The Proposal (2009)
Directed by Anne Fletcher
Oh look, another romantic comedy. Good looking girl falls in love with (very) good looking guy, a few hiccups on the way but all's well that ends well and you get your happily ever after - just about. I'm not denying that The Proposal brings nothing new to this genre, but this one actually lives up to it. It's romantic, it's comical, and it's just downright entertaining.
When vile boss Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock) discovers she is being deported thanks to an expired work visa, she forces her assistant, the lovable, Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) to marry her. A family engagement of Andrew's takes them both on a weekend of fun and games in Alaska, where the two are forced to spend time together and get to know each other a bit better.
Obviously, there are a few cringeworthy and slightly unbelievable elements to this film - the wedding is brought forward to the current weekend, Margaret's parents are both conveniently dead, so there's no objections there, and once again in American comedy, the two both work in a high-flying New York publishing house. Why is that always the case? Nevertheless, this comes with the territory and when you buy a ticket to see a romantic-comedy, you've got to expect it.
The delight of this film lies in the actual comedy. I went in a skeptic. Having seen the trailer, I thought I'd pretty much seen all the jokes and I was pretty certain on the outcome of the film so I didn't have high expectations as a whole. Perhaps this worked in its favour. Either way, this movie is full of great, slapstick humour, classic one liners and two lead actors that never fail to amuse.
Sandra Bullock is on form as super-bitch, Margaret, as the Alaskan countryside, and the imperative to be nice play against her. Ryan Reynolds is equally funny as he milks the opportunity to get even with the woman who has made his life hell.
Ok, so there is nothing dramatically different about this rom-com, no cinematic genius or twist in the storyline. However, this movie does what it says on the tin just perfectly. I was laughing for so much of the way through - genuine laughter too - and the whole thing is just enjoyable to watch. Finally, The Proposal has brought the feel-good factor back into this genre, where so many of its recent predecessors have failed.
Please comment if you have anything to add to the review of 'The Proposal'.
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Monday, 27 July 2009
A Definite Don't-Read
Charlotte Gray - Sebastian FaulksWhy? Why? Why did I read this book? It's taken me about a month or so to get through it purely because I had no motivation to get to the end. And, exactly as I expected, I gained nothing from actually getting to the 497th page.
This book supposedly follows the epic 'odessey' of Charlotte Gray, a Scottish girl sent on an errand in occupied France for an under-cover agency. It is the peak of World War Two, and Charlotte is not only on a mission on behalf of the allies, she is also on her own mission to find her lover, Peter Gregory, a pilot missing in action.
There are many things wrong with this book. The most prominent is the number of characters - there are so many that a) you can't remember who each of them are b) you don't care enough about the outcome of any of their lives and c) even by the end of the book , even Charlotte seems to have a forgotten about half of them.
The second thing that wound me up is the lack of action. This novel is the journey of one woman but really, it's just about her survival, her ordinary day-to-day life, which in a fictional novel tends to wear on you a bit. After all, I don't read a book to satisfy my need for the mundane. Yes, it's about WWII and yes, she undercover in France. There is, of course, a sub-plot following three jews who are taken into the extreme and awful conditions and in theory it seems disrespectful to find the story uninteresting. However, there really is nothing exceptional about these particular sub-plots and because the characters are so undeveloped, sympathy for them specifically is limited.
Finally, there is just so much of this book. So many long, long pages of Faulks' style - journalistic, unemotional writing. Even where there is potential for excitement (a suppressed childhood memory that led to Charlotte's teenage depression, Charlotte nearly exposing herself at the public baths) it is completely brushed over and ignored as the author moves onto another sub-plot soon to be forgotten.
I know I'm being very negative about this novel but I really couldn't justify anything positive. Not only was I dissatisfied at the end but I was dissatisfied and frustrated throughout the entire book. I made no connection to any character, including the eponymous protagonist and I guess I just got nothing from Charlotte Gray whatsoever. I was bored, and this review is the only good (?) thing to have come from reading this one. Sorry Faulks.
Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of 'Charlotte Gray'.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
The Fresh Face of Comedy
The Hangover (2009)
Directed by Todd Phillips
The story of a stag do gone horribly wrong, this film is, in my opinion, the best comedy of 2009 to date. Far from the repetitive, comedies of recent years this movie brings fresh faces, great one-liners and a new style of comedy altogether to the 21st century.
