18 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Inside Out (I) (2015)
Pixar's Most Emotional Movie Yet
7 July 2015
If there's anything that can be said about this film, it's that it's by far Pixar's most emotional movie to date. Hehehehe...sorry, couldn't resist. But really, I spent an alarming amount of time with a lump in my throat. However, while Pixar's latest film is a fascinating thought experiment, it definitely has its flaws.

It's a little bit difficult to decide whether the emotion lies in the movie or in the memories it evokes. I'd imagine it's a completely different experience for a child viewer, a teenager, or a parent, but I suspect the last two appreciate its full weight far more than young children would. It's not that kids won't like the film: to the contrary, it feels like it's designed for younger viewers, unlike Ratatouille or The Incredibles (my two favorite Pixar films.) It's merely that this story is more about the loss of childhood than the celebration of it. This bittersweet feel is similar to that in Toy Story 3.

The story is about Riley, an eleven-year-old whose young life has been blissfully happy up until the day her family moves from Minnesota to San Francisco. She had tons of friends, doting parents, a successful hockey career, a never-ending chain of happy memories, symbolized by glowing marbles.

These memories are fashioned by her five emotions: Joy (an enthusiastic Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), Fear (Bill Hader), and Anger (Lewis Black.) Up until this point, Joy has had complete control, but glimpses into the minds of Riley's parents - where Sadness and Anger are the primary fueling emotions - foreshadow that things may be about to change. Joy recognizes the place of Fear, Disgust, and Anger - they keep Riley safe. But Sadness, that most adult of emotions, seems to have no function whatsoever. In a more typical movie, Sadness would have been cast as the villain. But this isn't a typical movie.

Once Riley arrives in San Francisco, all of her happiness comes into question. We follow her through the events of the move, her first day at school and trying out for the hockey team. Inside of her head, something has gone terribly wrong, and the emotions have to work double time to get things right. It's clever how the movie uses the emotions - you can almost fool yourself into thinking that what happens to Riley is a consequence of what they do, but in the end, you know that they are an allegory for her mind, not the other way around. But the emotions don't know what the viewer knows must happen: they expect childhood to continue forever, and memories to remain simply happy or sad or angry or fearful or disgusting.

The rest of the movie takes place over the space of a few days, as Riley's emotional life crumbles and she has to redefine herself. Looking back, the whole thing is not all that huge a crisis, but it's magnified by the drama of her emotions. It reminds me of Lord of the Flies (bear with me) in that the film does a great job of getting us into a child's head. It's surprising to look back and, like returning to a childhood home as an adult, realize how small everything was, after all.

Childhood is a complicated thing. We see Riley's happiness, but also her immaturity. In the end - and here's kind of a spoiler - the resolution comes through growing up, not embracing childhood. Sadness can lead us just as sensibly as Joy, and perhaps even the other emotions - in their proper place - have a role in engaging the world wisely. Being happy isn't the most important thing.

I'm not as impressed with the film as some. It's good, but not amazing. I wasn't a huge fan of the over-colorful milieu it embraces in its Inside sequences - it felt too much like other bright children's films I've seen, and lessened the impact of the dark Outside. I didn't find the idea as original as other did, either (I'll admit, I was thinking of Osmosis Jones, a film which is probably really terrible, but the last time I saw it I was six.)

There was too much of a focus on preschool imagery for an eleven-year- old - by that age I was obsessed with dragons and pirates, rather than clowns and pink elephants. Because one could see the direction of the allegory, the story could be predictable, and I could foretell events some time before they actually happened.

On the other hand, Inside Out has tons of strengths. It's the most original Pixar film since Up, and Riley's family is the best Pixar family since The Incredibles. The emotions are terrifically voiced and animated - my personal favorite is Phyllis Smith's sullen, melodramatic Sadness, but Poehler is wonderful as ebullient Joy. They're Pixar's first female duo - follow-ups to Mike and Sully and Buzz and Woody.

The filmmakers have a ton of fun with Riley's mind - I especially loved the dream sets, sub-conscious, and Imaginary Boyfriend. It's really very funny - at moments, I defied the silent theater to guffaw uproariously at subtle jokes. (Or the not-subtle ones: "GIRL - GIRL - GIRL.")

Ultimately, I think the biggest compliment I can give to the movie is that (no pun intended) it got inside my head. I'm still young enough to vividly remember the confused emotions and insecurity of adolescence. These days, I often have opportunities to reflect on what my sixteen-year-old self would make of the things I'm doing now. Watching old family videos with horror just last week, I realized I have almost nothing in common with eleven-year-old Hannah. And what a complete idiot she was. And how happy she was in her idiocy! Dangit, Pixar. Inside Out is going to keep me thinking about those things for some time to come.

Originally posted here: http://goo.gl/0URBvh
15 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Rushed But Moving Conclusion
7 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The previous episode did a terrific job establishing Strange as a potential villain. He abandoned all sense of propriety and hygiene, stumbled about Italy trying to go mad, did go mad after eating a rotten mouse, and perfected an evil villain laugh, promising his nemesis Mr. Norrell: "I am coming." In the finale, an emotional prelude by Sir Walter Pole brings Strange's fury crashing back and underlines the hopelessness of the situation.

Miraculously, Christopher Drawlight manages to deliver one of Strange's messages before being brutally murdered by his former pal, Henry Lascelles. Lascelles then joins Mr. Norrell, who has retreated to Hurtfell Abbey and gotten lost in his own library.

Technically, that last bit isn't his fault, because Strange has turned the Abbey into an enchanted maze where he plans to face his former tutor. The confrontation will find Mr. Norrell alone, for Childermass, discovering Lascelles' treachery, confronts him and is subsequently thrown out on his ear. Joab-like, Childermass delivers a harsh rebuke: "You've made the wrong choice, sir, as usual," before departing with a final warning to Lascelles: "You are in the North now. Our laws were made by the Raven King...And he's coming back."

Also coming back is Jonathan Strange, and you've got admit, the man knows how to make an entrance. Descending amidst a flurry of ravens and a huge black tornado, it seems Mr. Norrell may, for the first time ever, be right to be afraid. And yet no! For when Jonathan appears, ragged and wild eyed and vengeful, he offers nothing but exhausted forgiveness. The shock and grace of it, coming from the only person Norrell loves (and yet the one whom he has harmed the most) is the stroke which finally spurs him to heroism.

It also elicits a flood of sentimental confessions from both men: Strange's tome is the best book of magic ever, Norrell is a great magician, Strange is a better magician, it's been an honor working with Norrell...there are so many man-bonding moments that they begin to grow a little stale. But Marsan and Carvel pack so much talent, emotion, and even humor into their tense shared screen-time that it's hard to mind.

Overdoing it does become more of a problem as the episode progresses. Both of the marginalized, voiceless characters blatantly reference their freedom, in scenes which are obviously designed for cheers from a modern audience, but which feel a bit unsubtle (hey! look! themes!). I'm more than willing to cut the show-runners some slack - after all, their restraint so far has bordered on the superhuman - but the adoption of the Hollywood tendency to intensify and extend a finale (I'm looking at you Peter Jackson) is disappointing.

