Movie review: Anna Karenina

Anna Karenina is one of those impossible-to-film books. As a piece of 700-page intense literature, the themes are too intense, the characters too verbose, the scene changes dramatic and the characters and plot lines too long and intertwined to be made comprehensible in just 2 hours. (Read what I thought of Anna Karenina in this blog post)

Fortunately, the makers of the latest film version have not even tried to fit the book into a film. What they have done instead is slice the narrative down to every individual dramatic event and leave nothing else. They have cut out all unnecessary words, themes, segways, diversions and focussed entirely on three love stories and the life and ‘lot’ of aristocratic women in late 19^th century Russia.

Furthermore, rather than create extravagant sets for the drawing rooms and streets of St Petersburg, all of the action that takes place in an old, disused theatre. It is clear that this is a not a faithful Anna Karenina but the tale of Anna Karenina. The sets slide and glide and the characters wander freely through the rigging and across the stage, moving from office to restaurant to ice rink.  Difficult to accept at first, it works so beautifully as a device to speed the story along and also to make it clear to the audience how false and misleading is the life of a socialite. Constantin Levin, played by Domhnall Gleeson, is the most real and grounded of all the main characters so he alone is allowed to venture off the stage sets and out into the Russian landscape.

 The film benefits from a cast of bit-characters played by actors such as Ruth Wilson and Shirley Henderson.

Anna Karenina the novel is about so much more than the title character, but in the film, her tragic love story with Vronsky is the key plot and almost every moment in the book is played out in full tear-jerking-glad-its-not-me detail.

 Keira Knightley and Aaron Taylor-Johnson making all the wrong decisions.

Movie review: Great Expectations

Most of us have an idea of the general plot of Great Expectations, having being forced to read it at some point in our high-school-English years. Boy named Pip lives with his sister and her husband. A convict named Magwitch, escaped from a prison ship, happens upon Pip and persuades him to assist with his escape. At around the same time, the local landowner, the mad recluse Miss Haversham takes a liking to Pip and arranges for him to regularly visit her and her adopted daughter Estella, who is as proud and cold as she is beautiful.

Many years later, Pip comes into a mysterious fortune – the ‘great expectations’ of the title – and goes off to become a gentleman in London. He fritters away his cash without thought or plan, dragging others down with him and losing sight of the places and the people he came from. The eventual revealment of his mysterious benefactor and the resolution of the convoluted relationships breaks down what little Pip thought he knew of the world, but he finds a sort of redemption through the forgiveness of others.

 

This latest adaptation is a BBC production with the accompanying top-level British acting talent to match. Ralph Fiennes as Magwitch the convict, Helena Bonham Carter as the disappointed and vindictive Miss Haversham fits like a glove and Robbie Coltrane as the entangled and conniving solicitor Jaggers are the leads to the smattering of familiar faces that make up the cast.

Ralph Fiennes as Abel Magwitch

As with any adaptation of classic, lengthy literature, a lot of the plot is left out or compounded. Personally, I think that in the case of Great Expectations this can only improve what was an unnecessarily drawn-out novel, issued as it was by Dickens as chapter-length installments in a magazine he wrote and published. A movie is a cut-to-the-bone version of the story and for me, this makes the interminable morbidity and accent-indulgent works of Dickens vastly improved.

Along with cutting down, the movie-makers have taken great liberties with the plot, speeding up the action and doling out endings as they see fit. I understand that changes need to be made to transform a book into a film, but in this case certain lines of literary decency were definitely crossed. If I were a Dickens admirer I would likely be horrified, as I am at overly spliced adaptations of Jane Austin.

As with almost all recent period pieces, the look of the film is stunning. The moors Pip is raised on are bleak and beautiful. Satis House and the great decaying wedding feast are a picture of despair, London is as dank and disease-ridden in which amongst the desperate and hateful characters, Pip's delightful friend Hubert Pocket (Olly Alexander) shines. He is one the few light, friendly characters in what is the usual Dickens dramatis personae of oily money money-grubbers, child-beaters and blackguards. 

 The decayed grandeur of Miss Havisham (Helena Bonham-Carter).

Movie review: Life of Pi

I read Life of Pi by Yann Martel back in 2001 when it first came out. I admit I had mixed feelings about it at the time. I loved the story. The pure, unadulterated proper story that is fantastical and enchanting and the sort of story you wish you had been told as a child. However at the time, I found it a little heavy-going in the middle, a bit of a struggle to get through. I enjoyed it but was glad I had finished it. The book still sits on my shelves and I have no intention of throwing it out because it is a great novel.