The film stars Bradley Cooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu) and Zach Galifianakis (Alan) as three guys desperately trying to remember the events of the previous night in Vegas. Hungover and confused, their journey takes them on a hilarious trip around the city, as they attempt to find Doug, the groom-to-be. From babies to strippers, tigers to Mike Tyson, the guys find themselves in awkward and bizarre situations all thanks to a heavy night of booze and babes.
Although Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis have been seen on the big screen before, this is the first time they have been seen together as the principal actors. From the weird and quirky Alan to the cool, smooth Phil, the three characters gel unbelievably well, despite the diverse personalities. There was a danger of creating classic and cliched characters - the cool, popular Phil meets geeky Stu and token freak, Alan. However, the men's relationship is far from it. This is not another teen movie, it's a mature approach to a crazy night of alcohol, and the humour is drawn from something different.
This comedy is great and has the audience laughing from start to finish. The humour appeals to the masses - both the young and the old, male and female. There is nothing offensive or overtly crude and none of the random humour of Anchorman or the perhaps immature laughs had from Superbad. This is pure fun, and Galifianakis' impecable comic timing with unintelligent one-liners is fantastic.
This film is funny because it's believable, because we've all had a night similar, if on a (hopefully) more minor scale, and because this is something new. Gone are the cliches and the loose plot lines and in their place is some heart. You pray the guys will get to the wedding, and finally on their return from Vegas, you witness them in their ordinary, grown-up lives. It's a reminder that we're all capable of doing something (maybe two or three things) a bit stupid.
My only criticism of the film is the Chinese, gay, gangster, kung-fu (anything else?) character. Most guys I've spoken to have found him hilarious, girls just don't see the point, and I guess I'm one of them. I didn't laugh and I found him a bit pathetic. He was a very odd aspect of the film (though very little of it can be deemed 'normal') and definitely the weakest. Any other style of character could have served the purpose of his role just as easily and, unfortunately, he's just not that funny.
Nevertheless, this is undoubtedly a must-see film. Don't wait for the DVD to come out - make the most of the big screen and watch it in the cinema. Let Phil, Stu and Alan live out your irresponsible fantasies and enjoy the consequences.
Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of 'The Hangover'.
Directed by Todd Phillips
The story of a stag do gone horribly wrong, this film is, in my opinion, the best comedy of 2009 to date. Far from the repetitive, comedies of recent years this movie brings fresh faces, great one-liners and a new style of comedy altogether to the 21st century.
The film stars Bradley Cooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu) and Zach Galifianakis (Alan) as three guys desperately trying to remember the events of the previous night in Vegas. Hungover and confused, their journey takes them on a hilarious trip around the city, as they attempt to find Doug, the groom-to-be. From babies to strippers, tigers to Mike Tyson, the guys find themselves in awkward and bizarre situations all thanks to a heavy night of booze and babes.
Although Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis have been seen on the big screen before, this is the first time they have been seen together as the principal actors. From the weird and quirky Alan to the cool, smooth Phil, the three characters gel unbelievably well, despite the diverse personalities. There was a danger of creating classic and cliched characters - the cool, popular Phil meets geeky Stu and token freak, Alan. However, the men's relationship is far from it. This is not another teen movie, it's a mature approach to a crazy night of alcohol, and the humour is drawn from something different.
This comedy is great and has the audience laughing from start to finish. The humour appeals to the masses - both the young and the old, male and female. There is nothing offensive or overtly crude and none of the random humour of Anchorman or the perhaps immature laughs had from Superbad. This is pure fun, and Galifianakis' impecable comic timing with unintelligent one-liners is fantastic.
This film is funny because it's believable, because we've all had a night similar, if on a (hopefully) more minor scale, and because this is something new. Gone are the cliches and the loose plot lines and in their place is some heart. You pray the guys will get to the wedding, and finally on their return from Vegas, you witness them in their ordinary, grown-up lives. It's a reminder that we're all capable of doing something (maybe two or three things) a bit stupid.
My only criticism of the film is the Chinese, gay, gangster, kung-fu (anything else?) character. Most guys I've spoken to have found him hilarious, girls just don't see the point, and I guess I'm one of them. I didn't laugh and I found him a bit pathetic. He was a very odd aspect of the film (though very little of it can be deemed 'normal') and definitely the weakest. Any other style of character could have served the purpose of his role just as easily and, unfortunately, he's just not that funny.