When the Raven King appears, he's almost lost in the sound and fury. Physically, he looks like a cross between Durza in that 2006 Eragon movie and a lost member of Black Sabbath. His brief cameo, facing the two magicians then whisking off to write a new prophecy and reanimate Vinculus.

We get no time to digest this because Strange and Norrell are back at work, feeling that their first attempt failed. For Take 2, they plan to use the Raven King's other moniker, "the nameless slave." The spell will channel all of English magic into this one person.

As it happens, the conditions they set apply far more to Stephen Black (shocker!), who's currently cooling his heels in the madhouse cellar. Thanks to Childermass's pickpocketing skills, Sir Walter now knows the truth, but Stephen is still unable to fight the Gentleman's silencing enchantment. Sir Walter immediately throws his butler under the bus, or in this case, into the cellar. All of this means that Stephen's warning comes too late: Segundus reattaches Lady Pole's missing finger and releases her from Lost-Hope before she can help Jonathan Strange rescue his wife.

In the meantime, Strange and Norrell have assembled the magic and successfully made Sir Walter Pole's butler the greatest magician in England. Another confrontation results in the death of both Lascelles and Stephen's earthly self - but then the dynamic duo discover their new king is still living in Faerie. Seeing that their original intent has failed, they try and make the best of the situation by spiriting themselves to Lost-Hope and instructing Stephen Black on his new abilities. At the same time, Strange frees Arabella with True Love's Kiss and sends her home before Stephen Black lays down the law and kills the Gentleman.

There are tons of loose-ends to tie up, but the episode gamely attempts it in the final ten minutes. Lady Pole rejects Sir Walter and goes abroad. Stephen Black (a fact implied but not demonstrated) becomes King of Lost-Hope. Arabella Strange is safe, but both of our titular characters are lost in the chasm, presumably forever. Childermass and Vinculus (a match made in heaven) establish the new, wild, democratic form of magic in Yorkshire.

And...finis.

Phew. That was a wild ride, but it was a good one. The finale invented too many hoops for its heroes to jump through, and shifted the focus from a semi-deific intervention to human ingenuity, yet there's still just tons of quality here. Both Eddie Marsan and Bertie Carvel throw themselves into towering performances, running the gamut from terror to hatred to reconciliation to humor and exhilaration...they do everything. The first half of the episode is pretty much perfect television. And while I have my quibbles about the second half, it's a solid, if rushed, conclusion to the best fantasy adaptation we've seen since The Lord of the Rings. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm totally up for Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell Ride Again.

Originally posted here: http://goo.gl/iF8ycv
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Well, that was insane
27 June 2015
"Jonathan Strange, you drive me crazy" ~Jonathan Strange

Episode six opens with both Norrell and Strange mourning losses. Norrell's regret is rather less flamboyant. Though his refusal to help Strange save Arabella created yet another bone of contention between them (a collection which amounted to two or three whole skeletons already), he honestly does miss his erstwhile pupil. He sits quietly in his dark green rooms and sadly contemplates Jonathan Strange's new book.

On the other hand, Norrell's distress may come from the necessity to magic away so many beautiful volumes, because for the rest of the episode, he's pretty ruthless. The way he threatens Drawlight in order to make the dilapidated shyster find Jonathan Strange was positively Michael Corleonesque: "I can conjure terrors, sir, of which your mind cannot conceive. Find Mr Strange and stay with Mr Strange."

Yeah, this whole magic thing may be getting a bit out of hand.

Other things getting out of hand: Jonathan Strange. He's popped up in Italy, where he's being a very poor tourist (his room has no view), shutting himself up inside and doing everything he can to drive himself mad. He already looks the part, being, indeed, sadly altered. It takes the help of an effervescent young lady, Flora Greysteel, to direct him to true madness. He does this by turning an old woman into a cat, in exchange for her aid in the art of insanity. Whereupon, he eats a mouse and goes mad. (I am just glorying in these ridiculous sentences). This allows him to finally contact the Gentleman, who plays it cool while he's with Strange, and then rushes to Stephen Black and freaks out. Something must be done.

And he does it, though not without cost to himself. The Gentleman imprisons Jonathan in a pillar of darkness which saps the magician's strength and terrifies half of Europe.

Before all this can be accomplished, Strange makes more headway into Faerie than anyone until now. He not only bargains away Lady Pole's finger from the Gentleman, but breaks into Lost-Hope and sees Arabella. Realizing your wife is the abductee of a creepy fairy and has been made to forget you can't be all that heartening a revelation, but coming right on the heels of Jonathan's agonizing despair, this is terrific news!

Jonathan - before utterly defeated - is given courage to fight back against even the worst of the Gentleman's enchantments (I do hope Bertie Carvel watched some funny movies while filming this episode, because he completely sells Strange's hopelessness and bitter ).

Back in the real world, Stephen Black has imprisoned Vinculus at the Segundus-Honeyfoot Asylum. But unlike crazy Lady Pole, there's something about Vinculus that makes Stephen listen. Possibly, it's the Oprah-like promises of a kingdom ("And you get a kingdom! And you get a kingdom! Everybody gets a kingdom!"), but by the end of the episode, all Stephen's hopes of freedom and empowerment are dashed.

I had grown rather tired of Stephen's passiveness and indifference towards Lady Pole's suffering. His eloquent polemic against his seemingly inescapable destiny - written on his skin - hinted at hidden nobility which made for a welcome change. And was it just me, or did this waterside scene have echoes of the Lady of the Lake and Arthur?

But that didn't work out. Oh well. After all, strange men lying in ponds distributing tattooed prophecies is no basis for a system of government.

Elsewhere, it seems all hope is lost.

Or is it?

Originally posted here: http://www.longish95.blogspot.com/2015/06/jonathan-strange-and-mr- norrell-episode_21.html
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead.
27 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This episode started off with a bang as Jonathan Strange returns to the battlefield, finally breaking his own rule about killing by magic - and thereby losing a piece of his soul (merely a metaphor, Harry Potter fans). But while the Napoleonic wars are over, another battle is brewing on the home front. In the North a Raven King-supporting brand of Luddites (Johannites, they call themselves) are raising Cain, which gives credence to Mr. Norrell's request to censor Strange's upcoming Magic in 5 Easy Steps for People Of Whom Norrell Disapproves.

Arabella, meanwhile, is spirited off by Stephen Black in a magic carriage, only to be replaced by an impostor who fools Strange into accepting the enchantment, and who dies the next day. Strange refuses to accept this, determining to raise her from the dead, and spends most of the rest of the episode either a) trying to convince Norrell to help, or b) work up the courage to do the zombie-magic instead. At last, Arabella's brother Henry knocks some sense into him, pointing out that pre-Revelation resurrections don't tend to work out so great.

