50 First Dates

A second good movie in two days!

Not sure what has happened, but weeks have passed since we went to the cinema, and now I have done two films two nights in a row.

50 First Dates had a preview last night (I think it opens today), and it was showing at the right time for us in Wimbledon, so we thought that we would give it a go. I expected an Adam Sandler gag-fest and, really, it wasn’t. I am not a fan of many of the movies Adam Sandler has been in, but this is heart-warming (and humorous) and was a big surprise.

Sandler’s character (Henry Roth) meets Drew Barrymore’s Lucy in a breakfast diner and tries to pull all his best lines on her. None of them really work, but he falls for her and so begins a touching story (if somewhat unbelievable) and a thoroughly entertaining evening out. You may, or may not, really be suspending your disbelief as the woman with no memory seems to fall for Roth, but I think you’ll get over that.

Surprisingly Good.

The Station Agent

The Station Agent was a superb film given that very little happens.

A quick review of The Station Agent, a film a saw on the spur of the moment last night.

It’s a well-written, superbly acted film where – almost – nothing happens. And, unlike many films of its type, it’s well worth watching because the characters are both fascinating and endearing. Fin is, as they say, vertically challenged and moves into a parochial American backwater town where a Cuban hot dog man sells his wares to (more-or-less) nobody and Olivia, an artist going through a messy divorce, who almost drives over our hero (twice). They are an odd set of warm characters performed brilliantly by the cast.

It’s also a comedy and succeeds in not turning farcical with lots of slapstick about shorter people. The comedy is tender, clever and entertaining, but it’s not a belly-laugh-a-minute film.

The Station Agent turned out to be one of the best films I have seen so far this year.

2003 In Summary

Like Jerry, my final thoughts on 2003.

If I can be allowed to be more self-centred – or inward-looking – than usual, I have found the process of re-reading the year’s worth of entries to be very interesting. Not only have I surprised myself with some of the pieces that I have written, but when viewing them all together, it seems that the site is a lot more coherent than I imagined. There are some key groupings of themes that have emerged – it’s clear I have a fascination with transport – and there are considerably fewer trivial pieces.

Many of the words I have written are, of course, about my life and might be considered to be trivial to some, but I feel I have gained an insight into myself with some of the longer pieces. And, it is those longer pieces which have most startled me on the re-reading: I must make a conscious effort to write more discussion works. Perhaps I should open the comments on the main body of the site to stimulate further thinking.

Of all the other sites I have read across the year, I still come back to my old faithfuls. So, this is the point where I should wish Tom, Jase, Jason, Bart, Meg, Phil, Eric, Chris, Bravo, Nick and Luke a very Happy New Year. Oh, and those are just the top-listed ones in my Bloglines subscriptions.

Bloglines is to be nominated as my tool of the year for 2003, it’s made the whole business of reading other sites so much easier (if only Blogger users would provide nice RSS feeds). Of course, I shouldn’t forget Six Apart who, via Movable Type, make all this possible.

Writing is one of the few creative outlets I have, and I am happy to have it as a hobby – it seems more useful than making a model of St Paul’s Cathedral from matchsticks.

Best wishes for 2004 to all who come across this page.

Love Actually

This is really an inoffensive, somewhat amusing, light-hearted, feel-good British comedy.

Love Actually is not the film I imagined it to be. I guess you can call it a romantic comedy and it seemed like a sensible film to watch on New Year’s Day. The cinema was packed which suggests we wen’t the only ones with that idea.
I should say from the beginning, it’s sentimental and feel-good. If those words put you off then you shouldn’t really see this film. I do think, however, that if you have ever (even once) got a little lovey-dovey then could go and see this movie and get something out of it.

It’s weaves a whole stack of separate stories together about people in love or finding love (and even out of love) with the backdrop of Christmas in London. Richard Curtis (of Four Weddings And A Funeral fame) makes his directorial debut and provides a very well-shot image of 21st Century London at Christmas. There are some really well-done sequences around the city which gives somebody like me – who thinks he’s seen all he wants to of London – something to smile at.

Having said it’s well-shot it is not without problems. Too many stories are intertwined leaving too many questions unanswered. When you leave a cinema questioning some of your understanding about who was who and where things were set you know that at some point this film failed. Why have the whole Wisconsin sequence, for example? And what happened to the Laura Linney parts – I suspect there is something on a cutting room floor that explains all that somewhere.