However, when I saw earlier this year that a movie had been made I was sceptical bordering on dismissive. How could you possibly make a movie out of that book? It was a story and a philosophical work. Not to mention that one of the central protagonists is a tiger trapped in a boat. Of course, I hadn't taken into consideration the amazing progress that has been made in digital CGI work for films. Life of Pi could not have been made without CGI and the whole film relies on the combination of director Ang Lee's beauteous vision of what the book should look like and the incredible skills of the digital department.

When I watched Twilight through the bottom of a wine glass

As I have previously mentioned, I have never read any of the Twilight series. Instead, I have read the entire list of Mark Reads blog posts from when he read the books. They are hilarious! And hateful. He loathes the books, as do most other readers and reviewers, with the obvious exception of teenage girls with strange ideas about sexuality and what is acceptable behaviour in a 'loving' relationship.

Putting my judgemental hat on; everything I know about this series leads me to think it is tragic and truly awful and a terrible book for young women to be reading. 

However, for some ill-judged reasons I decided a little while ago that while I will never read the books, I will try to watch the movies. I think I felt I was missing out on a significant if unfortunate piece of pop culture. Like if I'd never seen the Old Spice ad, read Harry Potter or watched Star Wars (none of which are unfortunate but all of which are vital artefacts of our modern culture). 

So on Friday night I armed myself with a bottle of plonk red and an empty house and I sat down to watch 'Twilight'. I also decided to text Jane throughout the evening and perhaps even send out some tweets. Because there is nothing like Twitter for over-sharing.

Here is a selection of texts and tweets I sent out that night:

Half a bottle (of wine) down, about to start watching and already regretting this. I hate the menu music!!!

This movie is creepy and suspiciously green-tinted already. #Twilightwhiledrunk

Second bottle opened for second half of the movie. How can this be a kid's film, it's so bad on the liver!?!

Bella Swan; least interesting character ever devised? Yes. Fact. #Twilightwhiledrunk 

Wow. What genuinely tragic special effects. This movie was made in the 80s right? The Princess Bride is more realistic. #Twilightwhiledrunk 

Tom Cruise as the Vampire Lestat was scarier and more intimidating than this bunch of sparkling butterflies. #Twilightwhiledrunk

I think watching this film without reading the book is like doing the same thing with Harry Potter; you miss all the subtext. Except in this case, there is no subtext.

2 hours of my life I'm never getting back. I am now going to drink the rest of this bottle of wine so my evening wasn't a complete waste of time. 

 

So now the big question; do I keep going and watch the next one? While drunk, obviously.

Movie review: The Bourne Legacy

I can’t honestly review this movie because I’m not enough of a fan. I like the series, I had this huge urge to re-watch it from the start a couple of weeks, but if I try to review the movie I’m just going to get something wrong. 

So, fourth movie in the series, first one minus Matt Damon as Jason Bourne. That didn’t bother me in the slightest because I have a screen-crush on Jeremy Renner so I enjoyed every minute he was on screen. 

The movie is utterly predictable and like every other action film, particularly the previous Bourne movies. Nothing is new, nothing is experimental. Which isn’t to say it isn’t highly enjoyable as an action flick. Good fight scenes, tough guys, CIA fuck-ups and conspiracies abound. 

This movie feels like a stepping stone of a film. The studio wants to continue the franchise, Matt Damon didn’t want to make any more, so they needed to find a way to continue. This is a stepping stone film to give them an excuse to keep creating Bourne movies and eek out this block-buster franchise. 

One thing I would say is that if like me, it’s been a while since you’ve indulged in the Bourne movies, try and re-watch or remind yourself of the previous three before going to see this one. There was a lot of reference to previous ‘program’ plot lines and I got a bit lost in it all. If I’d known what the CIA/agency people were talking about I might have enjoyed ‘the plot’ a bit more. 

So yeah The Bourne Legacy – go see it for a mindless action film night out. Buy a drink to take into the movie with you, it’s a long film.

Movie Review: The Sapphires

Last week, B and I (and a close friend of ours) went to see The Sapphires. And I don't know about the other two, but I thought it was excellent! I had high expectations of this film, and it did not disappoint at all.