Upon arriving at Lost-Hope, Arabella has her memory wiped, and forgets anything of her life before. Losing her only friend nearly destroys Lady Pole, but Segundus and Honeyfoot - private investigators, erstwhile magicians, blunderbuss wielders - have been doing a bit of gumshoe work. Segundus knows that something is preventing Black and Lady Pole from telling the truth, and he's beginning to discover that there is a method to Lady Pole's mad stories. They're in the midst of deciphering them when Vinculus arrives, ready to prophesy at a moment's notice: "The nameless slave was a king in a strange country..." Stephen Black is rather creeped out.

The intriguing Childermass continues to work behind the scenes. He's having to try harder now, because he's working against Lascelles, who has Mr. Norrell wrapped around his little finger. In fact, it is Lascelles that convinces Norrell to rebuff Strange's desperate pleas for help. Childermass and Strange, on the other hand, hit it off - to the point that Strange offers Childermass a job. The Yorkshireman seems to consider it, but concludes that it's up to him to keep English magic competitive, and promises to ally himself to whoever seems on the losing side. It may be a wise decision, because neither Norrell nor Strange are in the right state of mind to hold a monopoly on power (spoiler alert for life: there is no right state of mind to hold a monopoly on power).

And by the end of the story, it's definitely looking like war. A bedraggled Strange breaks into Mr. Norrell's house and is carted off to prison, where he concludes that the only way to really tap into powerful magic is to embrace madness - taking a page out of George III's book. (Apparently we will not be having a romantic interlude in Italy.) Drawlight, moldering in prison, overhears this and dons a sneaky expression.

This episode cleverly expanded two elements which didn't entirely make sense in the book. While Jonathan welcomes Fake Arabella back to the house, we simultaneously see what's happened to real Arabella (a good narrative clarification.) Next, Jonathan isn't as sanguine when Fake Arabella "dies," which will add meaning later in the story. Finally, it's explained why the government doesn't mind Norrell's private censorship.

Overall - this episode seemed a little less adventurous than usual, but foreshadows a pretty interesting conflict.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Solid Start
27 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
It's 1806, and magic has been dead in England for hundreds of years. So say the estimable Learned Society of York Magicians, but this declaration is turned on its head by the arrival of a powerful, fearsome practical magician, Mr. Norrell (Eddie Marsan). He offers them a deal: if he can make good on his claims to do real magic, then they must relinquish any right to study magic themselves. The ultimatum is a massive piece of foreshadowing. Norrell's success does not allow for sharing. He's not interested in democracy (of course not, he isn't one of those blasted French Republicans, is he?)

Admittedly, the competition is not very stiff. There are plenty of charlatans, and the few that aren't are limited to merely a spell or two. It is unclear whether Vinculus (Paul Kaye) is the former or the latter. When Norrell flees his first claustrophobic experience of London society he runs straight into the arms of ragged Vinculus, who delivers an incoherent prophecy about another magician in England. Who could it be? Wisely, the adaptation introduces this second magician earlier than the book. It's no surprise that he's the other titular character: Jonathan Strange (Bertie Carvel).

Strange is performing his first simple feat of magic while Norrell is summoning up a fairy gentleman (the ever eerie Marc Warren, who has appeared in Poirot, Band of Brothers, and The Hogfather) to resurrect a prominent politician's fiancée (y'know, like you do). The act will cement his reputation as England's go-to magician, but like most enchantments, there's always a catch...

Let's start by saying the cast is terrific. Eddie Marsan, who has always looked a bit like a smug turtle, is smugger than ever here. I would really say his performance is my favorite (and acting is good all-round). He's a million miles away from his other notable roles - Norrell lacks the bluster of Pancks in Little Dorrit or the blue- collar heartiness of Lestrade in Sherlock Holmes (not to mention the wild ramblings of the mad prophet in The New World). I think his (mostly) understated performance will form a solid anchor to the series.

Meanwhile, Enzo Cilenti makes for a smoldering Childermass. Norrell's reticent servant is the real mover and shaker in the campaign to bring magic back to England. Cilenti turns up the Aragorn, sulking around in corners, propping up his booted feet on a table while smoking a long pipe. He makes for a suitably mysterious and sinister henchman.

He's about the sexiest member of the cast, who, to put it in period drama terms, are far more in the Pride and Prejudice 95 line than the Pride and Prejudice and Keira Knightley line. But that's a good thing. This is a miniseries geared towards fans of the book: those patient enough to slog through pages and pages of scholarly tedium in order to enjoy its dry wit and complex alternate history. In other words, the type to look for P&P 95.

If anyone was going to be the handsome one, it would have been young Jonathan Strange, but Carvel's Strange is a horsey, lanky aristocrat, stumbling around in the plot of a missing Austen novel. He romances the sensible (and certainly handsome) clergyman's daughter, Arabella Woodhope (Charlotte Riley), promising to mend his flaws and become an upstanding member of society . The whole Gothic magic thing is fun, but Strange's romcom life is a good counterbalance to the fairly grim Norrell storyline.

I'm not entirely sold on the CGI. It looks great for a small-screen production, yet the simple stuff still seems to pack more punch. Marc Warren's Gentleman is disturbing, but I wonder if the effects they use to make his voice more menacing will become distracting as the series goes on (the guy really does sound creepy enough as it is).

Originally posted here: http://www.longview95.blogspot.com/2015/05/jonathan-strange-and-mr- norrell-episode.html
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Even Better Than Episode One
27 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
One of the best things about magic in the world of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is that it doesn't fix things as if...well, as if by magic. It is a tool like any other, and usually less helpful than most. The mechanics are kept vague for most of the story (as I recall from the book: when there are any specifics, they're wrapped in a semi- scholarly debate about something which sounds a little like HTML code.) Magic doesn't exist in a vacuum. It neither creates nor destroys matter, but merely rearranges it, in the process staying true to Newton's third law: creating an equal and opposite reaction.

Mr. Norrell is learning this the hard way in the case of the newly resurrected Lady Pole. It seems that half a life is not better than a life. The fairy Gentleman has decided to exact his toll by spiriting Lady Pole away each night to dance in his ghostly kingdom of Lost- Hope. He's also extending his influence to the rest of Sir Walter Pole's establishment.

The Gentleman admires Sir Walter's butler's services so much that he takes him to Lost-Hope as well. Poor Stephen Black - ever-mannerable - protests at the Gentleman's "kindness," and, Jeeves-like, bemoans the disorder of the enchanted household.

Jonathan Strange, meanwhile, is persuaded by Messrs. Segundus and Honeyfoot to ally himself to Mr. Norrell. While both are rather standoffish at first, Norrell is surprised to find himself delighted at Strange's innovative magic. The two hit it off and get along like a house on fire.

Strange's wife Arabella isn't quite sure what to make of this. Things are hunky-dory at first, but quickly the differences in the two men's temperament - Norrell conservative and hidebound, Strange experimental and arrogant - evince themselves in their methods. Norrell wordlessly creates an invisible barrier around England; Strange theatrically assembles magical horses out of sand to dramatically rescue a ship wrecked on the transparent veil.