But don’t let that put you off. Liam Neeson’s storyline is great (even if it stretched believability a little), Emma Thompson is superb (and you will feel for her as she opens a Christmas present) as Alan Rickman‘s wife (he too stands out with a great, typical Rickman performance). Even Hugh Grant is believable as a Prime Minister who falls for his tea lady (Martine McCutcheon).

What I liked, although I have no idea if they will translate to the US, are the really British touches. Ant and Dec are the kid’s TV presenters; Jo Wiley is a DJ and Wes Butters does the chart run down for the Christmas Number One. And there wasn’t an over abundance of red London busses – which must be a first for British films.

This is really an inoffensive, somewhat amusing, light-hearted, feel-good British comedy and I hope it does well. If you read the message boards over at the Internet Movie Database you’ll read about people walking out in shock and disgust – which, if you’ve seen the film, is just as amusing.

The Quiet American

Michael Caine is excellent in The Quiet American.

Thanks to the joy of dvdsontap, I have just watched Michael Caine in The Quiet American, the adaption of Graham Greene’s novel about an American spy, Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser).

Pyle is a US agent who is backing an anti-communist force in Vietnam and befriends British journalist Thomas Fowler (Caine) before ending up part of a love triangle with a local Vietnamese girl, Phuong (Do Thi Hai Yen).

Caine was superb as the Saigon-based reporter – an understated performance that steals the show. The movie is well produced, and the atmosphere of the Far East is brilliantly portrayed. I would never have gone to the movies to see this, but I am so glad that I added it to the DVD list.

Downsize This!

Inspired by Stupid White Men to read another of Michael Moore‘s books, I came away thinking that Downsize This was actually a better work. Sure, some of the scenarios are silly (‘What America Needs Is A Makeover’) and many of the examples a little dated (some have been overtaken by world events). It’s also true that some of the humour doesn’t seem to sit well with the subjects but it is, nonetheless, a very welcome voice in the sea of opinions.

Moore does attempt to be humorous with his staple subjects: corporate greed and accountability, right to freedom/life and social and environmental responsibility. Like Stupid White Men the book makes subjects accessible that are often not covered by mainstream media.

If Stupid White Men has made you think about reading more then this is a good start if you’re happy to have many more American examples as the main topic. If you’re looking for something a little more British then this is not the book for you.

Read other people’s opinions at Amazon UK.

Stupid White Men

Probably the most famous of American Liberal thinkers at the moment,Michael Moore is a US treasure, and they should treat him as such. Instead, the land of free speech tried to prevent this book from being published following the attacks on the World Trade Centre.

Thankfully, this book made it out. It’s certainly very US-centric (it was, after all, written for that market), but many of the points apply to much of the Western world. While suggesting that “we live in a society that rewards and honours corporate gangsters”, Moore does it with a humour that’s accessible and easily read.

Much political writing is hard to read, whereas this is written in small chunks and is easily digested. For those familiar with liberal writings, much of Moore’s work may appear superficial, but that’s to do with the style rather than the content. It is Moore’s style that has made this book number one on so many book lists, but it’s the content that people will remember. For the British reader, the challenge is to see where our democracy is following the US lead.

Why should you read this book? Because it puts the greed of the consumption society into perspective and genuinely makes you think about the society in which we live.

You can read other people’s opinions of the book at Amazon UK

Elsewhere: Blitzed! The Autobiography of Steve Strange

In some respects it’s a fascinating tale of fame and hedonism. If, however, you’ve read biographies of other Eighties pop stars then you’ve heard a lot of it before. The story seems to have been repeated: humble beginnings drive creativity which lead to fame and then there is a some-kind of fa

I’ve just finished Blitzed! The autobiography of Steve Strange and posted my review to Amazon:

Blitzed! The Autobiography of Steve Strange

I’ve just finished Blitzed! The autobiography of Steve Strange and posted my review to Amazon:

Steve Strange was an icon of the Eighties music scene, a visionary and a leader. I suspect he’s often overlooked, but his contribution was vital. His clubs kick-started a movement, and the band he fronted,Visage, were pioneers of what became the New Romantics: make-up, big hair, big hats, and even bigger shirt lapels and cuffs. From the beginning of the decade, and out of the punk movement, came the classic Fade To Grey. Visage and Steve Strange were combining fashion and music in a radical new way.
Blitzed has an informal style, which makes it quite readable. Strange name-drops his way through a decade and apologises quite a lot for his behaviour. It’s a cautionary tale of a rise to fame, money mismanagement, and drug addiction. It’s the story of London squats and club-land rivalry and of a community that knew they were changing nightclubs, the fashion scene and music – and doing it all in a few short years. It is a struggle to stop a man falling over the edge and trying to make sense of a life where once his name was in lights, but the money is long gone.
In some respects, it’s a fascinating tale of fame and hedonism. If, however, you’ve read biographies of other Eighties pop stars, then you’ve heard a lot of it before. The story seems to have been repeated: humble beginnings drive creativity, which leads to fame, and then there is a kind of fall (usually, drink or drug-induced). Blitzed is an enjoyable read, but Boy George will give you more, and Marc Almond will take you further. If you knew the club scene of the time, there’s an insight into the door policies of the new breed of Eighties clubs and how they worked. If you are looking for the story of Visage, then, obviously, it’s covered here, and this will be a valuable reference – but it’s more about the man than the band.
If you remember the decade, then you’ll read this book regardless, but, sadly, I felt there could have been a little more. Nonetheless, Blitzed reinforces Steve Strange’s rightful place as a leader of a movement that’s certainly not about to fade away.

You can buy Blitzed!: The Autobiography of Steve Strange at Amazon now.

Leaving Metropolis

Sometimes, I get a block when trying to write about the films I have seen. Usually, that just means I end up with quite a short entry. However, with Leaving Metropolis, I am going to sum up the film in the words of a reviewer at IMDb:

This film is basically a gay love triangle. David is a famous painter with “painter’s block.” He has a live-in, HIV-positive, pre-op transsexual black live-in friend, Shannon. He has a famous-newspaper-columnist fag-hag friend, Kryla. To get his muse back, David decides to become a waiter again. He ends up waiting tables at a small diner owned by Matt and Violet, a married couple (recently married? it’s not clear). David is immediately attracted to Matt. Soon, as David encourages Matt’s secret talent for drawing comic-book characters and boosting Matt’s self-esteem, Matt begins to fall for David. David then paints a series of erotic images of Matt. The film ends predictably enough: Lots of tragedy (divorce, death, friends falling out, etc.) but also a “hopeful ending” (everyone starts over anew).
[Source]

It’s an enjoyable fantasy ride of a film, well-made with interesting characters. Matt (Vince Corazza) holds the screen well and is certainly worth seeing.

Far From Heaven

Far from Heaven is a strange film set in a place called Hartford in 1957, and it really does look like it. It’s melodramatic – as all 1950s movies should be – and it’s got that feeling (you could say retro as the look is very in at the moment) which makes you think, for some reason, that Formica is the path to happiness for us all.

Cathy and Frank are a successful couple living in a well-to-do house with successful friends and the appearance of a respectable, 50s suburban family life. She lunches and hosts parties, the maid looks after the children, and he is a top salesman. The family, however, is rocked when Cathy (Julianne Moore) catches Frank (Dennis Quaid) in a passionate embrace with another man. This repressed homosexuality eventually wrecks their marriage, and Cathy finds comfort in the friendship of Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert) – a black man in a time when white men and black men could not ride in the same part of the bus.

The film is certainly moving, and there are some scenes where you see and feel the emotional trauma the pair go through. The reaction of the middle classes is an insight into what, for me, seems like a different world. It’s played well, and the three leads should all be praised for their performances. Far and Heaven addresses difficult issues in an interesting way, but the 50s styling allows you to distance yourself from the characters’ feelings and opinions. I suspect that some of the fear and prejudice still lie beneath many, and this film won’t make people address them.

Some of the scenes seem too forced, stylised, or stereotypical to be carried off believably. Having said that, it’s an enjoyable film and one I would recommend.

UPDATE 24 MARCH: Sadly, Julianne Moore didn’t win for this or The Hours. However, Michael Moore did win Best Documentary Feature for Bowling For Columbine.