The film is set in 1968, and follows a quartet of singers (Deborah Mailman, Jessica Mauboy, Shari Sebbens, Miranda Tapsell) from a remote Aboriginal mission, who are discovered by soul-loving manager (Chris O'Dowd). They start out briefly singing country and western, but Dave - the manager - steers them in the direction of soul classics like I Heard I Through The Grapevine, What A Man, Who's Lovin' You, and Sugar Pie Honey Bunch. The girl group take their act to auditions in Melbourne and are picked up - to sing for the troops in Vietnam.

One the one hand, The Sapphires is a light-hearted, fun movie. The music is great, the cast is charming, and there's a lot of warmth and dry, Australian humour. On the other hand, the film is set during the Vietman war - half of it takes place actually in the war, on site - and it also deals extensively with the endemic racism faced by people of colour. Not only are the Sapphires in Vietnam to perform for (only) black troops, but one, Kay, is a living example of the stolen generation. Kay's sub-plot explores the way she reclaims her Indigenous heritage, and I thought it was a subtly effective part of the story. In addition to the Australian racism on show, the American troops are shown to have similar experiences, with one white soldier refusing treatment by a black medic. The two sides - Australian and American - are brought together towards the end of the film, when the assassination of Martin Luther King is reported and the loss is shown to affect not only on the US troops, but on the Indigenous Australians in the mission back home.

But one thing I liked about this film is that these issues are carefully woven in amongst the charm, present but not overpowering. The film doesn't shy away from portraying racism and oppression, and the damage caused is visible. But it's presented in a way that's almost matter-of-fact, and the characters don't lose hope or succumb. They refuse to be victims, they take the opportunities they get, and they have fun as often as possible. These women are strong, confident and most importantly of all, they care about each other. They want better lives, they want to be in love; I really liked the message here. I thought this film was well balanced between real-world issues and the idealised fun of the musical genre.

So, overall? Go see The Sapphires. It's a charming, fun film, with a fantastic soundtrack and a real-world background.

Movie review: Magic Mike

One of my closest friends is getting married next month. As part of her pre-marriage celebrations it was decided that a collection of females should get together for a film-bonding experience. The film of choice was one wedding-related but we missed

So on the bride-to-be’s suggestion we opted for the next best thing: half-naked men. Yes, last night I went to see Magic Mike. 

Magic Mike is inspired by star Channing Tatum’s previous life as a male stripper. It’s pretty lazy on the notion of plot-line and the drama / conflict feels so token. It’s as if the film makers decided they couldn’t really make a movie that was 1.5 hours of stripping, so they threw in the easiest, most obvious ‘conflict’ they could muster. Conflict enters story, provides ‘drama’, conflict leaves. Subplot: dealt with. 

Really though, this film is about men getting naked and ‘fulfilling the dreams’ of their under-sexed female clientele.  The dance / strip scenes are what makes this movie worth seeing and there are some genuinely spectacular moves on display. Tatum in particular is a true performer who relishes his turns on stage. There is a great scene of Matthew McConaughey instructing the latest recruit on the art of hip-grinding to achieve maximum frenzy in the audience.  

 Oh god, no.

Review: The QSO performs The Lord of the Rings

On Friday night Rowebotic and I became the envy of our friends when we got a little nerdy and went to see the Queensland Symphony Orchestra perform The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring at QPAC.

 All images copyright of the Lord of the Rings and New Line.

The ‘performance’ of the Lord of the Rings premiered in late 2003, on the same weekend as the premiere of The Return of the King, with the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra conducted by Howard Shore, the composer. Since then the production has toured the world, under strict licence by the New Line and having been performed by both the Sydney Symphony and the MSO, it’s Brisbane’s turn.

We started out night by trying out the recently opened Champ kitchen + bar, under the new ABC/QSO Building in Southbank. The latest venture by the owners of Anouk, it’s a delightful café restaurant that is perfectly placed to tend to the dining needs of show-goers, tourists and of course, office workers.

We each had a glass of white ($8 / $10), I had the Crab and apple salad on scallop ceviche with baby pea shoots and a trickle of jus ($19) and Rowebotic devoured her Peking duck dumplings in duck consommé with shiitake and scallop and scallop mushroom ($17). They were both divine; amazing flavours and the freshest ingredients. Unfortunately, not quite enough for a light dinner on a Friday evening. The rest of the dinner menu was equally mouth-watering and I would love to go back soon to try the duck confit or the tea-smoked barramundi.