On a smaller level, Norrell and Strange begin to irk one another. While Norrell welcomes Strange's friendship, he can barely bring himself to let the younger man access his precious books. On the other hand, Strange quickly becomes frustrated with Norrell's timidity, and wishes to delve into the dark secrets of the Raven King.

Arabella notes these differences with trepidation, and her worry is only exacerbated by meeting loopy Lady Pole, who is unable to tell her anything but that Mr. Norrell has ruined her life. Arabella tries to convey this to Strange, but he pooh-poohs her fears and heads off to fight Napoleon for Harry, England, and St. George.

As for that, the incident with the ship means the government is suddenly keen to have a magician on the battlefield - an idea which Mr. Norrell finds very unrespectable. It seems like Norrell may prevent Strange's going, but Lascelles and Drawlight acquire his permission by cleverly pitting his greed against his fear.

Much of the humor in this episode stems from the adventures of Norrell's chalk-and-cheese henchmen, but Bertie Carvel's Strange is proving himself quite amusing as well. The amount of lightheartedness is surprising (and very well-handled - it could easily come from the amusing domesticity of an Austen story), and given the freakishness of the Lost-Hope storyline, it's interesting how well it transitions between the two. Speaking of Lost-Hope, this section of the episode is simply stunning. The effects, the lighting, the clingy dancers, Marc Warren (who dominates this episode) - all of it is splendidly creepy and full of decrepit grandeur. If I was a bit worried last week, the CGI magic in this story has completely won me over, from the simple scrying spells to the rainships to the marvelous scene with the horses of sand.

The final scene illustrates one of the things this series has done best: combining plot elements to simultaneously abridge the story and ratchet intensity in otherwise mundane scenes. It seems like a simple humorous sequence, as Arabella attempts to outbid the amusingly panicked Mr. Norrell. But the whole atmosphere of the scene changes when the Gentleman appears, glowering, over Arabella's shoulder. What does it mean? Can others see him? Why is he interested in Arabella? A marvelous cliffhanger.

Originally posted here: http://www.longish95.blogspot.com/2015/05/jonathan-strange-and-mr- norrell-episode_25.html
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Show On TV
27 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This show remains ridiculously entertaining. It's the most beautiful fantasy world I've seen in ages, bar Miyazaki. The effects are staggering, and the story intelligently told. True: this episode shows a few more missteps than the previous two, but the final scene still leaves me hungry for more.

Last week, the Gentleman had become fascinated by Arabella Strange, which now means stalking her while she visits the increasingly erratic Lady Pole. Arabella intuits that something here is very wrong, but neither Lady Pole nor Stephen Black can tell her the truth.

It isn't for lack of trying. Lady Pole makes a tapestry of Lost-Hope and attempts to show Arabella what is going on. Even this attempt is sabotaged by Mr. Norrell, who's definitely starting to show his nasty side. With the aid of Childermass, he destroys Lady Pole's tapestry and intercepts Arabella and Jonathan's correspondence.

Speaking of which, Strange has arrived on the continent, only to find himself suddenly persona non grata. The Duke of Wellington (Ronan Vibert) is resolutely nonplussed by Strange's resume, and even less impressed by the idea of magic (a practical man, the Duke.) Vibert (who I've seen play everyone from Robespierre to Motty in Jeeves and Wooster), is tremendously fun in the role, though he's nothing like what I imagined. He isn't as brusque or heartily military as my mental image, but he does convey a terrific no-nonsense pragmatism and refuses to let wonder-boy Strange bully him.

Instead, Jonathan finds that he must prove himself, and starts the process by earning the trust of the men. (Unfortunately, we don't see the marvelous little scene where a clergyman guides Strange in how to do this - I find it unlikely that he would have come up with the idea on his own.) Next, armed with practical information, Strange offers to do something really constructive for Wellington: build a road.

Bertie Carvel has correctly observed (in a conversation which gives me complete faith in the intelligence of JS&MN's creative team) that the particular charm of the series's magic is that it is "lo-fi." It's far more Lord of the Rings than Harry Potter (a very good thing, in my book.) In this episode, without too many sparks and extravagance, Strange builds a road, creates a white mist, speaks to trees, and then - the one misstep - reanimates Neapolitan zombies. He's driven to the last by his first real exposure to gritty war, which results in the loss of Jeremy Johns. The sequence is suitably eerie, but the effect is hardly subtle. I found Lost-Hope's particular brand of freaky more in keeping with the tone.

Still, with the loss of Norrell's books coinciding with his foray into dangerous sorcery, we're seeing that Strange has left behind the safety of scholarly "modern" magic. Wellington may be pleased, but it's wrought a definite change in Jonathan. As some who's read the book, it seems to me this shift is coming too early. Strange's motivation for his actions has changed - in the book, he did the dark magic because he was foolish and arrogant. Here, Johns' death makes him more sympathetic, because it has taught him a measure of humility. Strange does change: he learns what real life is like. War, hardship, the need for ingenuity to survive, and the fact that people will do anything for a potato. He comes back with a new name for a new life: "Merlin." It's his Empire of the Sun experience.

Meanwhile, things in London are heating up. Stephen Black - attempting to salvage a bad situation - tries to warn Arabella away, but to no avail. Even so, she rebuffs the Gentleman's advances, refusing to talk to him without the "presence of my husband."

Lady Pole continues her attempts to escape the enchantment - even by suicide. At last, her hopes are dashed when Norrell informs her she must live seventy more years. Enraged, she tries to assassinate him, and another servant takes a bullet for his master.

Stephen Black, on the other hand, probably won't be taking a bullet for his master any time soon. He has finally learned - if not the fact (surely he must have known), then at least the magnitude - of his mother's tragedy. And the Gentleman, who is explicitly called "the devil" in this episode, shows this horrifying backstory to Stephen, doing everything he can to corrupt the butler. It's a fascinating story element - it is archaic because of its mythological resonance - a righteous commoner being tempted to evil - it is modern because the commoner is African. Knitting together these two sensibilities is Susanna Clarke at her best.

If that sounds grim, that's because it is. The story has taken a turn towards the dark, with one death, three zombies, a possibly fatal gunshot wound, Lady Pole's insanity, and the tendency for all the powers that be to look the other way while the world goes to hell. Is there any hope of stopping the Gentleman before it's too late?

Originally posted here: http://www.longish95.blogspot.com/2015/06/jonathan-strange-and-mr- norrell-episode.html
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Bit Slower Than Last Week, But Still Solid
27 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
What do you do if you accidentally magic away the king of England? Happily for Jonathan Strange, the answer is not to panic. The first item on his agenda after returning from fortune and glory in France is to visit mad George III. He is accompanied by a reluctant Mr. Norrell, who, after last week's violent finale, is more concerned than ever to preserve magic's reputation as "respectable."

