadpan brand of humour drives a lot of the films jokes. He's ably supported by the ever reliable Paul Rudd and the rest of the Apatow crew. Heigl is good in a fairly non comedic role, while Apatow's wife Leslie Mann is delightful as Rudd's character's nagging, frustrated wife.

'Knocked Up' may not be a classic, but it has enough originality and humour in it to make it worth checking out, and Rogen is a very watchable and atypical lead. The sensitive PC crowd with an overly developed sense of propriety will probably hate it, but that's their loss.

Heavenly Creatures (1994)

(Image from IMP Awards)


Heavenly Creatures (1994)

Based on the shocking Parker-Hulme murder that took place in New Zealand in 1954, 'Heavenly Creatures' is an excellent dramatic thriller with some fantasy elements. It heralded Peter Jackson's arrival as a writer director of note and is probably one of the main reasons some people believed he was the right man for Lord of the Rings when everyone else was going "Peter Who?".

Melanie Lynskey plays Pauline Parker and Kate Winslet plays Juliet Hulme. Pauline is an introverted outsider at her school, but she gets along fairly well with her family and does well with her studies. The impudent and haughty Juliet arrives from England and joins Pauline's class; both girls sit out their physical exercise class due to medical conditions, and during this time they discover that they have much in common and bond very quickly. They start hanging out together all the time, with Pauline growing attached to Juliet's well educated and wealthy family while growing ashamed of her own working class roots, particularly her mother Honorah (Sarah Peirse). What starts off as a charming friendship slowly grows into something else as the girls start to write stories that they believe will get them into the movie business in Hollywood. They begin to have delusions of grandeur and see themselves as superior to everyone around them, and soon start living out their stories in a fantasy land called the 'Fourth World'. The girls' parents become worried about the nature of the friendship, which they fear is bordering on homosexual, and attempt to keep the girls apart; this only makes them become more distant from the real world and resentful of their families, and ultimately leads to tragic consequences.

Right from the opening sequence that depicts archival footage of New Zealand from the era in which the story takes place up till the end credits, the film holds your attention. It's engrossing and the heart of the film - the friendship - is absolutely convincing and engaging despite the girls themselves being fairly unlikable, which is a testament to the writing, acting, and directing on display. The way the friendship transforms is presented in a dark and sinister light, but it also feels a little tragic. The use of actual excerpts from Pauline's diary is incredibly effective and really gets across just how twisted and messed up the two girls ultimately became while also wiping out any sympathy you might have for them. The pacing is spot on (this was the extended cut of the film) and the film never lingers; it's always progressing the characters and their stories. In addition to the central friendship, the film also thematically touches on cultural norms, the class divide, the popular culture of the era as well as familial relationships.

Jackson's work here is full of the kinetic camerawork and close ups that are his trademark, and it works surprisingly well to create a thriller out of what could easily have been a very sedate drama. Heavenly Creatures successfully creates two worlds on screen - one the world of 1950s New Zealand, and the other the fantasy 'Fourth World' populated by medieval castles and clay people. The way these fantasy elements are integrated into the film is brilliant (they sometimes even encroach upon the real world in the girls' minds), and really serve to demonstrate the girls' overactive imaginations and the extent to which they lose themselves in the 'Fourth World'. The film is atmospheric and dark, and also has elements of the unrestrained twisted sense of humour Jackson exhibited in his earlier splatter horror movies.

Winslett and Lynskey both made their film debuts here, and both made the most of the opportunity. Winslett, who went on to greater fame, initially seems overly formal and too aristocratic, but it becomes apparent that this is in fact the nature of the character - Juliet is poised, speaks with perfect diction, and is more than a little snobbish, but her presentation of these traits is something of an affectation. In the course of her friendship with Pauline she often appears vulnerable and simply a child. It's a terrific performance, and one that is matched by Lynskey, whose character is generally gloomy and morose; one can imagine her being a goth if goths were around those days. When she's with Juliet, she comes alive and is far more animated, getting caught up in admiration of her friend's exuberance. The most sympathetic character in the film, however, is not either of these two - it is, in fact, Pauline's mother Honorah, who is played to perfection by Sarah Peirse as a good natured if stern, down to earth, hard working mother who tries to do the best she can for her child while having no idea how huge their disconnect actually is.

What more is there to say? On technical merits the film fares well, and it has a fairly good if unremarkable musical score. The visual effects are exemplary - not something you normally hear being said of this sort of film, but there you go. 'Heavenly Creatures' is a landmark in Peter Jackson's career, the one that launched him on his way to becoming one of the most significant and interesting filmmakers working today. Ignoring all of that baggage, the film is a historical drama / thriller that is informative (the facts are apparently quite accurate), gripping and, by its conclusion, quite horrifying. In short, it is an excellent film that is under-appreciated and deserves to find a wider audience.