Nevertheless, this is undoubtedly a must-see film. Don't wait for the DVD to come out - make the most of the big screen and watch it in the cinema. Let Phil, Stu and Alan live out your irresponsible fantasies and enjoy the consequences.
Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of 'The Hangover'.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
A Twenty-First Century Fable
The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas - John Boyne
Whenever I describe this book to people, I always find myself using the same words - "Oh, it's such a cute story", which, for a story about the Holocaust, might come as a surprise. Somehow though, it just is.
This book follows nine-year-old Bruno as he is forced to leave his luxury home in Berlin and move to 'Out-With' (one of many puns easily understood by an older reader). Driven by boredom from the lack of friends and activities in his new house, Bruno begins exploring. From his bedroom window he can see thousands of people dressed in striped pyjamas, so one day he walks along the fence that separates them, only to come across Schmuel. Despite being divided by a barrier of metal and barbed wire, the two boys befriend each other, oblivious to their differences and brought together by their own unhappiness.
Although this book is a children's book, it seems to rely on the reader's understanding of Auschwitz and the Holocaust in order to be fully appreciated. In this sense I believe it appeals to an older audience, as I imagine nine-year-olds of the modern day would read this novel with the same confusion that Bruno feels, and the ending especially would invite many hard-to-answer questions.
Bruno narrates the story, and tells it with the blissful ignorance of his age. He is naive of the horrors of World War Two, and ironically feels it's utterly unfair that Schmuel gets to be on his side of the fence where there are plenty of people to play with. The language that Boyne uses to depict this child's world and his thought processes is delightful and believable, and it is almost comforting to know that Bruno's worst problems are boredom and an annoying sister.
Some have criticised the plausibility of the story, saying that Bruno, as the Commandant's son, was unlikely to have escaped the indoctrination of the Hitler Youth and Nazi propaganda. However, the beauty of this book lies in Bruno's innocence, and it makes the ending far more harrowing and hard-hitting. In fact, the little boy is taught the history of the 'Fatherland', but thoughts of exploring and meeting his new friend occupy his mind and he seems to resist the Nazi sentiments, unlike his sister.
Ultimately, this book is a perfect read -it is quick, interesting and (I have to resist writing the word 'cute' here) enjoyable. The childlike nature of the writing disguises the deeper, 'grown-up' issues that surround the Holocaust, but it is written in such a way as to make them recognisable. I would warn against children under the age of 12 reading it, purely because, despite being from a child's perspective, it needs an older mind, and a background knowledge of the Second World War to perceive the real morals of the story. Nevertheless, it is well worth reading as a shocking fable of the modern day.
Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas'.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
'What I do I do because I like to do'
A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess
Anthony Burgess’ novel, A Clockwork Orange, is without a doubt a masterpiece of modern writing. Made doubly famous by Stanley Kubrick’s controversial film adaptation, the original text caused just as much of a stir when published as it became the first book of its kind.
This is Alex’s story: a tyrannical, Mozart-loving youth, who roams the streets at night with his ‘droogs’ committing ultra-violence. However, raping and pillaging soon take Alex to prison, where he undergoes a brainwashing experiment to reform him into becoming a good citizen.
The novel is, on a basic level, a discussion of good and evil and the freedom of choice. Burgess looks at the imposing levels of state control in an age that is extremely relevant to today’s society: the age of technology. It is a society restricted by heavy laws, indoctrinated by the media and living in fear of a seemingly uncontrollable sub-culture of rebellious, violent youths. Sound familiar?
However, when the state starts to try and reduce the numbers in its crowded prisons by brainwashing criminals into feeling physically ill at the sight and thought of violence, individual liberty is jeopardised. Burgess looks at the frighteningly real possibility that as the state becomes more desperate to control its citizens and ‘protect’ them from violence, freedom of choice will become a thing of the past. Alex becomes mechanical, a ‘clockwork’ being under someone else’s control, so could we all become the same?
Burgess’ protagonist tells his story in a language (Nadsat) created for him and his fellow teenagers. It is related to Russian, as the book was written in the Cold War, and with it Burgess creates a completely unique style for the book. Nevertheless, the anglicised words are easily recognisable and you find yourself connecting with Alex and sympathising with him and his violent ways.