Poor Childermass is not so worried. In fact, he's quickly coming to the conclusion that real magic is not respectable at all, but dangerous and very much out of Norrell's control. Jonathan Strange, fresh from the fury of war, has a third opinion. Magic is dangerous, yes, but of what use is it- or any field of practice - if there is no room for experimentation, for daring?

On the other hand, Lady Pole is a living breathing example of daring gone wrong. Afraid of scandal, Norrell has her bundled off to Segundus-and-Honeyfoot's erstwhile school of magic, now a makeshift mad-house. This means there's now no chance that she can tell the truth about her predicament, and there is real poignancy as the door is closed on her unheeded screams.

But perhaps there is hope. After Childermass - doing a bit of detective work - is turned away by Honeyfoot (now that was a fun scene), Segundus begins to detect the aura of magic around both Lady Pole and Stephen Black. Could he discover the answer?

Meanwhile, Strange and Norrell are having very little success with the king. It doesn't take long for Norrell to give up. As they leave the palace, Strange notices a picture of John Uskglass, the Raven King. Norrell scorns Uskglass, but the war has taught Strange to think independently, and he wonders if Uskglass's magic is so perilous after all. With that thought in mind, he visits the king alone, and accidentally renders a mirror permeable, allowing crazy George to pass through onto a Northern road in the middle of nowhere.

It's an incredibly clever combination of three different story lines (combining several scenes from the book), as Strange discovers the mirror-world, the Gentleman discovers Strange, and we're reminded of Stephen's "destiny" to become king of England, when the Gentleman makes him an unwilling would-be regicide. Thinking fast, Strange cobbles together some experimental magic and spirits the Archtreasurer and Prince-elector of the Holy Roman Empire (O the possible alternatives, when one is reviewing a show with a king as a character) back into the room, just in time to thwart his murder.

In the midst of this drama, the great Edward Petherbridge steals the show, adding some Shakespearean style to proceedings (Petherbridge is always excellent - he's best known as the definitive on-screen Wimsey, but his Youtube channel is also fun.)

Armed with his new knowledge, Strange attempts to replicate the Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg's (see? this is fun!) passage through the mirror, but is only successful when an odd pair of northerners put him to the test. They claim to have been tutored via post by none other than Strange himself. Having never met Strange, they refuse to believe his true identity until he proves it by walking through a mirror.

He comes out in a bizarre, stormy alternate reality, criss-crossed by black roads, each of them leading to another mirror. Fortuitously, he finds his way directly to Christopher Drawlight, who, it turns out, has been swindling half of England, claiming to give them exclusive access to Strange's tutelage. It may be the most humorous part of the episode when Strange chases Drawlight downstairs (well, right after "I could only find walnuts").

Less amusing is Arabella's response. She's worried that her husband's arrogance may lead him into foolishness, and tells him so in no uncertain terms. Ironically, she's now on Norrell's side, because he has no use whatsoever for magic roads or hidden worlds. The combination of this and Strange's scathing review of Lascelles' Norrell hagiography has at last driven a wedge between the two magicians. In a poignant final scene, Norrell(!) is the one who tries to repair the relationship, but it is too late. Strange departs. "There can only be one magician in England," Norrell tells Lascelles sadly. "We must now consider him our enemy."

Back in fairyland, the Gentleman is putting the finishing touches on his evil plans to abduct Arabella. Arabella herself only enjoys a few moments of peace, when Jonathan tells her he has decided to abandon practical magic, before they are informed of Napoleon's escape. Just when he thought he was out, the war pulls him back in (get it? get it?).

This episode was a return to domestic affairs, and felt a bit slow after last week's excitement, but it charged through a solid chunk of plot, and admirably balanced hurried exposition with quietude (Norrell and Strange's parting was very well handled), and leavened the whole thing with a healthy dose of dry humor. I often start in on an episode ambivalent, distracted by Monday's schoolwork, but by the end, I'm always drawn into its world. And that's the mark of a fine drama.

Next week, Waterloo!

Originally posted here: http://www.longish95.blogspot.com/2015/06/jonathan-strange-and-mr- norrell-episode_8.html
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inspector Morse: Ghost in the Machine (1989)
Season 3, Episode 1
7/10
Solid Story
28 April 2015
The mystery itself is unmemorable, but that's okay. Instead, we get more of a focus on the characters. This episode pares it down to the basics - lots of Morse and Lewis banter, a reasonably-paced investigation, not too many suspects, a crazy-complex solution (but, for once, fairly comprehensible.) Max has made his exit, and Morse's first multiple-episode love interest has appeared in the person of Dr. Russell. She is a sort of Laura Hobson prototype, but doesn't get too much time here, since this is really a buddy- cop episode.

Lewis, usually Morse's long-suffering dogsbody, manages to not only get in quite a few zingers at his grumpy boss, but essentially solve the case. He refuses to let favoritism (towards, say, beautiful rich women) cloud his vision. Thaw and Whately are at their best here, having by now established a solid rapport. Also very good is the chilly lady of the manor.
26 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inspector Morse: Last Bus to Woodstock (1988)
Season 2, Episode 4
9/10
"I've always loved detectives!"
28 April 2015
Last Bus to Woodstock is one of the best Morse episodes,, certainly my favorite episode of season two. It gets the balance just right. Morse is at his most courteous - there's plenty of Lewis and Max (unfortunately, this is Max's last episode) - there's talk about religion, literature, sex, love, all the stuff we love about the show. It also manages to be reasonably coherent; I could keep up with the characters; the conclusion only had one out-of-place coincidence.

There are a few men, but the focus is really on the splendid female characters, from Fabia Drake, above, as the lovely, lovely Mrs. Jarman (this terrific sequence is exactly what would happen if Marple met Morse - and come to think of it, that's a series crossover that really should happen) to Holly Aird as Angie Hartmann, a young woman who shares Morse's love of literature.

Morse has lots of good conversations with interesting women, but doesn't date any of them, interestingly. (I understand this was not the case in the book.) Relationships (as noted in this review) tend to be shown in a very poor light - and Morse is about the only positive male character. The theme is most blatant in a scene in which Morse lectures Lewis for adopting a proprietorial tone towards Valerie: "I don't want to own anyone." Could a relationship based not on possession but on love be the answer? Is that even possible? The question is left hanging.

For more detective reviews: http://www.longish95.blogspot.com/p/the- detectives.html
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Roll, Jordan, Roll
8 October 2014
It's the curse of almost any American movie about race relations to instantly become a political football. I usually ignore the outrage, because in general, these are message movies exploiting furor to distract from dearth of artistry—but 12 Years a Slave is a startling exception.

Indeed, my overall impression was one of restraint, with many long shots, silent but for the sounds of crickets.

And it's a true story.

Solomon Northup was a free man, an immensely identifiable middle-class husband and father, played in this film by empathetic, self-possessed Chiwetel Ejiofor.

In 1841, Solomon is persuaded by a pair of circus-men to travel to Washington D.C., there displaying his talents on the violin. While there, he is kidnapped by the "Reverse Underground Railroad," and shipped to Mississippi, where he is sold as a slave, twice, working on two plantations. The first of these is owned by an indecisive Baptist preacher, Henry Ford, and the second by a sadistic psychopath, Edwin Epps.