The Year of Living Dangerously (1982)

(Image from IMP Awards)


The Year of Living Dangerously (1982)

Peter Weir seems to be one of the most consistent filmmakers around - or rather, consistently good, since there are plenty of rubbish ones out there who are unwaveringly consistent. He also seems to take a lot of breaks between films, which is a shame, though perhaps that may be a reason for his consistency. Stylistically his films are linked by being generally restrained and unsentimental and full of detached observations. I like all of the films of his that I've seen, though the only one I'm a huge fan of is 'Master and Commander'. 'The Year of Living Dangerously' is one of his earlier films, but it still bears his hallmarks.

The year is 1965 and Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) is a reporter for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation who is assigned to work in Indonesia. It is a period of civil unrest, with President Sukarno caught in the middle of a brewing conflict between the military and the Communist Party. Guy is initially lost at sea even among the community of Western journalists stationed there until he is helped by Billy Kwan (Linda Hunt), a dwarf cameraman who feels a great empathy for the Indonesian people and has lots of connections. Billy sees decency in Guy, something the other journalists lack, and he therefore sets up key interviews for him. He then plays at being a puppeteer (a metaphor that is established very early on) to set Guy up with Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver), a young woman who works at the British Embassy. As the political situation grows more unstable, Guy's ambition grows with his journalistic successes and leads to him having to choose between his friends and his career.

It's a very textured film with a lot going on. On the one hand the film is the personal story of Guy Hamilton and his career and personal life. On the other it tells of the political and social landscape of Indonesia and the perspective of the foreign media against that landscape. And then there's the tragic story of Billy Kwan, who is the fabric that joins all of the other elements together and is in many ways the heart of the film. As I mentioned earlier, Weir's eye is that of a detached observer - this film acknowledges the complexity and tragedy of what is going on and looks upon it with sympathy, but never really takes sides or preaches. It feels even handed and respectful.

Guy Hamilton's journey and growth make for a compelling central narrative, though it also contains the film's weakest aspect - the love story. It's important to the character's arc in that it creates a dilemma and conflict and also provides an insight into his personal life, but I simply didn't find it all that engaging; it derails the movie for a prolonged stretch during which the focus is solely on the romance. Billy Kwan's dealings on the other hand are always interesting as he acts a link between Indonesia and the West, and provides a great deal of perspective. His ideals and beliefs and his love for the people are the most moving part of the film.

Linda Hunt is superb as Billy, and one quickly forgets that he is being played by a woman after the first few minutes. It's an amazing performance, full of passion and intelligence and humour, and really elevates the film. Gibson is also very good as Guy, starting off as a man who is fearless and keen but inexperienced, who slowly grows cocky and brash and willing to do anything to further his career. Sigourney Weaver, sadly, is miscast - and this is from someone who thinks she's an excellent actress. She is just not convincing as a British diplomat (the accent in particular is woeful), and while she is intelligent and tenacious and an obvious counterpart to Guy, the love between the two isn't as convincing or as strong as the bond of friendship between Guy and Billy. The rest of the cast are fairly good in their roles, but only Bembol Roco really stands out as Guy's assistant.

Once again, a very good Peter Weir film that is well made in every respect and unconventional by Hollywood movie standards. 'The Year of Living Dangerously' is a film that is unique, thought provoking, informative, and entertaining, and one that convincingly transports you to a believable representation of a particular time and place. It may have some noticeable flaws, but these are minor when considering the film as a whole.

Rome - Season 1 (2005)

Rome - Season 1 (2005)

HBO has a reputation for making some terrific original dramas - 'Band of Brothers', 'Carnivale' and 'Deadwood' were great, and I've heard good things about 'The Wire', 'The Sopranos' (yeah, never seen it!), and 'Six Feet Under'. I therefore knew going in that 'Rome' was going to be at least as lavish and immaculately made as its HBO brethren, most likely more so given its massive budget (apparently one of the most expensive TV series ever made). I just didn't anticipate that I would get hooked as much as I did.

'Rome' is a historical drama about, surprise surprise, Rome circa the first century BC during the time when the Roman Empire was formed under Julius Caesar. For the most part it depicts the activities of major and minor historical figures including Caesar (Ciaran Hinds), Marc Antony (James Purefoy), Marcus Brutus (Tobias Menzies), Pompey Magnus (Kenneth Cranham), Gaius Octavion (Max Pirkis), Atia of the Julii (Polly Walker), and Servilia of the Junii (Lindsay Duncan). The politics, relationships, family life, loves, affairs, plotting and scheming of these people are all depicted in dramatic and complex detail, all of it fitting in with the broader historical events taking place . The aforementioned people represent the ruling classes; the central characters of the show, however, are two common soldiers, Lucius Vorenus (Kevin McKidd) and Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson), two essentially fictional characters who bind the events of the narrative together (in a somewhat contrived fashion, but the contrivance is sold fairly well). Through their eyes, and the eyes of Vorenus's wife Niobe (Indira Varma), the show depicts the life of the plebeians.