We sat on the outside terrace overlooking the bougainvillea, the river and the street traffic. With a  glass of chilled Muscadet in hand, it was a lovely way to spend an hour. I predict that come summer and long warm evenings, one will have to get in early to get one of these ideal spots.

The film

A quick film review: Dhoom 2

You've never heard of Dhoom 2, but it was a big hit back in 2006. It's a Bollywood film, born out of the crazy world of the world's largest film industry (seriously – so much bigger than Hollywood) and it encapsulates everything that is wonderful about Bollywood.

I described Dhoom 2 to a work colleague as The Italian Job meets Fast and the Furious but with dance numbers. It's so much better/worse than that.

The plot is very simple. Master thief defies police until know-it-all Mumbai Assistant Commissioner gets on the case and there ensues a typical cat-and-mouse chase with hot women thrown in.

What most people object to about Bollywood is the sheer ridiculousness of most movies. It's true, you can't watch a typical Bolly film without a sense of humour and a willingness to just go along for the ride. Questions of continuity or plausibility cannot be allowed to enter your mind. The opening sequence of Dhoom 2 has the master thief attempting to steal the crown of England from an incredibly unattractive 'Queen' (Queen Elizabeth II, not articulated) on a beat-up looking train going through the desert of Namibia. And that's not even where implausible starts. However, it is followed up by one of the best titles sequences ever full of sweaty writhing bodies in an amazing dance sequence. Who the hell cares about Lizzie's jewels after that?

The dance numbers are a problem for a lot of potential movie-goers. Let me explain; Bollywood films are not allowed to show direct physical contact such as kissing on screen. Material that may be offensive is not allowed to be shown, including sex and violence. So where in your typical western movie there would be a love scene, in Bollywood there is a song and dance number in which the leads express their love through song. In dance they can also touch each other and get right up close – but no kissing, never any kissing. Interestingly, Dhoom 2 does contain a kiss and shooting and mild violence. They were charged with indecency for the kiss but it passed the censors eventually and was included in the international release.

So Dhoom 2 is a great terrible movie you will really like provided you can overlook certain issues like believability and instead just enjoy the spectacle, the shirtless men / bikini-clad women and the shear fun of it all.

Movie reviews: The King of Devil's Island and The Avengers

So far this week I've gone to the local cinema twice. First for a preview screening of The King of Devil's Island, a gritty Norwegian film and second for The Avengers, which we all know is the latest Marvel comics installment. The two films could not have been more different, but I highly recommend going to see both.

First off, The King of Devil's Island. This film, released in Norway far back in 2010, is set in 1915 and tells the true story of events on the island of Bastoy which housed a centre for 'mal-adjusted boys'. Boys and housemasters alike are trapped on this gods-forsaken place as the boys aged between 5 and 19 receive 'treatment' as an alternative to prison. The Governor, played to righteous stoic perfection by Stellen Saarsgard, seems to really believe that what is done on Bastoy can bring out the 'honourable, noble, useful Christian' inside each supposed delinquent.



The simmering tensions between boys and housemasters provides most of the dramatic tension as the harsh treatment and abuses pile up. Reviews I have read about this film present it as 'dour', 'grim' and 'bleak', but having watched the trailer before the film that was just what I expected, so I had the luxury of sitting back and just enjoying what is really an excellent film.

So - The Avengers! I won't waste too much finger-energy on this one. Chances are you've seen it or are going to anyway. Point is: Marvel comic action movie with hot super-heroes defeating less-attractive evil guys and destroying large amounts of city in the mean time. Big CGI, big evil guys, big green man whose pants seem to stretch even if his shirt doesn't (does this plot-hole bother no-one else?) and a whole lot of entertainment. Oh, yeah, and Robert Downey Jnr get 90% of the good lines. But that was also expected. Go see it with a group of friends, it's a fun night out.

My week with the theatre

Between last Tuesday 28^th and this Monday 5^th I have spent 4 nights out at the theatre. I don’t know about you, but that’s a little above my weekly average. Two nights I went out with family and friends and two nights I took myself out, because I am excellent company. I can’t possible review everything I saw and anyway, they’ve (almost) all been reviewed by persons much more erudite than my poor self. So here is a recap:

Tuesday 28 Feb: My Week With Marilyn

I’ve been wanting to see this movie since the trailer was released, so I am thrilled I managed to do it. An impeccable cast, brilliant costumes and set. Michelle Williams puts on a stellar performance as Marilyn and though you are conscious that it is Michelle playing Marilyn rather than Marilyn, she produces an amazing emotional performance and you get to see every side of Marilyn – the star, the actress, the little girl lost, the seductress, all in a short 1.5 hours. Eddie Redemayne as Colin was delicious to look at as well, which didn’t hurt. 
 