Alex’s journey throughout A Clockwork Orange is an interesting one, which portrays life from the side of the ‘bad’. What he does he does out of choice but when that choice is removed, Alex becomes as much a victim of society as the victims of his own violence. Burgess forces us to rethink what makes the good and what makes the evil, but whatever you might think, this novel is an absolute must-read.
This is Alex’s story: a tyrannical, Mozart-loving youth, who roams the streets at night with his ‘droogs’ committing ultra-violence. However, raping and pillaging soon take Alex to prison, where he undergoes a brainwashing experiment to reform him into becoming a good citizen.
The novel is, on a basic level, a discussion of good and evil and the freedom of choice. Burgess looks at the imposing levels of state control in an age that is extremely relevant to today’s society: the age of technology. It is a society restricted by heavy laws, indoctrinated by the media and living in fear of a seemingly uncontrollable sub-culture of rebellious, violent youths. Sound familiar?
However, when the state starts to try and reduce the numbers in its crowded prisons by brainwashing criminals into feeling physically ill at the sight and thought of violence, individual liberty is jeopardised. Burgess looks at the frighteningly real possibility that as the state becomes more desperate to control its citizens and ‘protect’ them from violence, freedom of choice will become a thing of the past. Alex becomes mechanical, a ‘clockwork’ being under someone else’s control, so could we all become the same?
Burgess’ protagonist tells his story in a language (Nadsat) created for him and his fellow teenagers. It is related to Russian, as the book was written in the Cold War, and with it Burgess creates a completely unique style for the book. Nevertheless, the anglicised words are easily recognisable and you find yourself connecting with Alex and sympathising with him and his violent ways.
Alex’s journey throughout A Clockwork Orange is an interesting one, which portrays life from the side of the ‘bad’. What he does he does out of choice but when that choice is removed, Alex becomes as much a victim of society as the victims of his own violence. Burgess forces us to rethink what makes the good and what makes the evil, but whatever you might think, this novel is an absolute must-read.
Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of 'A Clockwork Orange'.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Up Rolls a Riot Van
So...
I see the British have resorted to typical British methods:
Want to solve a problem?
- First, wreck the source.
- Second, have a cuppa and sort the rest out later.
Ahead of the G20 summits, the London streets, as we all well know, were chokka block with protesters making their feelings known about the state of current affairs and finances. Most of the marches were peaceful, but why do there always have to be some pillocks that have to start throwing fire about in an attempt to make themselves heard?
Watching the news coverage, I saw that the police were well on top of things, battering protesters in a bit of a random fashion and even charging and barging the crowds, involving probably more innocents that guilty ones in the mass of violence. But then, I don't know how I'd react if someone threw a flaming stake at me. I probably wouldn't bring the horses in - it always seems a bit medieval, still using horses to try and restore order and suppress violence. Horses seem to get spooked so easily, and they can't wear helmets or carry shields to protect themselves.
It is nice to see protesters adapting to the 21st century though - everyone of them seemed to have an expensive camera which they used to take pictures of/video one bloke smash the Bank of England windows in with a metal bollard. No doubt some of these are already on youtube and will be 'This Week's Most Watched' by Friday.
I actually went to London today, purely out of choice, still being of my slightly naive teenage years. I went in and straight out again, sticking a bit south and staying away from the centre so that I didn't get caught up in anything a bit dodgy. I didn't really think there'd be much to make a fuss about, but apparently old habits die hard, and any excuse to cause a bit of mayhem seems to be a good and well-embraced one anywhere in the world. I was boring though and paid to have a bit of education at the Bodyworks Exhibition in the O2 (highly recommended), but I will get enraged one of these days and maybe go and take some snaps of a protest of my own.
Let's just see if it gets us anywhere, eh?
I see the British have resorted to typical British methods:
Want to solve a problem?
- First, wreck the source.
- Second, have a cuppa and sort the rest out later.
Ahead of the G20 summits, the London streets, as we all well know, were chokka block with protesters making their feelings known about the state of current affairs and finances. Most of the marches were peaceful, but why do there always have to be some pillocks that have to start throwing fire about in an attempt to make themselves heard?