The show is excellent in all respects. I can't comment much on historical accuracy, but it jibes with what I know and it is apparently fairly accurate compared to other dramatizations of the era. What I can say with certainty is that it is immensely atmospheric and exhibits that trait that is so important in making a world immersive - verisimilitude. From the opulence and aloofness of the nobility in their fine houses to the dirty crime ridden streets and slums of Rome, the show feels real. The production values are simply excellent - detailed and grand sets and props and visual effects combine to sell the illusion that you are seeing ancient Rome. The plotting is complex, but the writing holds all of it together nicely and it never gets overly complicated. On the downside some things get skimmed over really fast, and some of the dialogue sounds more like narration as characters explicitly enunciate their political maneuvering, but I can excuse this as being a necessary compromise in the name of narrative expediency. Admittedly it does feel a bit soap operatic at times with some of the scheming that goes on, but given the context where the scheming usually involves someone getting eviscerated (not something you see everyday in a soap opera), I can live with that.

Being just 10 episodes long, the first season of 'Rome' crams quite a bit in. One thing it isn't is slow; there's always something going on, and with the number of characters and story threads it juggles it is relentlessly paced by necessity. It's a fairly grim affair overall, but it does have its share of caustic humour, and while mostly a drama there are some brutal action sequences thrown in now and then. As with much of HBO's oeuvre, characters are often foul mouthed and there's a lot of nudity and sex on display. It feels borderline gratuitous, but doesn't really seem out of place given the setting. The performances are mostly excellent across the board. Ciaran Hinds is terrific as Caesar, intelligent and commanding, while James Purefoy provides him the perfect foil as the less than virtuous Marc Antony. McKidd and Stevenson make for a fantastic pair - one noble and righteous and the other a lovable, violent lout - and make for strong central leads. Also terrific is Polly Walker as the cruel, scheming, lascivious Atia. The only person who was a bit of a let down was Tobias Menzies as Brutus; while not a bad actor by any means, he seemed less impressive and charismatic than I would have expected a man of his influence to be, and the friendship between Brutus and Caesar never felt believable as a result.

The show definitely has its flaws, as I have mentioned. But to me the sum of the parts is far greater than the whole, and I found this first season to be an addictive and thoroughly enjoyable experience. The writing is not as strong as in Deadwood, with the characters sometimes feeling like slaves to the machinations of the plot instead of genuine individuals, but I still found this to be more engaging (which is saying something, since I found Deadwood to be pretty darned engaging as well). I can imagine some people not being as taken by 'Rome' as I was, which is fair enough. I think it's very well made, but some of its problems will probably irk others more than they did me. As a final example, the music, which is of a style very typical for the genre and which I have grown tired of in recent times in many other period epics, I found to be very fitting for this show. If I had heard it on it's own though, I would have thought it sounded very generic! So in short, I recommend the show wholeheartedly but with the caveat that my final assessment is partial!

The Fountain (2006)

The Fountain (2006)

Confession: I didn't fully understand what was going on in 'The Fountain' the first time I watched it. I understood it at a thematic level, and to some extent understood each of the three stories on its own, but I just couldn't wrap my head around how exactly they all interconnected. A little bit of further reading (particularly the writing of the clever chaps at Chud) made it all clear to me; in fact, its all rather straightforward and less convoluted than I initially imagined. Understanding it reveals 'The Fountain' to be a quite extraordinary film.

Darren Aronofsky's film is a labour of love that took years to get made. It actually started production with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett as the leads, but Pitt pulled out and the project was scrapped, only to be later resurrected with a lower budget and with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz as the leads. Although this seems like a downgrade when taken at face value, Jackman has better acting chops than Pitt and was better suited to the role, and as much as I love Blanchett I can't imagine her being better than Weisz is in this. Another interesting fact about this project is that there was also a graphic novel released in the interim, when Aronofsky believed the film version of the project to be dead.

Explaining the plot of 'The Fountain' is a bit tricky, and I think it's one of those films that needs to be experienced, not explained. I'll give it a shot anyway. There are, as mentioned earlier, three storylines. One takes place in the 16th Century and revolves around a Spanish conquistador, Tomas (Jackman), and his quest deep in the Mayan jungles of South America to find the 'Tree of Life' for his Queen (Weisz), who is defending her Kingdom from the Grand Inquisitor (Stephen McHattie). The 'main' storyline, such as it is, takes place in contemporary times and is about a medical researcher, Tommy (Jackman), who is trying to find a cure for his ailing wife Izzie's (Weisz) cancer. Tommy is so obsessed with his work that he neglects Izzie, who is spending her time writing a fictional book - 'The Fountain' - which is about the 16th Century consquistador. The third storyline takes place in the far future, with Tom (Jackman, again playing Tommy, now in the future) traveling through space in an ecosphere with a 'tree of life' that has sustained him for centuries but is itself on the verge of death. He's heading towards a dying star, Xibalba, which is the place the Mayans considered to be their afterlife and where Tom believes he can breathe life back into the tree. During his journey Tom has visions of Izzie telling him to finish writing her book.

I'm not even going to attempt to explain how these three stories link together; they weave in and out of one another both literally and thematically, and while some elements may be open to interpretation I think the film is pretty definitive about what is actually going on. The inter-cutting works beautifully as they build up towards Tom making a profound realization, one that is depicted both as a metaphor and as reality. The film plays with grand themes about life, death, love, and the cyclical nature of the universe and it is completely earnest about them and wears its heart on its sleeve. Boiled down to a summary its philosophical underpinnings may seem trite and don't do the film justice. Suffice it to say that the way they are dealt with in the film is wonderful and paradoxical - it is both complex and simple at the same time - and really impacts you in an emotional and thought provoking manner.