Adaptation

It’s wowed audiences and received Oscar nominations(for Nicolas Cage, Chris Cooper, Meryl Streep and for Charlie Kaufman’s writing) but it didn’t do very much for me. Sadly, I was almost asleep, which I guess isn’t a good review.

In theory, it’s an interesting movie. Instead of being able to write a screenplay based on Susan Orlean’s bestselling novel “The Orchid Thief“, Charlie Kaufman (and his twin brother, Donald – more about him later) write a movie telling the tale that the film can not be written. We suffer with the author as he faces writer’s block and is tormented by false starts. Of course, during this process, we also get to see something of The Orchid Thief itself as characters within the novel have to face their own torments.

Charlie Kaufman is, of course, a real screenwriter (he wrote Being John Malkovich), and the tale appears somewhat autobiographical. Donald Kaufman, who shares the writing credit and is – I imagine – also nominated for The Oscar, is fictitious: a plot device to add to Charlie’s trauma and help finish the film.

I’ve heard great things about this film – and that made me want to see it. I read a great feature on it in a recent edition of Empire which also made it sound interesting and people have raved about it. I was looking forward to seeing it and, sadly, I left the cinema bitterly disappointed. You can’t fault the film on originality, story-telling or acting (Streep is fantastic, Cage superb as both twins) but something didn’t work for me. It’s terrible when that happens in a film, but this time it didn’t work. It would be an interesting take to see if I could watch it again and if I could get more out of it.

Unfortunately, I do think that while it’s clever it’s also confusing. Those who understand more about the screenwriting process or the struggles of the author may get more out of it.

—
Originally posted at musak.org

The Hours

I came out of The Hours somewhat stunned. This is a remarkable film, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore are all superb and utterly believable. The link between the three (Kidman as Virginia Woolf, Moore as a 1950s depressed housewife and Streep as a confident modern woman) is seemingly only linked by a book – Mrs Dalloway.

The lives of the three are crumbling in various ways, and this is conveyed well on screen. Kidman –hardly recognisable thanks to great make-up –is superb and going slowly mad in 1920s Richmond. Moore’s character appears to have feelings of worthlessness, while Streep is coping with modern-day New York, while her relationship seems to be going nowhere, and a good friend suffers from AIDS.

This isn’t a happy film. Many of the scenarios are quite sad, but it isn’t really a depressing film either. It’s engrossing and engaging, and even the supporting characters are played brilliantly.

Elsewhere: The Kenneth Williams Diaries

The diaries are very well written and Davies’ editing not intrusive. Williams certainly didn’t appear to edit himself and the result is a frank and articulate book.

In my quest to ensure that I review every book that I read for Amazon (because I find other people’s reviews very useful) I’ve added my latest. It’s for the Kenneth Williams Diaries. I seemed to be reading them for ages – there are forty years worth of entries. It’s interesting for me because, during the time I was reading them I have also been maintaining this blog. While this isn’t quite a diary, the process is very similar and one paragraph in the diaries struck me as interesting:

The preoccupation with diary writing is caused by various things: the desire to keep a record which can be useful later, and committing to paper what can’t be communicated to a mentor … oh! all kinds of reasons, but fundamentally it is about loneliness.

Is it? Maybe it is. Who knows?

The Kenneth Williams Diaries, Edited by Russell Davies (Harper Collins, 1993)

I honestly think Kenneth Williams was unique. He certainly seemed to hate much about himself and didn’t have a great deal of time for a lot of other people. Sadly, the Diaries’ reputation precedes them and I expected more of the bitchiness that he is – supposedly – famed for. Despite that, there is plenty of Kenneth’s acid tongue in this book. His barbs are aimed squarely at his fans, his colleagues and the shows he felt obliged to work in. Some of the most intriguing insights are those that relate to the Carry On film series. Before Carry On made him famous, he was a well-respected stage actor. The Carry On films made him legendary (and wealthy) but he often felt they were beneath him.

Kenneth is well aware of his own nature. On 20 March 1987, he writes, “Everyone was v. nice to me … it is extraordinary that I’m so liked because I’m invariably rude & tetchy”, and that sums up much of the book. You get a sense of love for the theatre, plays, and poetry and even for some of the work. However, he is also offensive to many and seemed to have few good words for much of British Theatre. Much of the hate stems from inner turmoil over the lack of companionship in his life (“Never to speak of my love for a man”) and from the frustrations of his nature. Obsessed by noise and cleanliness, the very act of living seems painful – and in the end, his illness and genuine pain appear to get too much for him.

