Filmknitter

WALL·E

WALL·E is the latest offering from animation geniuses Pixar and, in my humble opinion, it's their best yet.  Our titular hero is a small battered robot whose purpose is to clean up the mountains of trash left on Earth in the year 2815; 700 years after the last humans left on giant spaceships to escape the rubbish that was threatening to consume the Earth.  Now, out of the hundreds of WALL·E robots left behind our hero is the only one still functioning.  He spends his days compacting rubbish into cubes and building them into giant skyscraper size piles.  However, after 7 centuries WALL·E has developed a personality and is often distracted by the more unusual things he finds, as well as becoming obsessed with watching an old VHS of 'Hello Dolly' and learning the music and dances from it.  But then one day another robot turns up: EVE, sent across the universe to scan the Earth for signs that it can be occupied by human life again.  Eve is sleek, smooth and powerful, and WALL·E becomes determined to distract her from her mission and make friends.  Unfortunately their blossoming friendship is cut short when EVE discovers a small plant and is called back to the human spaceship to deliver her discovery. WALL·E hitches a ride on the spaceship and in the second half of the film we find out what has happened to the last of the human race...

WALL·E is easily one of the best films I've seen this year, even despite my very high expectations it did not disappoint in any way.  Obviously the visuals are gorgeous, Pixar truly are at the top of their game and the trailers we saw from Dreamworks et al before the film started just couldn't hold a candle to the photo-real animation seen in this film.  Even the most simple sequences look spectacular - the scene where EVE and WALL·E are 'dancing' through space (with the help of a fire extinguisher in WALL·E's case) is one of the most beautiful I've ever seen.  Leaving that aside, however, the story here is equally compelling.  I love the way the film is split into two halves with the first section being reminiscent of 'I am Legend', but better and with a smaller, cuter, more metallic Will Smith.  There is barely any dialogue, we just see WALL·E go about his life, and discover this new world, 700 years on from the present day.  It's utterly charming to watch, despite being the only creature left on Earth it's impossible to feel sorry for WALL·E as he amuses himself with the mysterious objects he uncovers - a spork, a bra, a rubber duckie... 

The larger part of the film is concerned with his meeting EVE and then ending up on the human ship: The Axiom.  From what I'd heard of the plotline of the film I was worried that this would be where things went downhill and got heavy (so to speak) as we see what has become of the human race: reduced to large blobby entities who are dependent on their hoverchairs and only interact with each other via comm-screens in front of their noses.  However, bleak as this may sound as soon as WALL·E arrives on board the Axiom he starts to have an effect on the people he meets and a chain of events is set off that will result in the salvation of mankind.  I adored the sequence on the ship, the best part is WALL·E's encounters with all of the other robots aboard.  There's a section where he's deposited with a collection of 'malfunctioning' robots that is obviously some kind of homage to C-3PO and R2-D2's experience on the Jawa ship in Star Wars.  It's a joy to watch, each robot has their own personality and despite having no discernible human features they are all utterly endearing.  I especially enjoyed 'M-O' and his constant battle against 'foreign contaminant's :)

In terms of its effects and technical ability this film is the most impressive I've seen all year, but it's so much more than that.  The characters are charming without being overly cute, the story is entertaining and it contains an important environmental message, but without being patronising or downbeat.  I'd recommend everyone to see WALL·E, it's definitely not just for kids and I will certainly be seeing it again; because of the richness of the detail I'm sure there was loads of stuff I missed first time round.  Also stick around for the start of the credits which, apart from being beautiful, give us a glimpse of WALL·E and EVE's future.

Mamma Mia!

Mamma Mia is a film version of the original musical written by Catherine Johnson, based on the music of Swedish super-group ABBA.  Set on a Greek island it takes place in a dilapidated hotel run by Donna (Meryl Streep) where her daughter Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is about to marry Sky (Dominic Cooper).  Unknown to her mother Sophie has invited three of Donna's old flames from 20 years ago, in the hopes of finding out the truth about who her father is.  So as the guests start arriving so doBill (Stellan Skarsgard), Sam (Pierce Brosnan) and Harry (Colin Firth).  Each of them unaware why exactly they are there and mistakenly believing that Donna has invited them.  Fun and games ensue as Donna and Sophie try to keep each other from finding out who the three men are, helped by their respective friends.

I've never seen the musical but I used to be a big ABBA fan in my teens and I thoroughly enjoyed revisiting all of the songs I used to love, to the backdrop of a stunningly beautiful Greek island and lots of good actors frolicking around.  It's all incredibly camp of course and you really have to suspend your disbelief (and your taste) for a lot of it.  The plot is paper-thin, basically any major event that happens is there to usher in the next song.  To be fair they have managed to shoe-horn in an impressive number of songs, some which fit seamlessly into the story and some which are more randomly inserted.  However this is easily forgiven as they are performed with such vigour and obvious enthusiasm by the impressive cast that you can't fail to enjoy them.  Amanda Seyfried breaks out of the 'dumb blond' mould set by her turn in Mean Girls and is a joy to watch in this, as is Dominic Cooper as her ridiculously named fiance - Sky.  Meryl Streep, as you'll no doubt have heard, is a revelation as feisty Donna, by turns hilarious and heartbreaking.  Christine Baranski and Julie Walters as her show-stealing best friends are a joy to watch, even if their singing leaves a little to be desired.  Seeing the three of them in 70s catsuits complete with platform heels and ruffled flares is hilarious, watch out for a couple of extra songs at the end where the three men of the piece also don catsuits to equally amusing effect.  A highlight for me was the usually patronising (but a great song nontheless) "Does Your Mother Know" sung by Baranski's character to a younger man - it works fantastically well this way round and meant that this was the song that embedded itself into my brain on the way home.

This film is fabulous but I suspect that not everyone will love it.  The acting is done in traditional musical style, lots of hamming it up "eyes and teeth" style.  The story is stock-full of extra cheesy moments that had me rolling my eyes to begin with before I got pulled into the unrepentant joy of the whole thing.  There will be those who this will just irritate the hell out of, but if you love the music then all will be forgiven.  It's tremendously uplifting to hear Abba's music belted out of those big screen speakers in glorious surround sound and the images flitting by you on the screen are so beautiful that you don't really need to concentrate on the story at all to get the most out of this glorious film.

Hancock

This was a surprise viewing last night after we turned up to the cinema to find that 'Wanted' was sold out and this was the only other thing on, unless we wanted to hang around till 1 minute past midnight to catch the first showing of 'Mamma Mia' that is!  Anyway, I didn't know that much about 'Hancock', other than that it has the ugliest poster in the world (seriously, what is that, you can barely tell it's Will Smith, never mind anything about the film), and that the trailer had looked quite amusing.  Will Smith plays John Hancock, who is not your average super-hero.  He may have super-strength and the ability to fly but other than that he's basically a foul-mouthed, scruffy, drunken tramp.  When he does get the urge to save the day he usually ends up making things ten times worse, whether he's destroying buildings, derailing trains, or impaling a getaway car full of criminals on the Capitol Records building.  However, one day he saves the life of earnest PR chappy Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) and Ray promises that in return he will save Hancock's image.  Hancock goes to jail to appease the public, cleans himself up, dons some tight leather and is soon saving the day with the best of 'em.  All seems rosy until we realise why Ray's wife Mary (Charlize Thereon) has such an apparent dislike for Hancock, and the villain of the piece turns up - Eddie Marsan in a departure from his usual gritty Mike Leigh fare playing a criminal with a vendetta against Hancock.

Hancock bemused me slightly.  From the little I'd seen of it I was expecting a comedy with lots of situational comedy about what happens when you have a superhero who's rubbish at the hero part.  And for the first half of the film that's what we get, Hancock's screw-ups at the start of the film are funny enough and I was greatly amused by Ray's attempts to teach Hancock how to be a hero, Will Smith throws out some pithy one-liners and all is as it should be.  However, the tone of the film then completely changes and, without spoiling the twist for you, the whole thing becomes much more serious.  There's a tragic love story, references to ancient mythology, and genuine peril for a couple of our main characters.  It promises to become a much more interesting story for a minute there but as we now only have half the film left it's over all too soon and I was left with many questions about the the events that had just unfolded.  I remember hearing that this script was in development for a long time and changed a lot in the course of the writing, and I wonder whether that is the problem here.  The writers couldn't decide between the two angles so they decided to include both.  Unfortunately that means that neither is as developed as they could have been.  If they'd stuck with the comedy and made it a darkly humorous reaction to the recent crop of superhero films that would have been just fine and dandy, there's  really no need to add in all the extra stuff.  However, it's the story in the second half I was much more intrigued by, I wanted to know more of the background to the plot twist, and there are glimmers of a much more intense and fantastical movie hiding behind the veiled references to Hancock's history.

I enjoyed watching 'Hancock' but was ultimately frustrated by the screenwriters' intentions.  It shows a lot of promise which it just doesn't fulfill.  The cast do their best, and there are some nice moments, but it really is a film of two halves and I imagine many audiences' opinions will be equally divided.

Southland Tales

Southland Tales, in its original form, was premiered at Cannes in summer 2006.  However, the critics in the audience of that first showing acted as if Richard Kelly had presented them with the body of a deceased mole instead of a movie: it was completely and utterly panned.  So, Kelly went back into the editing suite, trimmed out a sub-plot, knocking 25 minutes of the running time of his 3 hour film, inserted a plethora of special effects, and re-released it at the end of 2007.  It still doesn't make sense, but the critics were placated.  I would have been interested to see the original cut because I can't see how 25 minutes of extra footage could have made everyone hate this movie so much.  It's immensely silly and up its own arse, I won't contest that, but it's a vaguely intelligent commentary on the concerns of modern America, it stars a host of decent actors, it's slick and attractive to look at, and it's entertaining enough in its own small way.  The movie is set in the near future in an alternative universe, one where another massive terrorist attack occurs in 2005, a nuclear bomb is detonated in Texas destroying part of the state.  In 2008, when the movie is set, America has become a paranoid dystopia; the Republican party are still in power and have implemented a massive surveillance system called 'USident', which encompasses all governmental departments, the police and the army.  Free speech is a thing of the past as underground liberal resistance groups are hunted down and exterminated.  However, in Los Angeles the 'Neo-marxist' group has a plot to expose the corruption of the Republican party and destroy their campaign to win the 2008 election, which hinges on the votes of the state of California.  Meanwhile Boxer Santaros (Dwanyne "The Rock" Johnson), a movie star with ties to the Republican candidate, is found in the desert with amnesia, having come through a rift in space and time.  That's right, a rift; apparently the speed of the Earth is slowing down and this has caused the dimensions to tear.  This may also have something to do with the new power source that has recently been discovered: Fluid Karma - a godsend in these oil-starved times.  Baron von Westphalen (Wallace Shawn) intends to use Fluid Karma to power the world and will hold a launch party on the 4th July to show the rich and powerful of America exactly what his alternative fuel can do.  However, other events will also culminate on this date, resulting in possibly the end of the world...  Um, I could go on but I don't think I can explain any more, it would take too long.  For a full explanation of the story go to Salon.com's excellent article here.

'Southland Tales' is very recognisable as being a product of the same director/writer who brought us 'Donnie Darko'.  As with that film I watched it, thought I knew what it was about, did some research on the web and discovered that I didn't have a clue what it was actually about.  Kelly does not make self-contained films, Southland Tales was preceded by three graphic novels that give some back story to the characters just as Donnie Darko was accompanied by an intricate website giving snippets of extra information about the movie.  Also, apparently, Southland Tales will make much more sense to those familiar with the Book of Revelations, the final book of the New Testament, which prophesies the end of the world.  'Southland Tales', it would seem, is a modern day rendering of this.  Again, see the article above for further explanation.  Now, being an atheist, I completely failed to recognise the biblical references, except for the fairly obvious one at the end of the film where Boxer's tattoo of Jesus begins to bleed through his shirt.  However, as a political commentary and general dystopian fantasy I enjoyed and understood it.  It's tremendously nihilistic at times and to me felt a little like the 'Film Actors Guild' from Team America: World Policehad decided to make a film about the future of right-wing America.  However, Kelly is successful in incorporating all of the paranoias that America and the world have about the future and, in my opinion, says something interesting about all of them.  The problem is that he crams too much into one film, as with Donnie Darko I feel like I need to go back to the film and watch it again a couple of times, possibly with some notes from the web on hand.  To Kelly's credit I do feel like it would be worth going back to, and it's also made me want to watch Donnie Darko again, as both films theorise on the predestination paradox, amongst other things.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Finally I have gotten round to seeing Prince Caspian, the second of the Narnia series directed by New Zealand native Andrew Adamson.  The film basically covers the events of the book, with a little elaboration.  It takes place over 1000 years after the events of the previous film, in Narnia time at least, but the four Pevensie siblings are only a year older.  In the time since the four children disappeared from Narnia the Telmarines have invaded.  An olive-skinned race from the land of Telmar, across the sea, they have occupied Narnia for a good few hundred years and hounded the native Narnians almost to extinction.  The few 'Old Narnians' left in the country have remained hidden from the Telmarines for so long that talking animals, centaurs, fauns and so on are now only heard of in children's stories and ancient superstitions.  Miraz, the regent of the land, rules the roost but his young nephew Caspian is the rightful heir.  Once Miraz produces a son Caspian's life is in danger and he flees to the woods where he stumbles upon the home of Trufflehunter, a talking badger, Nikabrik (Warwick Davis), a Black Dwarf, and Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage), a Red Dwarf.  Once there he hears the true story of the Old Narnians and pledges to help them overthrow Miraz and his government.  However, they will not be alone in their quest.  Before being rescued by the badger Caspian blew upon the legendary horn of Queen Susan, which pulls the four Pevensie children into Narnia from the Strand tube station, where they are busy picking fights and using inappropriate slang for the 1940s... Anyway, the four of them land in Narnia in the ruins of Cair Paravel, their former royal palace.  After realising where they are they come across Trumpkin the dwarf, who leads them back to Caspian and the Old Narnians, fortressed inside the hill that was formerly known as Aslan's How.  After some manly squaring off between Caspian and Peter they decide their best course of action is to storm Miraz's castle, which goes spectacularly wrong, of course since it's not even in the book, which should have told them this was a stupid plan.  However, soon enough we are back on course and the real battle begins.  It begins with a fight between Miraz and Peter, the idea being that whichever one loses must surrender their entire army.  Nice plan, we think, but it doesn't work and the battle takes place anyway.  With a little help from Lucy and some hardcore battle-trees the Narnians are triumphant and the Telmarines are overcome.  Hurrah.

Well, artistic licence aside, I actually quite enjoyed this one.  It's not perfect by any means but Adamson has definitely improved on his first effort.  Admittedly he hasn't got a lot to work with here. I always considered Prince Caspian to be the weakest of the books, plot-wise, and I can certainly see why Adamson has felt the need to add in the storming of the castle section and extend the sequence with Nikabrik and his fellow bad 'uns trying to resurrect the White Witch (look out for a cameo from Ms Swinton).  I felt that the acting from the four kids was very good, putting the early Harry Potters to shame, and Ben Barnes made a perfectly satisfactory Caspian (the observant among you will recognise him from last year's 'Stardust', look out for him in a new film version of 'Dorian Gray' expected 2009).  However, the stars for me in this one were the CGI animals.  Trufflehunter was adorable, and incredibly realistic, and Reepicheep was just perfect.  He was the highlight of the film for me, Eddie Izzard is an inspired choice to voice him, and he was almost exactly as I imagined him in the books.  I was overjoyed to find that they included the small but brilliant section from the book when Reepicheep is found to be missing one important appendage after the battle is over...

Be warned however, this is a little more grown up than the first film.  The scene with the werewolf and the hag is just as spine-chilling as it is in the book - "I am hunger, I am thirst etc" - and there is a fair amount of death and destruction, though none of it very gory, this is only a PG after all.  It does at least feel a little less sanitised than the first film though.  My main complaint is the state of the script.  Adamson just doesn't have the respect for the original material that, for example, Peter Jackson had with the LOTR trilogy.  The four children speak like modern-day school kids, as do the talking animals and dwarfs.  I can understand why they can't stick to the dialogue in the book as it is of the "simpy wizard!" variety but they are still supposed to be 1940s public school children.  And Reepicheep for one doesn't quite have the right tone, he is just a little too jokey and cartoony, whereas in the book he commands more respect with his high-minded way of speaking.  However, even despite the script this film is worth a look and I anticipate Adamson's next efforts with a little more optimism than I had been.

The Edge of Love

'The Edge of Love' is a slightly speculative account of the life of Welsh poet Dylan Thomas, during the Second World War.  It begins as Dylan comes face to face with his childhood sweetheart Vera Williams (Keira Knightley), now singing in the tube stations of London during air-raids.  Dylan, as a conscientious objector, is allowed to stay in the UK provided he writes inspiring prose to accompany government propaganda films.  He resents his task but does so, using his spare time to write poems.  However, as soon as he meets Vera his wife Caitlin (Sienna Miller) also appears in London, vivacious and glamorous, Caitlin is fed up of playing the housewife in Wales and after meeting Vera they form a close, if unlikely, friendship.  The three of them share a flat in the city and live suitably artistic lives for a while, seemingly happy with the arrangement.  However, Vera then meets an English soldier, William Killick (Cillian Murphy), and after a certain amount of persistence from him, falls for him and consents to marry him.  He is called away to fight all too soon and when Vera realises she's pregnant she moves back to Wales with Dylan and Caitlin to raise her son.  Things become complicated as the three of them struggle with poverty and the Thomas's penchant for extra-marital affairs.  And after the return of Killick, shell-shocked and trigger-happy, it seems that Vera will have to make a choice between her own family and that of her friends.

I'm not familiar with the work of Dylan Thomas, but having seen this film I am determined to become so.  I can't tell how close to the true events the story is, but Dylan's fire and talent is transmitted very well.  I loved the technique of having a voiceover reading the poems in that rich voice with a hint of Welsh accent.  The three main actors were great.  Matthew Rhys was a slightly more attractive version of Thomas, but it seems like he got the personality and boyish charm off perfectly, he veers between artistic genius and petulant child as easily as I imagine Thomas would have done.  Keira Knightey does an admirable job with a husky Welsh accent, which seems slightly incongruous with her delicate features but she makes it very easy to see why Thomas was so drawn to his feisty childhood friend.  Sienna Miller I was rather surprised by.  I haven't liked her in anything I've seen her in prior to this, but she really inhabited the character of Caitlin, and despite not being an overly likable character I warmed to her a lot in this film.  The two actresses look amazing, especially at the start of the film, flitting around London in impossibly high heels and the beautiful tailored fashions of the 40s.  Cillian Murphy seemed a little wasted in quite a restricted role as straight-laced Captain Killick, however he pulls off cold and creepy very well and did what he was there to do.  Thought I found it difficult to see why Vera would have fallen for him quite so hard, but I guess the point was that he was so different to Dylan.  The love triangle between Vera, Caitlin, and Dylan drives the film but I'd say the focal point is on the relationship between the two girls rather than Dylan.  It's a complex friendship, which is fascinating to watch, and very well acted by both of them.  I was more heartbroken for the separation between the two of them, as a result of Killick's actions towards the end of the film, than for Dylan's inability to choose between his wife and his former girlfriend.

I also loved the photography and costumes of this film, there is a distinct difference between the sections in London, which look glamorous, clean lined, and in some places like Vogue photo-shoots.  Then the sections in Wales, still beautiful, but distinctly colder, messier and distinguished by lonely locations and the two girls running around in wellie boots and cardigans.  In fact the whole section in the bungalows with Caitlin and Vera was very reminiscent of a photo-shoot for a Rowan magazine - the knitters amongst you will know what I mean :)  There was some lovely knitwear to look out for generally, and I was admiring Caitline's mustard coloured cardigan in particular. 

I don't know whether fans of Dylan Thomas would rate this film quite as highly as I did, I suspect there wwas a certain amount of artistic licence used, however I was very impressed.  It's made me want to know more about the man and his work, which is surely a good thing.  It's incredibly well put together and I am very tempted to see it a second time, if only to admire the costumes.

The Incredible Hulk

Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) is a wanted man.   After an ill-advised experiment with gamma rays at university he has become the Incredible Hulk - a ten feet tall green giant who can break cars in half with his bare hands.  However, his experiment was funded by the military and as far as they're concerned his whole body is property of the US army, or some such... So Banner is hiding out in Brazil, in an incredibly impressive shanty town, working for a soda bottling factory and trying to control the monster inside with breathing exercises and keeping out of everyone's way.  However, little does he know that he is being tracked by General Ross (William Hurt) and his new protege - Royal Marine Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth).  Banner is hounded out of Brazil and returns to his university to lie low, while there picking up his old flame and fellow scientist Elizabeth Ross, who also happens to be the general's estranged daughter (what is it with Liv Tyler and troubled father-daughter relationships? hmmm).  After a few fights Banner travels to New York to meet another scientist in the form of Samuel Sterns (the ever delightful Tim Blake Nelson).  But then, after being thrown down by the Hulk, Blonsky also submits himself to gamma exposure, in addition to some government-sanctioned 'super soldier' drugs.  Thereafter becoming *gasp* The Abomination, a knobbular, slimier, smarter version of the Hulk himself.  Argh!  Of course they fight, there's some mild peril, and plenty of giant-sized violence, including an admittedly cool bit where Hulk forms a police car into a pair of gauntlets and smashes Blonsky into the pavement with them.

So, as you may have guessed, I felt that this version of the Hulk was horribly predictable.  When you compare it to Spiderman, Batman and even last year's Superman film it pales into insignificance in terms of story.  Superhero films have come a long way in the last few years, just look at the magnificent Iron Man.  Hulk doesn't do anything new, or even that exciting.  If you like massive violence in films then you'll get your kicks here, but other than that there is little to recommend this film.  I wasn't even planning to see it, I didn't bother with the last one, not being a Hulk fan anyway, and only wanted to see this one on the strength of the fabulous Ed Norton, and a promised cameo from Tony Stark (it's there, but you have to wait till the last scene).  I didn't hate it, it's about as entertaining as your average action film, but the point is that I expected a lot better, especially from Norton, who is as likable as ever but can't carry an entire film like this, he's just too understated an actor in my opinion.  I only hope that this is all we see of Hulk for now, until the rumoured Avengers movie, which Marvel seem to be building up to with this and Iron Man.  So, see it if you must but, judging by the turn-out at the showing we attended, this film will most likely go the same way as Ang Lee's ill-advised effort back in 2003.

Brick Lane

'Brick Lane' is based on the book of the same name by Monica Ali and tells the story of Nazneen Ahmed, a young Bangladeshi woman who, after her mother commits suicide, is sent away to London to marry a man she's never met.  Though she misses her sister and her home Nazneen submits to her husband, Chanu, and they have two daughters and a relatively normal life, if a little claustrophobic.  Nazneen barely leaves the vicinity of her flat, leaving only to shop and barely speaking to her neighbours.  However, 16 years later, after her husband loses his job Nazneen decides the only way she will get home is to start earning money herself by taking sewing work at home.  This leads to a new character entering her life, passionate young Karim, who brings her jeans to sew.  He is intrigued by the shy but kind young woman and they become close before embarking on a passionate affair.  It is through her relationship with Karim that Nazneen begins to realise how she can stand up to those who want to prevent her being independent and happy.

I've not read the book that this is based on, but I believe it to be relatively similar.  I had heard mixed reviews when it was out at the cinema and never got round to going.  However, I am glad that I rented it as it's enjoyable, well-made and not nearly as heavy-going as I expected.  Perhaps this is why the reviews were mixed, for those expecting a broad commentary on immigration and attitudes towards Muslims in the UK prior to 9/11, this film may disappoint.  What we have here is one woman's story, whose sheltered life is only marginally affected by the broader context of the film.  This is a film about a family, and a woman who is making the best of what she has.  Nazneen is a stoic character, who at first glance appears to be rather dull, and who doesn't look outside of her mundane family routine.  However, even without the colourful interludes showing her childhood in India, we get to see that this woman is more than she seems.  Rather than submitting entirely to her over-bearing, if broadly benevolent, husband, she stands up for her westernised daughters and after discovering Chanu has lost his job she is quick enough to proactively do something about it, rather than wringing her hands.  The basic plot revolves around her relationship with Karim, who is gentler than her husband and actually takes an interest in what she has to say.  However, as Karim becomes involved in a political group, designed to stand up for the rights of the Bengali community of Brick Lane, he becomes more dangerous and ultimately she has to also reject him in order to achieve the life she wants.

I enjoyed Brick Lane very much, it's a small story but an important one, and looks beyond the label of 'immigrant' to focus on at least one of the individual stories.  This isn't a new idea, necessarily, but I found it refreshing in that it isn't preachy or patronising, or unnecessarily gritty.  Like Nazneen herself it is unassuming, charming, but characterised by a determination to make the best of things.

The Nanny Diaries

I rented this last week but work and generally being busy have kept me from reviewing it.  The film is an adaptation of the book of the same name by Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus, based on their real-life experiences of nannying for the wealthy families of New York.  In the film Scarlett Johansson plays Annie, a recent graduate who falls into nannying after struggling to decide on a career.  She is hired by Mrs 'X' (Laura Linney) to look after 8 year old Grayer pretty much 24/7 while his father works and his mother occupies herself with benefits and shopping.  At first Grayer is a spoilt brat who terrorises his inexperienced new nanny.  However, after a while Annie wins him over and we realise this is a kid who has been all but rejected by both parents and has some valid reasons for acting like a miniature monster.  Annie's life is further complicated by the fact that her mother doesn't know she works as a nanny, believing that she is working as an intern at one of the big financial companies in NY.  Annie also has to contend with 'Harvard Hottie' (Chris Evans), who lives in the same building as the Xs and seems to have a genuine interest in her.

I don't have an awful lot to say about this film other than that I enjoyed it.  They've kept it incredibly close to the original book, which was a relief as I was worried it would turn into a 'Devil Wears Prada' clone.  However, despite having elements of that film, it's not quite so frenetic.  Scarlett Johansson is great as Annie, and is successful in conveying her as a sympathetic character.  Although I liker her as an actress I rarely find that I empathise with the characters she plays so this was a nice exception.  Laura Linney and Paul Giamatti are perfect as the poisonous Mr and Mrs X, just as in the book you end by hating them both and feeling truly sorry for Greyer (played by a talented young actor - Nicholas Art).  For fans of Alicia Keyes, she's here, in a supporting role as Annie's friend Lynette, though I didn't realise it was her until after the film ended.  All in all this is a fun film, very glossy and well put together.  If you liked the book I would heartily recommend the film, and vice versa.

Pinafore bag in "Brodie" check

Behold the latest bag, created last weekend after a fair amount of faffing around.  I used the rest of the fabric from the bucket bag I made for myself just after Christmas.  It's made in the same style as the more recent pinafore bag but the shape is a bit more square as I found the other one looked a bit too long.  This one I'm more than happy with, and it is up for sale in my Etsy shop.
I also found some green polka-dot oilcloth in Laura Ashley while I was in Bath on Sunday so I think that will be the next to go under the needle.  Just a simple tote, though I don't know when I'll find time to make it.  This weekend is my last free weekend for about a month due to visitors, and outings, and my holiday in a few weeks.  Still, at least I'll get a week off - hurrah!