The only issue I had was that I kept expecting ‘the week’ – for Marilyn and protagonist to disappear for a whole week – and it never happened. Only realised afterwards – oh, that was the week. That may not make sense now, but see the film and you’ll get it.

Friday 2 March: The Artist

Another film I’d been meaning to go and see. I thought I’d missed it as the showings at my local cinema reduced down to 2:30pm daily but thanks to the Oscars I got a second chance to make it. You’ve probably all heard of The Artist – a silent black and while film that won the most recent Best Picture award at the Oscars. The film centres around a big-time silent film star at the time of the introduction of talkies. It is brilliant. So well done. The actors have to walk that fine line between the ham-acting of the silent era and subtle but emotive acting of our own film era. It’s different from anything else you’re going to see so it’s a must. It would even be acceptable to my mother because there is no violence and of course, no swear words. Go see it.

Did I mention there is a dog?

Saturday 3 March: As You Like It by La Boite Theatre Company

Shakespeare can be difficult and over-done. La Boite, in their increasingly sexy and fabulous seasons have had much success with Shakespeare, most notably their version of Hamlet to kick off the 2011 season. The last time I enjoyed Shakespeare was a production of Shakespeare’s Shorts which was just hilarious.

Updating Shakespeare can be tricky. I remember a QTC (I think) production of Romeo and Juliet that was criticised for ‘modernising’ to have the actors using ipods and computers, mobile phones etc. The whole tragedy of Romeo and Juliet rests on mis-communication. If Romeo, Juliet and the Priest had had mobiles phones than all that tragic-death part could have been avoided.

La Boite updates As You Like It very cleverly, bringing in some modern costuming and culture - for example, the play opens with some UFC-style wrestling - to avoid falling into the trap of giving us a stuffy, histrionic version of Shakespeare.

Aside from the beautiful hair of the lead actor, what made this production a delight for me was the staging. Beautiful, imaginative, involved with the audience – an utter delight.
I must also say thank you and kudos to the wonderful staff at La Boite who gave me a replacement ticket when it was discovered that, for the first time in my life, I had booked a ticket on the wrong day. Not all theatres would have been so accommodating.

Image courtesy of La Boite Theatre Company Online Gallery.
 

Monday 5 March – The Brolly Follies

This might be the one and only review you read of this how because it was on for ONE NIGHT ONLY. So it doesn’t really matter what I think, either.

The Brolly Follies was a night of cabaret starring the actors and ensemble from Mary Poppins with all the proceeds going to the Starlight Foundation. It was an absolute delight to hear these professionals singers performer in a relaxed, casual environment songs that they themselves would have chosen . Songs as diverse as Summertime, Be Italian (from the movie Nine), Do You Remember (from the upcoming production of Peter Pan), Rolling in the Deep.

My stand out favourites were a Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons-style ‘Is you is or is you ain’t my baby’ by five bow-tied and brillo-creamed male members of the ensemble and another five piece song specially put together for the night. Five of the female actresses singing their woes at always being asked to sing alto. It is quite an education to hear well known classics sung below the melody.
A brilliant night and if it had been on again I would recommend everyone go to see it. I also mention it because the only reason I knew it was on was through the Judith Wright Centre’s twitter feed. 

Twitter has a use; who’d have known?

Movie Review: The Muppets

Last night I went with a couple of friends to see the new Muppets movie. I had high expectations of this movie and I'm sorry to say they weren't met. It was gloriously full of one's favourite Muppets, it was cheesy and didn't pretend to be otherwise, it was light and cheerful and entertaining. It was everything it promised to be. I just didn't find it that funny. Which is a real shame because this cracks me up Every Time I See It!

Still, it was a good film that just delivered on what it promised and I hope children going to see it love and get to re-discover the old Muppets too. Not that the Muppets have stayed still all these years. Living on in a series of mediocre movies and through work on Sesame Street, TV specials and the of course the marvel of YouTube bringing the old classics and a few new ones to the desks of bored office workers all around the world.