From a craftsmanship point of view, 'The Fountain' is simply brilliant. It's come in for some flack for its story and themes from several quarters, but I am incredulous as to how people could deny the quality of filmmaking on display. Lets start with the stunning visuals that range from the medieval to the contemporary to the bizarrely futuristic, each era distinctive and memorable in its own right but also unified through a recurrent style of camera work. The production design is also fantastic, lush and full of details that add symbolism and motifs to the imagery. Aronofsky maintains a heightened and atmospheric sense of reality in the three sequences, each of which feels fully realized - the Mayan exploration and combat, the research lab / love story, and the sci-fi space journey could each have been their own separate, full-fledged tales. And then there's the effects in the space sequences, which are simply gorgeous and like nothing you've ever seen before, done using macro-photography instead of CGI. Clint Mansell's glorious soundtrack (already being pillaged by movie trailers) is haunting, one of the best I've experienced lately.

Despite all of the aforementioned elements being crucial to the film, it's still one that revolves around two key performances - Jackman and Weisz. The two of them portray, in essence, several different characters and their portrayals are superb in all respects. In the Conquistador segments they have an air of regal and stoic formality to them, while in the contemporary segments they exhibit raw emotions of love, grief, anger, and acceptance. The future segments present a more serene, bald Jackman on his own in space with only a tree for company and he still manages to be fascinating and completely riveting. The film is written in a style that is more heightened reality than reality, yet Jackman and Weisz never feel anything but genuine. The same could be said for the supporting cast, primarily Ellen Burstyn as Tommy's understanding boss and Sean Patrick Thomas as one of his loyal co-workers.

I sound more than a little hyperbolic, but I think the film really is that good. The relatively limited budget is worked by Aronofsky to its full potential, and in fact I'm of the view that by making the film with a less realistic atmosphere it has been encapsulated in a timeless bubble, which is strangely appropriate given the subject matter! 'The Fountain' is a wonderful film, immaculately put together and full of unforgettable moments and visuals. It's thoughtful and moving and squeezes a hell of a lot into its 90 minute runtime. It's a film that deserves be watched and re-watched. In short, it's fantastic!

Water (2005)

Water (2005)

I saw 'Water' completely by accident, and had no real intention of ever watching it; I'm glad I did, however, as it is a very good if slightly flawed film. Water (presumably so called because of the dominant presence of a body of water in the film) tells of the fate of Hindu widows in India during the 1930s who are forced to live out their lives as outcasts in widow 'ashrams'. The tale begins with Chuiya (Sarala Kariyawasam), a 7 year old, becoming a widow when her 'husband' (she doesn't even have any recollection of the wedding) dies. She's sent to an ashram but is rebellious and refuses to accept her place there, convinced that her mother will return to take her home. She becomes popular with some of the ashram's other residents, including Shakuntala (Seema Biswas), a strong willed and devout woman, and Kalyani (Lisa Ray), a beautiful young woman used by the cruel head of the ashram as a prostitute. Through Chuiya, Kalyani meets and falls in love with a liberal, independent young man named Narayan (John Abraham); their affair shakes up the ashram and forces its residents to raise questions about the treatment of widows.

A large part of this film serves to highlight the unfair and cruel lives the widows are forced to accept and endure in the name of religious and societal norms. Chuiya acts as a window into their world, and these parts of the film are extremely effective in evoking sympathy while being informative at the same time. 'Water' examines the widows' situation by touching on the different perspectives of society - those of the liberals who are at the forefront of massive societal change spearheaded by Gandhi, and those of the traditional conservatives - in a fairly even handed manner, with thought given to why things are the way they are (though I think there's little question that the film ultimately sees the more progressive viewpoints as being the correct ones).

There are a couple of things that prevent the film from reaching its full potential. One is the lack of a cohesive narrative to tie all of the story elements together; the film sometimes tends to feel too much like a mere recounting of incidents that highlights the plight of widows. The other is that the one genuine narrative thread, the love story, is wholly unconvincing and superficial and is clearly there only as a plot device to explore social restrictions and to create a compelling reason for the status quo to be shaken up.

Given the quality of the film, these negatives don't detract too much however. It's visually stunning with excellent production values and cinematography; if there's a complaint here it's that the painterly look of the film sometimes feels too artificial and detracts from what should be a grittier, more down to earth aesthetic, but that's a minor quibble at best. Writer / director Deepa Mehta clearly had a vision for the film to be informative but not at the expense of dramatic weight and reasonably well rounded characters. Despite the overriding pathos there are also moments of joy and levity sprinkled throughout, though the musical montage and occasional music video like moments take it too far and are a tad jarring.

There are some fine performances in the film, particularly from the young Sarala Kariyawasam, who manages to give a convincing performance as Chuiya without giving off that creepy 'adult in a child's body' vibe that is so prevalent in child actors. I should also add that Lisa Ray is strikingly captivating and is perhaps too good looking for the role, but that's a flaw in the film I'm more than happy to accept!