Like most of us, Solomon takes freedom for granted. He presents his name and status like a badge of freedom, and expects to be heard, because he has lived in a free society all his life. An early beating beneath the streets of D.C. is the first of many indignities which begin to strip away this innocence. He has no rights. He has no freedom of speech, freedom to learn, freedom to travel.

Seldom have I seen a better representation of what it really means to be a slave. It's far beyond the pettiness of snubs about skin-color, or "offensive" football team names. Coming into this state of being so swiftly, and from a position of such prosperity, is traumatizing. The closest modern-day equivalent is when an American, about the freest of all citizens on this earth, takes a wrong turn and ends up in North Korea. "Oh, sorry, I'll just turn around, shall I?"

Solomon does not identify as a black man, but as a free man. The distinction is important. At the deepest level, it's made clear that this oppression is not a result of shallow prejudices (or evil confined to any one race), but of power gone mad, and God's law discarded in a struggle for survival. Late in the film, an abolitionist makes this startlingly clear, contrasting a larger vision of scripture with the twisted fragments used by slavers to justify their actions.

When men are not seen as souls, they become property. This desecration of person-hood has taken place all over the world, and has led to holocausts and genocide in many nations. What is specific to this story is its ability to tap into our cultural and physical history, taking advantage of sumptuous Mississippi locations captured in gorgeous cinematography, and glorious African music (contrasting with Hans Zimmer's Inception-warmed- over score). To my delight, the visuals were a highlight of the film.

It isn't a documentary on the entirety of slavery, nor does it pretend to be—it is almost completely a first-person experience. To that effect, it sometimes glosses history to provide mood. A slave is stabbed, when he actually died of smallpox. Henry Ford is far more ambiguous as a character than the decent, though ideologically confused, preacher that Northup painted. Both of these things go towards intensifying the all-encompassing feeling of an unfair system. Even good men like Ford are crushed in the gears of the massive machine of survival, forced to horrific actions. Human action or vengeance is utterly, utterly futile in the face of such institutionalized cruelty.

And grace goes the other way. While never going so far as sympathy, we are shown that slavery has a terrible effect on oppressors, just as it has on oppressed: "no man of conscious can take the lash to another human day in, and day out without shredding at his own self." It's a rare film that lets me see myself in both the slave and master.

It does have its flaws, many of which I have mentioned. Once again, it is a very brutal film, and not for the faint of heart. Lupita Nyong'o (who I, somehow, have gotten all the way through this post and not mentioned) is phenomenal. It is an Important Film, but not in the Boring Info-Dump sense, but in the sense that I am glad I have seen it, because it has permanently affected how I view slavery. I have never seen a movie that makes me value freedom this much, or feel despair at this level.

Full review posted here: http://www.longview95.blogspot.com/2014/06/12-years-slave-movie- review.html
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun, but Lightweight
8 October 2014
Like Life is Beautiful, this is a movie that succeeds mostly on charm. And despite my bone-deep cynicism about almost everything, The Book Thief crept under my guard. True: it's a story-book vision of a fairy-tale Germany, complete with WWII movie conventions from a different age - hidden Jew, book-burning, over-the-top score, stodgy, sanitized settings - but it turns these things to its advantage, creating not a children-in- wartime film, but a children's film. While the setting is somewhat idealized, I found it beautiful enough to sweep away concerns about realism.

Liesel Meminger is a young girl in World War II Germany, who steals her first book from the frozen graveside of her brother. Abandoned, she is taken in by a pair of quirky but affectionate foster parents, with whom she is to endure the war. Her love of words and stories gives her hope in a world where childhood is quickly unraveling.

Sound familiar? Of course it does. The story is given another twist, however, by the fantastical, mythical background, which lends a sweeping, universal feel to the narrative. I've read (and reviewed) the book - and this is not a very good adaptation, at least when it comes to that element. It's lighter, cleaner, and has a completely different tone. Given his iconic status, Death is still the narrator, but this doesn't work on-screen, feeling instead intrusive and arbitrary, if not silly.

But though it's not a good adaptation, it's not a bad film. Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson are casting genius (seriously - see the movie for them if nothing else); they're perfect as Liesel's foster parents: warm-hearted Hans Hubermann, and his fierce wife Rosa. Even Ben Schnetzer as Max eventually won me over. I suspect the two child actors will split opinions - they're both too young and angelic for the roles (though Liesel ages quite well), but I only rarely found them too saccharine. Confession here: I sometimes think children with foreign accents can get away with a lot more kitschiness than Americans can.

Looking back over my review of the book, I see that the film solves some problems while perpetuating others. On the one hand - it provides a little more basis for the characters' benevolence, while on the other, the ending, which I didn't like in the book as it lacked closure, works even less here.

Overall, it was a refreshingly optimistic look at humanity - and unlike Life is Beautiful, it gives us pictures of hope, but not hope sprung of ignorance, an illusion only - but something more tangible and everlasting. Haunting, even.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Magical, Jane Eyre-esque Romance
8 October 2014
I liked this one even better than Princess Mononoke, as it maintained the focus on its main character far longer than the latter (which lost itself in the greater plot.) Visually stunning, I quickly found myself wishing to visit the magical vision of Europe that Miyazaki provides.

Somewhere in the cross between steampunk and fantasy, we're introduced to a semi-industrial city on the borders of a rugged, green waste. Sophie is a young, plain girl who works in a hat-shop, and is, entirely by accident, caught up in the affairs of wizards when a mysterious stranger rescues her from a pair of churlish soldiers. Soon after this Sophie is assaulted by a jealous witch. Left with the fall-out of this encounter, Sophie refuses to feel sorry for herself, but sets off into the waste to remedy the problem, where she meets a number of eccentric characters. Romance ensues.

From a character standpoint, Sophie is a marvelous heroine, providing a down-to-earth contrast to the beautiful, self-important wizard Howl, though the romance between the two did not quite convince me (her falling for him made much more sense than vice versa), much like that of Mononoke. I think this would have worked better if Howl had been given more character scenes, he was a little bit too idealized and feminine (Manic Pixie Dream Boy?). The whole relationship felt like Jane Eyre opposite a more perfect Mr. Rochester. But quibbles aside, it's still a lot of fun, incredibly creative and beautiful. Miyazaki, once again, thoroughly wowed me with his sumptuous visuals. I'll be watching again.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
God bless you, Ned. And may we be forever in your debt.
8 October 2014
Ireland, as a subject in fiction, lies in the curious hinterlands between fantasy and reality. While the gritty, ugly violence in the North remains a present memory, Éire cannot quite shake off her aura of romance.

Waking Ned Devine embraces the magic side of Ireland, perhaps to too great an extent, forgetting to ground itself in a harsher reality. Yet even in its absurdest moments, the talent and charm of the cast anchor the story, lending just a touch of gravitas to what is ultimately the tale of leprechauns stealing gold.