If I were to sit down and watch the Muppets' original TV show today, would I find it funny or would it have all paled now that I'm discovered sarcasm and other less innocent forms of humour? I suppose at least now I would understand what Waldorf and Statler were saying.

All videos courtesy of YouTube, Copyright of the origianal owner.

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Jane and I are both Robert Downey Jnr fans. We both also love movies with a bit of action, a lot of cheesiness and fun script writing. So when the new Sherlock Holmes film came out, it was a must-see.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is the second in the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes series. The first Sherlock Holmes (2009) was a bit 'radical' as it stepped away from so many Holmes stereotypes. Gone was the deerstalkers, the meerschaum pipe and the quiet brainiac. Holmes was now scruffy man of action; a lover, a fighter and a constant pest to the ever faithful Watson (Jude Law). The cocaine addiction, the slightly irritating pontificating and the genius mind remained. I loved the first Sherlock Holmes as I do all clever crime movies. It was cheesy, sexy and smart and a bundle of fun.

The second instalment of Sherlock, rushed out after the huge success of the first, pits Sherlock against his nemesis Professor James Moriarty, played brilliantly by Jared Harris. Possessing a genius mind and the patience of a sloth, Moriarty has turned from academia to terrorism and it seems that only Holmes can stop him in.

Jared Harris as Professor Moriarty.

Along for the ride are Steven Fry as Mycroft Holmes (family can be so embarrassing), Kelly Reilly as patient and intelligent Mary, Watson's fiancée and a host of random other people you can only tell apart by the patterns of their facial hair.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows was everything I expected it to be. There were great action sequences, some good lines and laughs and a whole pizza load of cheese. At times, the willing suspension of disbelief was stretched a bit too far and the continuity was absolute rubbish. Guy Ritchie's over use of slow motion also got rather trying but if you can get over those last few issues, it was a great piece of entertainment, which is al it really needs to be.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows – go see it, but make sure you're in the right mood.

Do you really think it's to much?

Images property of WarnerBros. Studios

When bad movies get good reviews

I would like to start this blog entry with a sweeping statement:

I have never read any of the Twilight series but I think they’re crap.

Said it.

In order to not be completely out of the loop on this butt-of-pop-culture-mockery, I have instead read Mark Reads’ excellent assessment of each book, and have enjoyed his passionate abuse as much as I have been horrified by the occasional passages he cites from the books themselves.

I therefore very much enjoyed this review of the just released / upcoming / I don’t care, whatever installment of the Twilight movie saga. I particularly liked:

“Thus begins a montage of Bella trying to seduce Edward, which is problematic because (Kristen) Stewart has all the sex appeal of a damp carrot.” - Paul Verhoeven

Enjoy.

"Would it help if I got a spray tan?"

Film Review: Melancholia

Last night I went to see Lars Von Trier's Melancholia, starring Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Alexander Skarsgard and Keifer Sutherland. The film was shown as part of the Brisbane International Film Festival, but should be on general release quite soon. It's been leading the pack at various European film festivals and awards shows, and let me tell you, this film deserves every accolade it's getting. It's one of those pieces of cinema that makes you reconsider what a film can be, and the types of human experience it can explore.

The film is structured in two parts. The first chapter, "Justine", concerns Kirsten Dunst's character, and her wedding to Michael (Alexander Skarsgard). It takes place at her sister and brother-in-law's beautiful country estate, and we are briefly introduced to her family and their various dysfunctions. The focus of the chapter, though, is the unravelling of Justine's emotional state under the weight of the star above her, and her sudden inability to enjoy her wedding or connect with her new husband. Her behavior is explained in a key moment later in the film, but in these early moments, we are only able to watch as she inexplicably starts to dismantle her life - at her wedding, of all possible times.

The second chapter, "Claire" takes place days or maybe weeks later, when the people of earth know that the star is actually a planet, headed for the sun, that might pass us by or might crash into Earth and destroy us. Claire, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, is Justine's sister, married to John (Keifer Sutherland) and mother to Leo (Cameron Spurr), and her experience of this threat is extremely different to Justine's. Her tension and fear - for her son, for what could happen to her life - is palpable, and she displays the strain of eroding faith that I think many people would share in her situation. The sheer existence of such a planet, and the knowledge that she's living through an actual doomsday scenario, goes up against her belief that there's no possible way life or the human race could be utterly wiped out like this, and resolves onscreen as a creeping sense of betrayal that's far too big for her to process.