Watching the news coverage, I saw that the police were well on top of things, battering protesters in a bit of a random fashion and even charging and barging the crowds, involving probably more innocents that guilty ones in the mass of violence. But then, I don't know how I'd react if someone threw a flaming stake at me. I probably wouldn't bring the horses in - it always seems a bit medieval, still using horses to try and restore order and suppress violence. Horses seem to get spooked so easily, and they can't wear helmets or carry shields to protect themselves.
It is nice to see protesters adapting to the 21st century though - everyone of them seemed to have an expensive camera which they used to take pictures of/video one bloke smash the Bank of England windows in with a metal bollard. No doubt some of these are already on youtube and will be 'This Week's Most Watched' by Friday.
I actually went to London today, purely out of choice, still being of my slightly naive teenage years. I went in and straight out again, sticking a bit south and staying away from the centre so that I didn't get caught up in anything a bit dodgy. I didn't really think there'd be much to make a fuss about, but apparently old habits die hard, and any excuse to cause a bit of mayhem seems to be a good and well-embraced one anywhere in the world. I was boring though and paid to have a bit of education at the Bodyworks Exhibition in the O2 (highly recommended), but I will get enraged one of these days and maybe go and take some snaps of a protest of my own.
Let's just see if it gets us anywhere, eh?
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Welcome to Your Nightmare
The Armature of the Absolute, The Buchinger’s Boot Marionettes
The Barbican Theatre 15/01/09
It was another one of those evenings. I hop on the train to
The Armature of the Absolute is a play depicting the life and works of Alfred Jarry, a French playwright from the late 19th century. Don’t know Alfred Jarry? Well, he hated hierarchical society, rode bicycles more recklessly than your stupid younger brother and fuelled his body with arsenic - and when he ran out, he drank ink. In short, he was mad. He wrote a series of plays called The Ubu Plays, which caused outrage in the theatres of 1896 with some not so cleverly disguised swearwords.
Compared to the paintings of Salvador Dalí, this puppet performance can only be described as a living nightmare. If you don’t like puppets, then watching this would be like going to a puppet-only boarding school, then coming home one weekend to find that Pinocchio is your long lost brother and your mum’s making you share a room. The design of these puppets ranged from a baboon with teeth on its big, pink bum, a Mr Wobbly cross dinosaur on roller skates and a Pope-bashing Punch (from the Punch and Judy shows). They were grotesque, disturbing and watching them evoked a similar sentiment to that of watching The X Files as a 9-year old.
Perhaps you want to know exactly what this play was about - frankly, so do I. There was a sort of narrator, dressed like a puppet with a half masked face. However, with a heavy accent and a Stephen Hawking voice effect, understanding him was nigh impossible. Therefore, the play seemed to have no through line, no plot and seemingly the only beginnings and ends were life and death and then death as a metaphor for life and… oh, I lost track of all the skeletons, eggs and disturbing puppet-going-through-painful-child-birth scenes (by child I mean lizard/skeleton).
The show is part of the London Mime Festival and sold out in its short time at the Barbican, and despite my disgust I can see why. Whilst watching the performance, I was outraged, repulsed and little bit mentally scarred, but that’s what it was supposed to do. It was a recreation of the outrage Jarry originally caused his poor, unsuspecting, upper class French audience in 1896.
By the end of the show, some people sat and clapped uncomfortably, others sat in bitter defiance with their arms crossed, and some had already walked out. There were some that loved it (each to their own) and they clapped vigorously, but I was one of the uncomfortable ones. Still, as I walked back to the underground station pondering an angry ‘what were you thinking?’ letter to someone high up, I found myself needing to talk about what I’d seen. Not in an ‘I need therapy’ way (surprisingly) but I needed to complain about the defecation, the phallic imagery and the utterly disturbing nature of the piece. How could that show possibly belong in a theatre? But that’s just it, I suppose – why shouldn’t it?
This show broke every taboo in the book. With skilled puppetry, a completely baffling set of scenes and some chilling music, the Buchinger’s Boot Marionettes managed to create something unimaginable; not just the physical performance but the same, or at least similar, feeling felt by an audience of over one hundred years ago. It might not be my cup of tea, but these guys, despite the deep trauma they may have caused, do deserve some praise for a performance beyond even your wildest nightmares.
Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of 'The Armature of the Absolute'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