Our chief leprechaun is the irrepressible Jackie O'Shea, played with panache and roguish delight by Ian Bannen. His best friend, and every bit his equal, is lanky, timid Michael O'Sullivan (the great David Kelly). They live in Tullymore (Tulaigh Mhór), an idyllic coastal village with 52 inhabitants. When Jackie and Michael deduce that a local has won the lottery, they concoct a string of harebrained devices to identify and ingratiate themselves to the "lucky sod." It takes a while to discover that he is, in fact, elderly fisherman Ned Devine, who promptly after realizing his win, died from the shock of it.

Jackie and Annie, his rosy-cheeked wife (Fionnula Flanagan), sit quietly in their kitchen and share solemn, small-town generalities about Ned's decency and kindness. It is, of course, a tragedy to die in the face of such a pot of gold; it's worse than ordinary death. Going to bed, they say a simple, rehearsed prayer for the soul of Ned Devine, and go to sleep.

In a rather vague dream, Jackie becomes convinced Ned intends him to claim the money. It's such an absurd proposition, such an obvious self- deception, that we laugh along with Jackie, recognizing our own tendencies to lie to ourselves. If the story had tried to justify events following in any sort of believable fashion, I would have instantly lost sympathy with our errant leprechauns, but as it is, we are still in the realm of fantasy. And, as Roger Ebert observed: "Stealing 6.8 million pounds from the lottery is, of course, not too wicked."

So Jackie and Michael set to work, cleaning up the corpse and searching Ned's documents (we're starting to realize this is rather a black comedy). The next morning, they call and make the claim, much to Annie's dismay. There is now no turning back, and with the unexpectedly early arrival of the lotto man, things are off to a break-neck pace. The plot quickly spins into a complex rivalry of cleverness versus an increasingly impossible task. Refusing to resort to quick fixes (except in one sublimely evil deus ex machina), writer/director Kirk Jones seems to delight in throwing up ever higher obstacles for our heroes.

In the interim, time rolls on, as we come to know each of the eccentric citizens of Tullymore. Lizzy Quinn, the village witch, rouses everyone's hatred with her mean-hearted greed. Mrs. Kennedy at the Post Office is happily expecting a new grandchild. Giggly old lady Kitty is determined to trap bachelor Michael. An intelligent, precocious child bonds with the insecure, but kind, temporary priest of Tullymore's only church. The local pig farmer (James Nesbitt, of Hobbit fame) romances a darkly beautiful single mother (Susan Lynch, The Secret of Roan Inish), who rejects him on the basis of the smell of pig (another example of how lightly the film takes real relationships.)

It takes full advantage of the unearthly beauty of the Isle of Man, soaring green cliffs and rocky shores, misty hollows and vast oceans, haunted by the wail of bagpipes, the beat of bodhran, and the swift thrill of a fiddle. Catholicism forms a stately (if passive) backdrop to the quaint village, and Lux Aeterna is worked into the soundtrack beautifully. Unlike many films, it is often content to let the camera rest on the gentle shadows, to let the seconds tick by as an old man sleeps. There is a beauty, an idyllic goodness to it all that guides me into Faerie.

Despite its full acceptance of rather shady moral actions, the film is ultimately about generosity, a spirit of community, and the laughter of friends. Also crime. It has just enough magic to convince us that's a worthy cause.

Originally posted at: http://www.longview95.blogspot.com/2014/07/waking- ned-devine-movie-review.html
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Practically Perfect in Every Way
8 October 2014
Our Mutual Friend is mostly about stalkers (there are seven). And not only dudes obsessed with beautiful women, but greedy rogues tracking down any embarrassing secrets in the lives of rich public figures, or jealous rivals shadowing their opponents.

Dickens was already fascinated by the idea that we cannot really know what goes on inside the hearts of our fellow men, and Our Mutual Friend further complicates this theme by incorporating the devious facades of high society and its occupants. From a pair of sycophantic social climbers to a one-legged man of letters, no one is what they seem.

As an adaptation, this six-hour TV film is near-perfect, cutting only the most superfluous subplots (Fascination Fledgeby, for instance). The minor characters almost steal the show, providing a coterie of wonderfully mad Dickensian eccentrics (it's hard to pick, but I think my favorite is Timothy Spall's lovelorn Mr. Venus, closely followed by David Bradley's hawkish Rogue Riderhood.)

But the main characters win the day. Our Mutual Friend contains several of the most beautiful relationships I've seen in period drama, thanks chiefly to the talent and charm of the principle actors. The sublimely beautiful Bella Wilfer is a splendid mix of pettiness and elfin charm. Lizzie Hexam is a bit too idealized and posh, but I'm sure old man Dickens would approve. Rokesmith combines mystery and ambiguity with an appealingly quiet dignity. Eugene Wrayburn, on the other hand, is wildly self- destructive and irresponsible, barely pardoned by his waggish charm. Perhaps the best performance of all is Mr. Headstone's, the passionate schoolmaster crippled by insecurity and pride.

The complexities of the plot are also fascinating to negotiate...romance, drama, and obsession thread their way through a ridiculously tangled web of inheritance, blackmail, and murder.

Also, Bella Wilfer's dresses are about the most gorgeous thing ever. If you're a period drama fan, this, my favorite Dickens adaptation of all time, isn't to be missed.

Longer review here: http://www.longview95.blogspot.com/2014/07/our-mutual- friend-review.html
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Midnight Run (1988)
10/10
Here come two words for you: Go Watch Midnight Run
8 October 2014
In many ways, Midnight Run is an over-sized parody of other 80's buddy flicks, because you've seen it all before.

But Midnight Run embraces its clichés to the point of parody. There's a sleazy mob boss (Dennis Farina), a perpetually angry FBI investigator (Yaphet Kotto at his funniest), two eccentric bail bondsmen, and a real-life Horace-and-Jasper. Yet, even with all these exaggerated caricatures, our two main characters manage to find moments of surprising depth amid all the malarkey.

Robert De Niro, in a unique turn, plays John Wesley "Jack" Walsh, a down- on-his-luck, smart-aleck bounty hunter. Charles Grodin is a mild-mannered embezzler, Jonathan "The Duke" Mardukas, on the run for breaking bond. Promised $100,000 if he brings in Mardukas by midnight on Friday, Walsh quickly finds and apprehends him in New York. The Duke's aviophobia prevents the pair from traveling by plane to Los Angeles, so they take to the road. Of course, everything that can go wrong does go wrong. Besides a number of obstacles, they are pursued by another bounty hunter, the FBI, and the mob through a series of madcap adventures.

The twist is that both Walsh and Mardukas are basically noble men (in the hard-bitten, Clint Eastwood Western sense) striving for exactly the same end. Mardukas, for instance, is a salt of the earth accountant who stole $15 million from a mobster to give to charity. Walsh, formerly a dedicated undercover cop, refused to be paid off by the same mobster, which cost him everything he held dear, and made him into the cynical jerk we all know and love.