Overall 'Water' is a film that deserves to be seen. The quality of filmmaking on offer is stellar and the subject matter is weighty and about as underrepresented as it gets in cinema. It may be a little too obvious in its didactic intentions and is a little lacking in terms of narrative, but what it does offer is almost always engaging.

Little Children (2006)

Little Children (2006)

'Little Children' is a drama laced with darkly humourous undertones. Set in a bland and rigid suburban town, it tells the stories of three people. One is Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley), a just released sex offender forced to deal with hostility from the townsfolk, pressure from his mother to stay out of trouble and be normal, and reigning in his own deviant desires. The second protagonist is Brad (Patrick Wilson), a househusband enduring a stifling existence raising his child and studying for his bar exam while his wife (Jennifer Connelly) enjoys a successful career as a documentary producer. The third is Sarah (Kate Winslet), an intellectual housewife who faces a future filled with the boredom of suburbia and who barely maintains any interest in her daughter. Brad and Sarah meet and find in each other an element of excitement and a release from the mundaneness of their lives, and they begin an affair while maintaining the guise of friends who take their kids out to the park and the pool together. The lives of these three characters cross paths and eventually their stories culminate in a tense and eventful climax.

The film is very sardonic but maintains a serious dramatic tone while still being quite funny and scathing in its portrayals. If features a very dry voice-over that enhances comedic effect. The script draws some very well defined and sympathetic characters whose loneliness and longings are understandable. Still, they are only sympathetic to an extent, and they all certainly have detestable qualities that are laid bare in the course of the story's telling. Even the more minor and supporting characters are fleshed out and come across as three dimensional. It's a testament to the director and his cast that, despite how easily the tonal balance could have derailed and how easily the characters could have become ones we despise, everything holds together right up to the end. The end, by the way, is emotionally powerful but does feel a little too contrived for my taste. Coming back to the performances, the three central players are fantastic and feel completely genuine. Haley is perhaps the most brilliant; he manages to capture the sympathetic and the frightening, creepy aspects of his character incredibly well.

'Little Children' is exceptionally written and put together, and features some sterling performances. As a commentary on aspects of modern society - isolation, infidelity, personal sacrifice, emasculation, conformity, the culture of fear - it is effective and somewhat depressing, though the humour goes some way towards alleviating any dourness. Overall it is a film well worth seeing.

Moonstruck (1987)

Moonstruck (1987)

I'm bemused by the number of accolades this film has received and how highly regarded it was at the time of its release. Sure, it's a fairly charming romantic comedy with oddball characters, but it ain't exactly phenomenal. 'Moonstruck' stars Cher as a thirty something widow who falls for her wimpy fiance's younger brother, played by pre-fame Nicolas Cage. Meanwhile her parents are having marital problems, with her dad having an affair.

It's not a conventional rom-com - especially for an eighties film - being quirky and and having what I can only describe oxymoronically as overwhelmingly downbeat humour. Seriously, while the film is funny the characters seem to be having a pretty horrid time. There are fine performances, particularly from Cage and Cher, but nothing to really write home about. The writing is witty in a sit-com kind of way, and the story is fairly predictable right up to the cop out deus ex machina ending. All in all, a harmless and enjoyable film that is a tad overrated.

The Illusionist (2006)

The Illusionist (2006)

'The Illusionist' is one of two 'magician' themed period films released in 2006, the other being 'The Prestige', which I wrote about here. This one is probably the lower profile and less familiar of the two; it is also, despite featuring similar subject matter, quite different from its spiritual sibling.

Edward Norton is Eisenheim the Illusionist, a dazzling performer who appears in Vienna and wows the crowds with his magic act. The film begins with Eisenhiem being arrested in the middle of his act by Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) for subversion or threatening the Empire (the exact charges elude me at the moment). It then goes into a flashback with narration by Uhl, and we are shown Eisenheim's childhood - he comes from a poor background, and a chance encounter with a mysterious stranger prompts him to practice the art of magic. He forms a friendship with a girl from an aristocratic family, but is eventually barred from seeing her. He then leaves his village and disappears for years before appearing again in Vienna. Here he discovers that the girl he knew, Duchess Sophie (Jessica Biel), is to be married to the Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). The two rekindle their relationship but realize that Leopold will never allow them to be together. Things take a sinister twist when Leopold finds out about them and her plans to leave him.

Watching this was disappointing after coming off the far superior 'The Prestige'. First, the magic tricks in this are all seemingly cheats, because they appear to be CGI assisted - extremely bizarre if, as I've heard, they're based on actual tricks from the era! Since from the viewer's perspective the tricks are so overblown that they can't possibly be an illusion, the credibility of the story, which attempts to walk the fence with regard to whether Eisenheim is practicing 'real' magic or simply executing incredibly convincing illusions, is undermined. Second, the plot is not even remotely surprising and ultimately doesn't make much sense, with almost the entire second half of the film being a pointless exercise that isn't justified by the characters' established motivations. Third, the characterization is sketchy for a romantic drama, with only Inspector Uhl coming across as truly well defined, possibly because he's given the most screen-time (or so it felt). In the end there's not much mystery or magic or wonder to be found (other than those of the annoyance inducing kind), and the whole thing feels leaden and the characters really hard to get behind.

