Reviews

I think enough has been said about the strengths and weaknesses of this movie, so I'm not intentionally going to add to that. I just for a change want to give a simple and highly personal opinion as a viewer, looking for a nights entertainment with a new movie. I had never seen any trailers or read any articles on the movie so I had no idea what to expect, but how could I resist a movie with such an interesting blend of some top notch US/UK performers? But that was part of the problem that I'll come to later.

Right from the outset I was disoriented. The context and frame of the story were laid out using an opening series of documentary style interviews with both real and fictional characters. Why? It is a fictional story, so adding Jarvis Cocker correctly billed as he is in real life threw me. It added nothing except confusion and took me a long time into the film to realise I was watching a completely fictional tale and no further real life characters were going to pop up.

The storyline and performances were deliberately low key, in order to underscore and enhance the main theme, which was one of escape from tedium, routine and the commitment required in real life. Because of this it is easy to see how Martin Freeman was chosen for the central character as he is a master of the droll. But, not wanting to take anything away from any of the fine cast, this created an imbalance which played on my mind throughout. Martin Freeman is a good actor and perfect for the part, but would have thrived better if he had been supported by talented, yet less famous actors/actresses. As it was he was supported by actors with a much higher Hollywood profile, so I was always mindful of upstaging, even if not deliberate. As it turned out Gwynneth Paltrow, Simon Pegg and Danny DeVito managed to restrain their performances in keeping with the theme of the movie and in deference to Martin Freemans leading role. No easy job (especially for DeVito), but they managed it well in the end.

The premise as it developed was interesting. Quite by accident, MF found the promise of a life within his dreams that he had always desired. But could he manage to control it to the extent that he could influence its outcome? Could he find a way that this dreamworld could become his new reality? Thereafter, the premise shifted to whether all of this "perfect fantasy" was in fact a better solution than the real world had to offer and at the end of that road, how would it change us as human beings? Interesting and challenging enough to entertain, no doubt. The outcome will surprise few, but satisfy many.

Overall, I was entertained and felt that I had good value. I cannot recall a movie with precisely the same themes as this, however it does flirt outrageously with many other movies that weave reality with surreality, such as Eternal Sunshine (as one of the better examples) and because it does not explore any of it's unique aspects to any real depth, I feel it is impossible not to classify it in this genre.

WOW!! Is this movie a testosterone junkies fix or what?!!? I gotta say that I came striding out of this movie firm of jaw and broad of chest looking for a little guy to beat up on....for SPARTA!!! Not finding one of suitable proportions I marched off home (stiff and upright of course) and roared at my wife to get my supper ready....for SPARTA!!! Once I had brushed all of the bolognese sauce out of my hair, I sat down to reflect on the movie I had just seen.

I was attracted by three things. Firstly, the 60's movie "The 300 Spartans" is on my top 10 favourite movie list and secondly the trailer for 300 looked great, promising to give a Lord of the Rings feel to essentially the same historical storyline. Added to that the same team provided me with my favourite movie of recent years, Sin City. So how could I not enjoy this movie!?! On the plus side. 300 is a non-stop feast for the senses, even though it is possible to over-indulge. The CGI is amazing, the comic-book feel is a delight, the battle scenes magnificently choreographed (I use this word because the battles were unusually dance-like) and the music score is supremely empowering without being imposing. The fantasy element a la LotR did not disappoint either.

All in all a very good nights entertainment.....however....very reluctantly (because I so much wanted this movie to be flawless) I feel compelled to mention a few gripes......

Even though there are one or two significant scenes with women, this is so overpoweringly a mans movie that they fail to redress the balance. Now this does not mean it cannot be enjoyed by women, but rather that its main appeal (intentionally or otherwise)is to a largely bygone male stereotype. Hence my reversion to Neanderthal Man as I left the theatre.

Next, and I gotta say it, the whole "FOR SPARTA!!!" thing was just a little OTT. By far the most dominant of the 300 Spartans was of course King Leonidas and his men followed him blindly, but wasn't he a little barking mad? That whole "tonight we dine in hell" thing certainly would have had me pondering whether he was one sandwich short of a picnic.

In essence, King Leonidas' going totally tonto in isolation would not have been noticed, but when the, shall we say "idiosyncrasies", of some of the other Spartans are added, then some parts drifted dangerously toward a Monty Python sketch. Sorry.

And finally in my little gripette. The most interesting character in this movie, by a country mile, is Xerxes, but far too little development time was given over to him. If I were Frank Miller, I'd already be outlining a sequel..."300, the rise and fall of the return of Xerxes rides again". Guaranteed money-spinner.

Anyway, taken as a complete package, well worth the entrance fee and a welcome injection of testosterone.....I wonder if the wife has calmed down.....time for a little horizontal refreshment....FOR SPARTA!!!!!

Hello!!! HELLO!!! Come on, wake up now...Are you back with us?..Now be honest, it was rubbish wasn't it? Were you blinded by the glowing cast list like I was? Were you drawn in by the seductive 30's Louisiana setting? Yea, me too. Were you hypnotised by the dreamy score and the soft-focus delights of a dripping Kate and/or a sweating Jude almost getting it on? Me too, me too! But it WAS crap we just watched right?. I mean, I don't want to think that I am alone and that I was the only one to walk out of the cinema looking like Elijah Woods' wide-eyed brother on bad hair day. Please tell me that there are others out there in IMDb land who were also bamboozled for those two hours, or I'll run mad.

I expected a lot. A classic novel of depth and meaning, oodles of my favourite actors, an equally impressive off-screen team and 2 days off work. What more could one ask for? Suitably popcorned-up, I slid low in my seat as the lights dimmed ready for the giant hand of cinema magic to sweep me up and take me for a memorable ride. Unfortunately I think the hand swept me up and took me for a mug.

Strip away the glitz, the schmaltz and everything else ending in 'tz' and what a bad movie it really was. I mean, really...

What happened to Penn? In one frame he was an idealistic man of the people, in the next he made Nixon look like Mother Teresa. Where was the transition? Where was the depth? Why did he do the backstroke every time he made a speech? Why did Kate (looking good babe!) take this part? Her character was about as superficial and fluffy as...well, a superficial fluffy thing. It seems she was only there to add sexual promise and act as a bridge for one element of Penn's corruption to cross-over. Kate, if you read this, I still love you though and I really would marry you if you asked me. Honestly! And Jude. Yep, you look good too (not in any kind of sexual way Kate) but for how much longer will that be enough? Jude was the entire framework, the hub of the story and its narrator. Big job for little Jude I think. For an actor to carry this kind of role with conviction, he needs very strong on-screen presence...one thinks of Brando, Caine, Wells, Sandler (I put the last one in to see if you were still paying attention). Jude falls a long way short in this respect and consequently the foundation of believability was weakened as a result.

Tony, Tony, Tony, what can I say. You were one of my favourite actors once....what has happened to you? Remember Howard's End? Remains of the Day? I would watch a movie without reading the cover just because you were in it. Now, you seem only to choose smaller cameo roles where you seem constantly to try your best to look like Colonel Sanders. What a waste! Hopkin's character, Judge Irwin, was crucial to the climax of the movie, but it was ruined for me by the ease and convenient simplicity in which his corrupt past was unearthed. What rot! And finally, the big guy who looks like he should be in Goodfellas or The Sopranos...can't remember his name, sorry. What happened to him?? He transformed in the blink of an eye from a threatening, manipulative goon to a fawning lap-dog. Astonishingly disorienting.

I'm not entirely sure what I am trying to say with all of the above criticism about the movie as a whole, maybe because I am still dazed and confused by it's outward glamour. The best I can do to summarise is to say that this movie is lovely to look at, beguiling even, but underneath it is superficial, confusing and ultimately unfulfilling....not like you though, Kate.

Very mild spoilers below. If, like me, you are British and of a certain age, watching Green for Danger can be a bitter-sweet experience. There are a number of films, made by the likes of Pinewood and Ealing Studios in the 1940's and 50's, that evoke in me a strong sense of loss. Loss of a time when life was much simpler and safe. When men always wore suits and ties and everyone spoke the Queens English. Loss of a time when it was always summer and the sun always shone from clear skies. Loss of a time before motorways, when you could wend your way down endless leafy lanes without meeting a soul, before stumbling upon an ivy-covered inn for lunch.

Green for Danger, for me, encapsulates this sense of a bygone England.

I first saw this film as a young boy, sat comfortably between my parents and I was hooked from the beginning. It started in me a lifelong love for the whodunnit and, considering it is 60 years old, I challenge anyone to find a better one in the classic mould. "The clue is in the title Son", my Dad said....and I still didn't get it.

With the wonderful Alastair Sim framing the story with his narrative before he arrives at the scene, we are introduced to the crime, the characters, the setting and the abundance of clues and red herrings. You almost feel as if you are one of the characters as you follow them around the hospital setting. When Alastair Sim eventually arrives on the scene as the Inspector, we are taken by him through the unravelling, up one or two blind alleys, toward the tense climax where, at any moment, you know the killer shall be revealed. Classic and wonderfully done.

Alastair Sim is...well, Alastair Sim. Marvellously dry and sardonic. Impeccably comedic. A bad movie can be entertaining just for his presence, but for me he is the icing on this particular cake.

A couple of years ago Green for Danger came on the TV and I called my youngest daughter in to watch it with me. "The clue is in the title" I said. "But it's black and white!" she rightly pointed out, and promptly kissed me on the cheek and ran off back to her PlayStation and Internet Chatroom.

Ahh well....

First of all, let me say that Amadeus is as flawless a movie as I have ever seen, with probably the finest acting job in motion picture history in F.Murray Abraham's portrayal of Salieri. It is a delight for the eyes, for the ears and the heart from beginning to end. But I am only repeating most reviewer's comments in saying this. What I wanted to pick up on is that time after time I read in the reviews of Salieri's hatred for Mozart....but this could not be further from the truth. Salieri is consumed with hatred, that much is true, but not for Mozart, rather for himself and a fickle God. He hates himself when realising in his heart that he will only ever be mediocre and God who should mock his mediocrity by bestowing the very gifts that he had coveted (genius and popularity)in the form of a crude and childlike person such as Mozart.

I ask all of you who have described Salieri's hatred for Mozart to watch the movie again and consider the truth..... Here are the things to look out for;

Salieri never appears angry when listening to, or reading Mozart's music, quite the opposite. He sees and hears only beauty - even the voice-over confirms this. Watch Salieri's eyes and facial expressions whenever he is talking directly to Mozart. Often we see adoration, awe, even love - and sometimes coyish embarrassment....but never hatred...never anger. Even when Salieri is trying to kill Mozart (to spite God and to appease his hatred of himself) his eyes can only offer pain and love. Watch what happens when Mozart collapses near the end of the movie. If Salieri really hated Mozart could he be so gentle and caring? And when he helps Mozart to complete his Requiem on his deathbed, every mannerism and gesture of Salieri speaks only of admiration and adoration. If Salieri had truly hated Mozart he would have been joyful at the success of his scheme. Finally, when Mozart is buried in a paupers grave - there is no sign of Salieri's joy at finally dispatching a great and hated rival. His demeanour speaks a very complex language of sadness mixed with uncertainty, doubt and self-loathing.

Watch the movie again and you will see why I said earlier that F Murray Abraham's acting job was the finest I have ever seen, because the subtlety of his gestures, the silent emotions etched in his face and his eyes all bear witness to the truth. Salieri adored, and maybe even loved, Mozart.