One of the things that makes this film so amazing is how believably it realizes what is a fairly far-fetched scenario. (I'm telling myself it's far-fetched. Do not contradict me. There are no planets hurtling towards us.) Justine and Claire, as well as the other characters we see, react with all the helplessness, anger, twisted resignation, preemptive grief and sheer terror that you would expect if the situation was real, and the director doesn't forget to infuse the film with the twin sensations of waiting in anticipation, and time inexorably running out. A key change from other apocalyptic films is the focus on small domestic drama, rather than the action-packed efforts of soldiers or renegades to stop the threat and save the world, and I think it's this that makes it feel like a far more genuine exploration of human nature and experience. Another contrast is the lack of grimy, desperate apocalyptic scenarios; even the planet - the instrument of the apocalypse - is rendered in greens and blues, or shining like a second moon, contributing to the strange beauty of the film's setting.

The actors handle their roles with skill; Charlotte Gainsbourg is fantastic, and I'm more interested in Kirsten Dunst than I've ever been. I can't say enough about how sympathetic and believable their portrayals of Claire and Justine are. The supporting actors are also excellent, and I thought Keifer Sutherland was unexpectedly perfect, infusing John with a likely level of entitled-lord-of-the-manor, balancing it with his obviously deep love for his wife and son, and then somehow including a weakness that makes his end utterly believable.

A lot of people I know have had bad experiences with Lars Von Trier films in the past. And yes, Dancer in the Dark was traumatic, Dogville was uncomfortably cathartic, Antichrist was horrifying, I know, I've heard. Melancholia won't necessarily change opinions of Trier as a director who likes to elicit extreme emotions from his audience, but the film is so outstanding that it's worth the risk. It's beautiful, the emotions are perfectly handled, and the ending is...well, I won't spoil it. The whole film is intense, exhilarating and sad, and you should go see it even if you need a stiff drink afterwards. (Actually, if you go to Palace Cinemas like I did, you can take the drink in with you, for fortification during. Might be a good idea...)

When childhood movies are just as good as you remember them.

In the last month I have watched 2 movies from my childhood that were every bit as good as I remember them.

The first was Babe. When I first saw Babe in 1995 aged 11, I LOVED it. I laughed at the mice, I cried, I got so excited in the thrills of the end competition. It was a great movie. It was nominated for Best Picture in the 1996 Oscars, if that means anything to you. Didn’t to me at the time, like the rest of the world I was just in love with the talking pig with the heart of gold.

On holiday in Vietnam recently – and yes, holiday blogs are coming – Jane and I were relaxing in our hotel room one afternoon, escaping the heat of the day and flicking through the TV channels. We’d seen some really terrible movies in our daily down time – The Jerk Theory, Post Grad – so when Babe came on we both quite excited. 45 mins in to it we were both lying on our stomachs on our beds, close up to the TV, face in hands with rapt expressions of enjoyment as Babe charmed his way to fame.

It was brilliant. It was magical. I laughed and *almost cried and we both agreed it was still a great movie.

Everything about this movie was good. Especially the mice.

The next childhood movie I watched was Jurassic Park. I have very vivid memories of the first time I watched Jurassic Park. My parents had refused to allow me to go and see it in the movies because it was too scary. So when it came out on video, the kids down the road rented it out and one Sunday afternoon we kids all got together and watched it. I remember so well sitting there on their brown carpet, clutching a pillow to my chest being scared out of my mind by the T-Rex and the car scene and then when the Raptors came along I lost it completely. Scare of my life until I saw Alien a few years later.

Then a week or so ago, I found myself sitting on a brown couch watching Jurassic Park for the first time since 1993. Even though this time around I knew that the T-Rex and the Raptors were coming, it had been so long since I’d seen the movie that I’d forgotten all but the most obvious details. I am not ashamed to admit it scared me good and proper. I might even have screamed on a few occasions when Raptor heads suddenly burst through walls. At one point I clutched a pillow to my chest in memory of that first illicit viewing, but it only made me more scared. There was a supply of wine accompanying the viewing and that a definite improvement on my 9 year old self's 1993 viewing.

If you didn't find this scene scary, you're a dirty dirty liar.

If I watched Jurassic Park again this weekend, it wouldn’t scare me so much. It’s not so terrifying really; it was only the time span that made this second viewing so potent.