On the plus side though, the film is very atmospheric with photography that has a magical 'golden tinge' look to it. The period detail is also quite lavish, with production values that are excellent overall. The cast is the film's strongest element. Norton turns in a predictably professional performance, even if there isn't that much substance to the character; he has a very enigmatic aura about him that works especially well during the magic sequences. Jessica Biel is surprisingly passable as a Duchess, though she doesn't really have much to do. Rufus Sewell, who always seems highly strung in everything I've seen him in, is in fine form as the sneering, detestable Crown Prince whose bark is far worse than his bite. The real star for me was Giamatti though, who plays the de facto central character in the story. Giamatti portrays Inspector Uhl as a man conflicted, caught between doing the right thing and doing what's best for his career; Uhl borders on the arrogant and the aristocratic, but there are moments where some decency shines through. He's also the only person fascinated and awed by the magic on display, a reaction that helps to build up Eisenheim's image as a master conjurer. It's the type of fascination with the subject matter that the film itself is lacking, actually.

'The Illusionist' is a well made film that isn't bad but at the same time doesn't excel in any way. I guess it's one of those that you can watch if you happen to catch it on TV, but isn't really worth watching of your own volition. In the battle of the period magician movies, 'The Prestige' definitely comes out on top.

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

I've never read...... hmm, yet another blog post starting off with an admission of not having read a famous or acclaimed book. In this case though, reading Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice' was never that high on my 'to-read' list because it always struck me as a chick-book, but if this film adaptation is anything to go by, I was wrong. I was quite surprised by how much I enjoyed this period drama.

'Pride and Prejudice' takes place in turn of the 19th century England and tells the story of an intelligent, witty, and romantic young woman, Elizabeth Bennett (Keira Knightley), and events that take place around her that all relate to love and marriage. Elizabeth belongs to a fairly well off family that comprises her father (Donald Sutherland), mother (Brenda Blethyn), and her four sisters. The parents are intent on securing their daughters' futures by getting them married as soon as possible, in part because the family's assets will be inherited by Mr. Bennet's nephew Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander) and not by any of the girls. When a wealthy young man, Charles Bingley (Simon Woods), moves in to a nearby estate the Bennett's attempt to arrange for their eldest daughter Jane (Rosamund Pike) to marry him. During the course of various social events and visits, Elizabeth meets Mr. Bingley's very wealthy but sullen and unfriendly friend Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfayden); the two are initially directly at odds, but it is evident from the outset that each also finds the other fascinating. Events subsequently occur that upset the delicate balance of Elizabeth's family and social circles, and that cause her to both loathe and be drawn to Darcy.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out where this story leads, but as they say its the journey that makes it worthwhile. Given the period setting and cultural norms of the time, this doesn't play out like a contemporary romantic comedy, and it hasn't been in any way modernized. The 'courtships', such as they are, take place in a very stiff and formal manner, with much of the interaction between Elizabeth and Darcy being limited to sharp, witty exchanges and a few subtle but intense moments. In some ways their relationship develops when the two of them aren't together, by way of events occurring off-screen and conversations with other characters. I found the whole thing to be a fascinating window into a time when the whole marriage dance was performed in such a ritualistic and contrived manner (in the Western world, that is. It's still done that way in plenty of other places). The film is full of formal and often verbose dialogue that again befits the setting (or at least, the perception of the setting), and this combined with the production design, lovely English countryside visuals, and music all create a believable period atmosphere.

Keira Knightley, being at the centre of the story, needed to deliver in order to really sell the film. I've always thought she was a good actress but I haven't particularly liked her in any of her films. So colour me surprised, I was impressed by her performance and really enjoyed her work in this; she channels her vivaciousness perfectly while also managing to convey her affections for Darcy and her conflicted feelings with subtlety. Matthew Macfayden isn't particularly great as Darcy, but his scenes with Knightley are, so overall he acquits himself well. Judi Dench appears as Lady Catherine, and once again demonstrates that she's really good at playing pompous, arrogant, and bitchy women in positions of power (that's not a criticism, it's true!). The rest of the cast are quite good, with Brenda Blethyn and Tom Hollander being great in the comic relief (ish) roles of Mrs. Bennett and Mr. Collins respectively.

'Pride and Prejudice' is a wonderful film; it's very well made and features a terrific and endearing performance by Keira Knightley. I don't know how good of an adaptation the film is, but on its own terms it's an entertaining and charming romantic story that's well worth watching. I'll have to now read the book to see how they compare...

Rocky Balboa (2006)

Rocky Balboa (2006)

And now, the sequel to Rocky. Well, the fifth sequel to be exact, but the ones in between are meant to be not so great (I haven't bothered to watch them), and this is apparently the only one that matches the first in style and tone. It's been hailed as a true sequel in spirit, an assessment I can get behind having just watched the original.

Set 30 years after the first one, the film introduces us to an aged and despondent Rocky Balboa. His wife Adrian has passed away, but he clings on to her memory and spends his time reliving old memories and visiting places that were important to them (many of them are locations from the first movie). His life is empty, and he goes through the motions as he manages his little restaurant (named Adrian's) and tries to connect with his estranged son Robert (Milo Ventimiglia), who is tired of living in his father's shadow. Just like in the original movie, Rocky's life is shaken up by two things. First, he meets a woman named Marie (Geraldine Hughes) whom he met as a kid in the first movie. They develop a friendship, and Rocky takes her son under his wing to keep him out of trouble. The second thing that happens is a computer simulated fight that pits a virtual Rocky against a virtual version of the current Champion Mason Dixon (Antonio Tarver), in which the simulation decides that Rocky in his prime would have come out victorious.

Despite skepticism from all quarters, Rocky decides to get back into boxing. When news of this reaches the Dixon camp, they organize an exhibition match between Dixon and Rocky to help revitalize Dixon's sagging popularity. With the support of his friends, including Paulie (Burt Young), Marie and her son, and the support of the initially reluctant Robert, Rocky trains his way through a rousing montage (set to THAT music) and confronts Dixon in an exhibition match that the commentators call an 'execution match' because of Rocky's age.

Most of the film focuses on Rocky's monotonous routine and the subsequent development of his relationships with the people in his life. It follows his 'reawakening' and the rekindling of his desire to maintain some self respect instead of just fading away. As with the original, the film is very focused on character and setting. It's about people and their place in the world, and it examines both people starting out in the world and those approaching the twilight of their lives. The former are struggling to get a foothold, while the latter are trying to get past regrets and find some meaningful purpose. It's easy to give a damn about these people because their problems are relatable.

The story, unfortunately, has too many elements at play, and some of them end up feeling sketchy as a result - there are far more characters than in the original, and the screenplay can't do justice to them all. The buildup of events is excellent but the final training and fight sequences are too brief, with the latter being like something out of another movie. The fight just isn't that exciting and it's shot in a weird 'TV' style that takes you right out of the drama. Still, it's hard not to get caught up in it because of all the goodwill that most of the film has already engendered. The performances are generally good, with the only truly weak link being Milo Ventimiglia as Rocky's son. The best of the bunch is undoubtedly Stallone, who once again brings dignity and charm to the role of the slow witted Italian Stallion. Also noteworthy is Antonia Tarver as the brash and clinically ruthless Dixon.

At the end of the day 'Balboa' is inferior to the original in almost every way, but it has the same earnestness and heart that made the classic such a favourite. One could argue that it hangs too heavily on the coattails of its progenitor (right down to the music!), and while that is true to some extent it still manages to stand on its own as a separate entity.

The film was met with ridicule when it was announced, but much like the eponymous character he portrays, Stallone defied the odds and surprised everyone by coming out of the doldrums with a quality old-school film that embodies the same spirit as the original. It serves as a fitting conclusion to the story of Rocky Balboa; Stallone, like Rocky, had the last laugh. Now I may have to go and check out the other four movies to see the less beloved aspects of that story.

Rocky (1976)

Rocky (1976)

'Adriaaaaaaaan!' I'd heard this iconic line many times via imitations and spoofs before I ever saw 'Rocky' - it's a classic moment from a classic film that has stood the test of time. Sylvester Stallone's breakout film is a drama that wears its heart on its sleeve and is impossible to hate. I decided to revisit it before watching its only spiritual sequel, Rocky Balboa.

'Rocky' tells the story of a humble, down on his luck boxer named Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone). Rocky talks a lot but he's not too bright; he's a decent guy who finds his day job as hired muscle for a loan shark difficult to carry out because he doesn't like shaking people down. He hangs out with his friend Paulie (Burt Young), who works at a meat plant, and is romantically interested in Paulie's shy sister Adrian (Talia Shire), who resists Rocky's charms. The film introduces Rocky's world before shaking it up with two events. First, he finally connects with Adrian and the two hit it off. Second, he's offered the chance to fight the Heavyweight Champion Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) when Creed's opponent pulls out. The fight is billed as an opportunity for a small time boxer to make his mark, but Creed actually sees it as a publicity stunt to boost his popularity, because nobody expects Rocky to put up much of a fight. Despite being seen as a joke and knowing that he doesn't stand much of a chance, Rocky resolves to give it everything and begins a disciplined training programme. He receives the support of his friends and the goodwill of his community, and receives the wisdom of a cantankerous coach (Burgess Meredith) who offers to train him.

There's nothing overly ambitious about 'Rocky', it's a simple story that's really well executed. Stallone's screenplay is impressive - there are no wasted moments, it builds up to the climactic showdown while letting us get to know the characters. While not overly deep, the characters come across as real people who've led hard lives full of regret and bitterness. The fantastic understated performances by the cast add to this, and there are only a few showy emotional moments. Understated except for Burgess Meredith, who's explosive and entertaining from start to finish (except for one poignant scene). The real standout is Sylvester Stallone, a good actor who has made a lot of crappy films over the years. He's goofily charming, but there's a lot of subtle weariness and pain as well; Stallone also nails the physical aspects of the role. The interplay between Stallone and Talia Shire is also convincing and unique, and their romance is in many ways the backbone of the story ("together we fill gaps" predated "you complete me" by decades, and is a line that feels sincere coming out of Rocky's mouth).