The diaries are very well written and Davies’s editing is not intrusive. Williams certainly didn’t appear to edit himself and the result is a frank and articulate book. Words seem to flow easily which is, perhaps, not surprising for a man who made a living in the final years of his life from his large collection of humorous anecdotes. Spanning over forty years it’s hard to keep track of the players in Kenneth’s life and at 800 pages it’s not a light read. Nevertheless, the diaries are a vivid, malicious and (at times) very funny read into the world of a man who, in his day, was considered outrageous.

Film: Daredevil

I really can’t be sure what made this film fail for me. Maybe it was too dark for a super-hero flick or maybe that the story was not compelling. Maybe it was the fact that at least one villain survived for a sequel in a far too obvious fashion.

I was very surprised that I did not enjoy Daredevil more. It’s darker and more disturbing than many a super-hero flick and while this, for some, may be the appeal, it just didn’t do it for me. It’s also oddly constructed. We first meet the superhero as he collapses on the floor of a church. Why? Well, he’s halfway through a battle with one of the villains – Bullseye (an Irish hitman capable of killing talkative old ladies on planes with nothing more than his finger and a peanut).

And so the film lurches backwards as we are told Matt Murdoch/Daredevil’s story. He grew up with his father -a boxer – and singled out for the bully treatment when he was a kid. Blinded in a dockside accident by a hazardous chemical, Daredevil’s face remains remarkably unmarked as he matures in the talented pro bono lawyer played by Ben Affleck.

Once the Flashback sequence is over we return to our hero in mid-Organ scaling (as in church organ) battle. Who considered the middle of the narrative a sensible place for us to join? I guess it has worked before, but not here. In true super-hero style, our almost dead star rises and battles to the end. Of course, as in all such movies one wonders why the world hasn’t worked out that Matt Murdoch and Daredevil are the same. They are Ben Affleck in red leather.

Ah, dear Ben. I appear to be in the minority who were not convinced by his portrayal of a superhero. He was too “leading man in a romantic comedy” for me, despite the tight leather gear, which didn’t seem to turn him into the sex-hunk that I thought it might – Chris O’Donnell looks better in tight leather in Batman and Robin. Colin Farrell tries hard to be brutish with sex appeal, and he almost pulls it off, especially considering the target on his forehead isn’t really that great to look at.

I really can’t be sure what made this film fail for me. Maybe it was too dark for a superhero flick, or maybe the story was not compelling. Maybe it was the fact that at least one villain survived for a sequel in a far too obvious fashion. Daredevil may be a comic hero, but you don’t have a super-hero “thing” to latch on to (Superman flies, Spider-Man has a web, and Batman has a utility belt). Daredevil’s other senses are enhanced. Big wow. Maybe it was the violence that felt too real and not comic-book enough, or maybe it was that the supporting characters never really moved from being one-dimensional support.

I guess, in the end, I would have been disappointed if this crime-fighter had come to my rescue. I’d have been happy with Batman, thrilled if it was Superman and delighted if Spider-Man liberated me. If Ben turned up in red leather, I just might have laughed.

Pop

I am currently listening to pop. This is a difficult thing to write. Pop is not considered to be a credible music genre by people who listen to lots of music. Pop is considered the home of the boy band. Pop is the cheap and nasty side of music. People, especially people of my age, should have grown out of pop, but I have not. I enjoy the throw-away nature of it. The three-minute perfect pop song can take you away from your day and, if this week’s other entries are to be believed, away from your fellow commuters.

Actually, I hope, the current music I am listening to is considered the good side of pop (see, I am joining in the criticism of the genre). Not for me the sounds of the Cheeky Girls or S Club Juniors. No, I hope my current selection is a little more discerning.

I own a reasonable amount of music but I don’t purchase CDs weekly like some people. But I am listening to three recent albums which must be the first time that has happened to me in a long while. My current favourite is Justin Timerlake’s Justified. That is followed closely by Erasure’s new release (just last Monday), Other People’s Songs. Finally, I been unable to resist Will Young’s From Now On. Yes, unable to resist!

Continue reading “Pop”