Totally forgot this guy was even in the movie. It's ALL HIS FAULT.

So while there have been many occasions when I’ve gone back and watched a beloved childhood movie only to find that it’s lost the magic as I’ve aged (Men In Tights, I’m sad to say), there are some films that are good no matter what age you are and if they can make you feel the way you did when you first saw them at 8 or 10 or 11, then so much the better.

Have any of you re-watched a movie from your childhood and it’s been just as wonderful as you remember?

I might have yelled at the TV sometime around now...

B re-reads Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

The book opens with 'The villagers of Little Haggleton still called it the Riddle House...' and I was completely non-plussed for a moment until I remembered how awesomely this book opens! Not with Dursleys and Harry being treated badly – that doesn't come around until chapter 2. No, the start of GoF is intense!

This is such a good episode in the series. There are some really glorious scenes, such as when the Weasleys come to pick Harry up for the World Cup, the World Cup itself, dress robes, dance lessons ... anything that features the suddenly cool and hot Ginny. (I'm a total Ginny fan girl)

The scenes where Harry and Ron are struggling to ask out a couple of girls to the Yule Ball are just so accurately written you can't help but smile the whole way though. Ron's a bit of a tosser, only wanting to take the prettiest girl possible and J.K. Rowling also gives us the first hints in the series of Ron and Hermione and their upcoming emotional tug-of-war in Ron's petty anger and jealousy of Viktor Krum and Hermione's unhappiness at Ron's shallowness and bitterness.



I have bad memories of the horror and embarrassment that went along with having to ask boys to dance practise and eventually graduation in primary school. High school dances were easier – that asking to dance was just a tap on the shoulder, and shrug of acceptance and then some uncomfortable grinding and ass-grabbing.

The dance lessons scenes in the movie don't exist in the book, but I forgive the movie makers, just for this:



Goblet of Fire also has my favourite little moment in the series and it goes something like this:

Moody swept the dead spider off his desk and onto the floor.“Not nice,” he said calmly. “Not pleasant. And there's no counter-curse. There's no blocking it. Only one known person has ever survived it, and he's sitting right in front of me."

Thrills me very time. Shivers down the spine sort of stuff.

It's in GoF that we first learn of Snape's Death Eater past and the absolute faith Dumbledore has put in him and his conversion to the right side. Harry sees all this in the Penseive and when he asks Dumbledore why he trusts that Snape stopped supporting Lord Voldemort;
“Harry, that is a matter between Professor Snape and myself”.

But WE KNOW!

Then of course, there are final scenes where Voldemort comes back. There is no way anyone could have been expecting that at the start of the book. These books tend to have whole block of chapters at the end where you can't put the book down! That starts here somewhere around the beginning of the third task somewhere around page 540 and doesn't stop until page 636.
It's SO GOOD!



The thin man stepped out of the cauldron, staring at Harry...and Harry stared back into the face that had haunted his nightmares for three years. Whiter than a skull, with wide, livid scarlet eyes, and a nose that was as flat as a snake's, with slits for nostrils …

Lord Voldemort had risen again.



Shit is getting REAL!

Movie review: James McAvoy, sorry...X-Men First Class

Last night I went to see X-Men: First Class and loved it. It was exactly what I thought it would be; an action movie covered in a thin layer of translucent plot with a healthy side serving of cheese.

What really made this evening of high-quality low-thought entertainment was the casting of James McAvoy as the young Charles Xavier. X-Men was two hours of James McAvoy deliciousness.

James McAvoy made it on to my Grade 12 'celebrity husbands' list (I think Jane's as well, but she might not like that I said that) and I think he'd still be on there if, say, I got desperately bored at work one Friday and wrote a new version. He and January Jones both played telepathes and I think they were the sexiest mutants in the whole movie. James McAvoy as the thinking, charming but incredibly powerful mutant and January Jones as the evil side-kick strutting through the movie in a series of skimpy or leather outfits a la a 1960's Bond film.

If you know what should happen in the comics, you probably won't enjoy the movie. But that's so often the way with book → movie translations; guaranteed to disappoint and annoy most fans. I personally got very indignant at the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 trailer before the film started.

Anyway, the movie was very entertaining provided you had no expectations. I'm not going to try for a more sophisticated review – there are enough reviews by people who really care about the franchise for that. Just go if you like a night of mindless entertainment and James McAvoy.