The film conveys a genuine sense of community that lends it a great deal of character and provides a nice backdrop and context for everything that happens, as Rocky becomes something of a celebrity in his hometown. The final fight scenes are dramatic and well staged (though I admittedly know little about boxing), and the conclusion is immensely satisfying. The icing on the cake is Bill Conti's iconic and rousing music, which adds a great deal to the mood of the film.

Rocky's a classic, and no mistake - an uplifting story about a man who attempts to maintain some dignity despite all of the bad hands life has dealt him. It may not be original or brilliant in any department, and yeah it's a bit schmaltzy, but it all comes together brilliantly and makes for a truly memorable film.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

I wasn't blown away by Shaun of the Dead the first time I saw it. I suppose the relentless online hype may have had something to do with that (these days I temper my expectations). It still stuck in my mind, however, and as time went by I felt the need to see it again. Having now watched it a second time years later, I realize that it isn't just a good film, it's a great one and one that I suspect I will be revisiting on many an occasion.

Shaun of the Dead is the creation of Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, the duo behind the excellent British geek sitcom Spaced (of which I've seen only a few episodes and need to see more). Pegg and Wright wrote the film and Wright directed it. The film is a hybrid horror / comedy / romance about a guy in his late twenties named Shaun (Simon Pegg). Shaun is a slacker stuck in a dead end job who enjoys hanging out at his favourite pub, The Winchester, with his slovenly and slothful best friend Ed (Nick Frost), his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield), and her oddball roommates David (Dylan Moran) and Diane (Lucy Davis, who played Dawn in 'The Office'). Liz is tired of the mundane routine nature of her relationship with Shaun, so he promises to change. He screws up, of course, and Liz promptly dumps him. To add to his woes, he has issues with his mother (Penelope Wilton) and stepfather (Bill Nighy). When the dead start coming back to life as zombies and overrun London, Shaun is finally given the impetus he needs to take control of his life. He sets out to gather all the people he cares about and lead them to safety - safety being The Winchester!

Shaun of the Dead is that rare multi genre film that somehow manages to be true to each of those genres. It's a genuine horror film and a genuine comedy, and it's excellent in every regard. It is hilarious and scary, with all the gore you'd expect from a real zombie movie. While it's ostensibly a parody of zombie films, it's actually a homage to them. The comedy element comes not from the zombies but from the characters and the situations they get themselves into. It's nicely plotted and the script is layered and fast paced - there's never a dull moment or wasted line, and a lot of information is conveyed to the audience economically, such as the clever use of background TV footage to let the audience know what's happening in the world with regard to the zombie situation. There are also loads of subtle references to other films. The characters are remarkably well fleshed out, and their behaviour consistent and truthful to what is established even when reacting to bizarre and improbably situations. Much of the humour plays on their obliviousness to what's going on in front of them, and on the silly ways in which they deal with things when they finally catch on.

Wright does a remarkable job balancing the horror and comedy elements, often juxtaposing the two within the same scene and creating something horrifying and funny at the same time. The 'action' sequences in the film are also well realized and, truth be told, wouldn't be out of place in a genuine horror movie. The frenzied (and really cool) editing style that is often employed lends the film energy and pacing that amplifies the already fast paced script. For a relatively low budget film, Shaun of the Dead looks terrific. The zombies in particular are well realized, and I'll have to express the same sentiment about them that I've been expressing right throughout - they could be right out of a pure zombie movie.

The film revolves around Shaun, and Simon Pegg is up to the task in the key role. He captures perfectly the attitude and mannerisms of a downbeat slacker (I ought to know), and his somewhat bumbling 'take charge' transformation and the emotional turmoil he goes through are all convincing. Also great is Nick Frost as the 'should-be-detestable-on-paper-but-strangely-charming' Ed, who's a great foil for Shaun. David Moran and Lucy Davis are also memorable and funny as the bickering couple, while Wilton and Nighy are fantastic in their straight faced, stiff upper lip portrayals of Shaun's mum and stepdad respectively. Kate Ashfield is solid as Liz and has her moments but isn't quite as memorable as everyone else. Last but not least are the zombies, who turn in some terrific, crunchy, munchy, squelchy performances - the wrangler is worthy of the highest praise.

Shaun of the Dead is now a film that I more than just like; I'm now a bona fide fan. It's an incredibly well made film that I'm certain will stand the test of time. I can't wait to see how Hot Fuzz, Pegg and Wright's upcoming follow up (also starring Pegg and Frost in very different roles from this film) buddy cop parody turns out. Early word is they've created a film at least as good as Shaun - no mean feat.

As an aside, since this film features romance and copious amounts of bloody undead violence, it's only fitting that I post this entry on Valentine's Day.