Very quickly the straitlaced Mardukas realizes that he can use his moral authority to bully the secretly conscientious Jack into giving way (incidentally, this technique doesn't work at all on Walsh's hard-hearted foil, Marvin - he's what Jack pretends to be). The Duke uses every chance he can to awaken Jack's dormant moral compass, from advising him to quit smoking ("Come on - cigarettes are killers!") to encouraging that he renew his relationship with his ex-wife and daughter ("Don't you want to be loved?"). All this, of course, drives the nervy bounty hunter crazy and results in dialogues by turns hilarious and heartfelt. In the end, they're still bickering, but like an old couple: "Shut up! I'm not talking to you for the whole rest of this trip!"

The key to all this is that De Niro and Grodin are not trying to be funny. They don't have to. With a few exceptions - Grodin in one scene involving chickens - both of them are merely playing their characters straight, and it's hysterical. De Niro effortlessly shifts gears between cocky sarcasm, fury, insecurity, sensitivity, and vulnerability - sometimes all of them at once. It is his performance I enjoyed more the second time through.

Grodin's doing his usual Curmudgeon Suffering Righteously act (this was the first film I'd seen him in - but I've been thoroughly enjoying his in- character Letterman interviews), and consequently has less depth than the many shades De Niro brings to Walsh, but that's not entirely his fault:

Mardukas: "Why don't you get yourself a new watch?" Walsh: "I'll tell you when I know you better." Mardukas: "You know me better? When are you gonna to get to know me better? I'm getting to know you better. You're not gonna get to know me better." Walsh: "Will you SHUT UP?" Mardukas: "That's what I mean."

Regardless, he's perfectly cast as the sulky, teddy-bear white-collar criminal.

A few last comments: the pacing, script, direction, supporting cast, and wonderful, wonderful soundtrack are all great. It's immensely quotable. The movie is a bit long - Grodin and De Niro are separated for a while near the end of the movie and things begin to drag. But it's still one of the best of its kind - and never, ever boring.

Review originally posted here: www.longview95.blogspot.com/
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Becket (1964)
8/10
Costume Drama Royalty
22 September 2014
The royals have long been popular on the silver screen, and Becket is a pillar of the genre, despite numerous inaccuracies and a general spicing- up-of-facts going' on.

Book-ended by scenes at the tomb of Thomas Becket, the rest of the film is a flashback to his life, from a wild youth, to a career as a statesman, and then his appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Central to the drama is the bond between Becket and Henry II, to the point that the film is almost less a biopic than the story of a relationship. Peter O'Toole is at his best here, throwing himself into the dissolute, petulant king with gusto (a role he would reprise in 1968's The Lion in Winter). He nearly steals the show from Richard Burton's gentle, erudite Becket, but if O'Toole provides driving force of the narrative, it is Burton that channels it.

Both characters begin the story as thorough profligates (brief, graphic female nudity earns it a PG-13 rating), living the high life, drunk on power and luxury. Henry is a man without restraint, but one senses that the cunning, enigmatic Becket is not entirely committing himself to the revelry. Always, there is something held back, something undisclosed, something he refuses to give. It will prove his destruction, for Henry can't stand the idea that his beloved Becket may hold loyalties above and besides the king. Ironically, it is Henry himself that destroys this loyalty when he appoints Becket archbishop, for it brings the two into inevitable conflict, and forces Becket to finally commit to something, to finally "find his honor..."

Secondary to this dual clash of personality and faith is the symbolic rivalry of church and state. Unlike A Man for All Seasons, a film of ideas, and people who debated and defined themselves by those ideas, this is first and foremost an emotional drama. Because of this, it's not as good a film as Seasons (which invites comparison given the uncanny similarity of events). It suffers from over-complexity, over-length, and a main character who hasn't the power to command the narrative (Burton is good, but he's no Paul Scofield, as he was quick to admit.) The music is dated, a brassy, distracting clamor that leaps in to emphasize dramatic moments but instead converts them to comedic melodrama. Occasionally we're aware we're in a play, particularly when Burton performs his prayers as soliloquies.

But these are quibbles. Becket is a lavish affair, taking a far broader approach than Seasons. We get to see much more of this fascinating archaic world (the 12th rather than the 16th century), explore some truly spectacular locations, meet folk from all classes, witness the awe- inspiring ritual of the medieval church, and the ugliness of secular and religious politics. Our tour guides are two of the finest actors of their generation, who have such enormous rapport that every scene without them feels empty (even if that scene features a young, mischievous John Gielgud.)

While flawed, Becket's charms are many, from the witty writing to the breath-taking cinematography. These and other things allow Becket to easily take its place among the high circles of costume drama, but it is the immense chemistry between the two leads, Burton and O'Toole, that catapults it to a place of royalty.

Originally posted at http://www.longview95.blogspot.com/2014/09/becket- movie-review.html
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Hallelujah!
25 August 2014
I like food. There, I've said it. In a society obsessed with either parceling out each meager calorie or splurging on sugary, prepackaged excess, Babette's Feast is a delight of measured restraint, bounty, and artistry. Wait, am I talking about food anymore?

Not really. On a number of levels, this leisurely film is very unusual. There's a long period of set-up, as we learn about Martine (Birgitte Federspiel) and Filippa (Bodil Kjer), the beautiful daughters of a strict minister who lives on the coast of Jutland in Denmark (they're named after Martin Luther and Philip Melanchton, if that tells you anything.)

We follow them as they are courted by a soldier and an opera singer, two wayward but sincere outsiders, wooed by the women's kindness and beauty. Ultimately, both sisters reject these men in their devotion to a simple life, lending this first act a feeling of regret and memory.

These memories spring up once again many years later when one of the erstwhile suitors sends Babette (Stephane Audran, Brideshead Revisited), a French refugee, to shelter with the two elderly sisters. Uncertain at first (after all, having a servant is an indulgence), Martine and Filippa grow to love Babette, who lends her cooking skills to their ministry. All of this is much welcomed by the congregation, who happily exchange gruel for thick, savory porridge.

That's the bare bones of the plot, which is both much less and much more than this simple summary. It is a long, gracefully shot film with a subtle undercurrent of humor among its eccentric, endearing characters.

It delves into questions of sacrifice and rejoicing, art and possession, generosity and joy. It is joy, the joy of giving, creating, and receiving, the joy of cooking and eating, which most defines the story, in the same way that the joy of running defined Chariots of Fire or the joy of flying Empire of the Sun, or the joy of fishing A River Runs Through It. And like the joy in those films, it is a palpable thing, an otherworldly ecstasy, and it allows the characters to work their way, without easy compromises, through a history of regret and sadness, into a future of hope.

All this in a film about cooking? Well, no. I'm not really talking about food anymore.

P.S. Fans of Carl Theodor Dreyer's Ordet may notice two members of the cast reunited in Birgitte Federspiel and Preben Lerdorff Rye.

Review originally posted at Longview: http://www.longview95.blogspot.com/2014/07/babettes-feast-movie- review.html
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed