Filmknitter

W.E.

W.E. is a film about the relationship between Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII, who famously abdicated from the throne of England so that he could marry her. Directed and co-written by Madonna this film is part period drama set in the 1930s and part modern day fable, following Wally Winthrop, a woman in 1998 New York who is obsessed with Wallis. Wally explores her namesake's story through the objects up for sale in the Sotheby's auction of the contents of the Duke and Duchess's home on the Bois de Bologne, purchased by Mohamed Al Fayed in 1986 after the Duchess died.

I must confess I was a little circumspect about seeing this film, Madonna not being known for her talents in feature film directing. However, low expectations aside, I genuinely enjoyed watching this and certainly found it more moving than the disappointing spectacle that was War Horse last week. W.E. has disappointed many critics who were hoping for a more thorough review of Wallis's every political move, and a raking-over of her and the Prince's involvement with the Nazi party. However, as evidenced by the corresponding modern-day story, this is a film about relationships first and foremost, and it examines Wallis's intentions towards the Prince and their ensuing relationship and marriage, which is more than enough to make this film interesting, without completely ignoring the darker background to their courtship. The 1998 thread is surprisingly compelling too, despite being more of a conventional romantic drama. Wally (Abbie Cornish) gave up her career to marry a man who has begun to resent and belittle her and after haunting the auction house she begins a fledgling romance with a Russian security guard. It's a little contrived but very sweet and in parts surprisingly hard-hitting, as are the early scenes of Wallis's unhappy first marriage.

The film starts unpromisingly, presenting both women as glossy socialites: shallow, materialistic and unsympathetic. The opening 10 minutes are full of MTV-style shots of skinny women in designer fashion, dripping with jewels. It looks more like a Vogue fashion-shoot than a film. However as we settle into the story the camerawork becomes more stable and both stories begin to grab you. The casting of Andrea Riseborough as Wallis is perfect. She's such a brilliant character actor and is instantly recognisable as the stately American, whippet-thin with bright-red mouth in stark contrast to alabaster skin and flawlessly coiffed jet black hair. Her stance, accent, even the way she laughs, reflects the photos of Mrs Simpson from the period. You empathise with Wallis but she doesn't make her too sympathetic; she's always a little too poised, too calculated. Predictably the costumes are gorgeous and I coveted nearly every outfit Wallis wears in this film, particularly the stripy panelled dress in the dog-walking scene, yum. Her costume is also used to clever effect - in one scene, after being outed by the papers as having an affair with Davis - she strides down the street in a black headpiece reminiscent of a satyr's horns. The only let-down is the scene where she is aged up to represent Wallis in 1976, where, frankly, she mostly resembles Mom from Futurama.

Abbie Cornish does sturdy work as Wally, and the rest of the ensemble are well-cast: tasty James D'arcy as the besotted prince, Laurence Fox and Natalie Dormer presenting a younger glossier version of Bertie and Elizabeth than those presented in The King's Speech, and the usually lovely Richard Coyle playing against type as Wally's despicable husband William. Oscar Isaac also gives good smoulder as Wally's saviour Evgeni (also delightful in a faintly ridiculous but very funny scene where he seduces Wally amidst the Windsors' furniture at Sothebys whilst dressed in a busby and Scottish kilt).

Essentially it's a mistake to head for this film expecting a detailed biographical drama; enjoy the film for what it is, a classily shot romantic drama with a good helping of history to give the story emotional heft. Then read a decent biography to fill in the blanks.

War Horse

War Horse, based on the book by Michael Morpurgo and following in the hoofsteps of the successful stage adaptation, opens just before the start of the First World War. In a small Dorset village a daft and drunken man buys a fancy thoroughbred instead of a plough horse at auction. His teenage son Albert (Jeremy Irvine) falls for the horse just as quickly, names him Joey, and bonds with him by teaching him to plough the family farm. As the war begins the family have to sell the horse to save the farm and Joey is sent to France with a young cavalry captain (Tom Hiddleston). During the chaos of war Joey passes through many hands - English, German, French - and by 1918 ends up in the trenches where a very young soldier is searching for his long-lost horse...

I hate having to write this review because I'm going to have to be harsh, and I genuinely wanted to love this film. I'm a sucker for a sad horse story - Black Beauty is the only film that's ever made me cry - and I expected to love this one just as much as Black Beauty and My Friend Flicka. However, sadly, Spielberg has rather cocked it up. I've never read the book or seen the stage play so I can't be certain whether all of the flaws are the director's but some of them most definitely are. Firstly, the photography. The entire thing looks like it was made a good 20 years ago, the lighting is very strange, not least the final orange-drenched scene supposedly depicting sunset. Considering that even the most mediocre of films these days can be stunningly beautiful (I'm looking at you Sucker Punch) I'm surprised that Spielberg went for this fuzzy, dated, technicolour look which just makes the whole thing look like a Hovis advert for horses.

The second problem I have with this film, which is going to sound awful, is that the cosy Dorset village where Joey begins his life seems to be the place where all the other villages in the South West send their village idiots. Admittedly the slow Dorset accent doesn't help, but Albert looks incredibly dozy as does his gurning best friend. It's difficult to find much empathy with a hero who looks like he's wondering what day it is half the time. Mr Narracott is a drunk with very few wits who attempts to shoot the very expensive horse he has just bought because the poor creature shies away when he clumsily  shoves a horse-collar at it. One has to wonder why his evidently more clever wife, played by Emily Watson, ever married him to begin with.

There are many odd things about this film - the tone for much of the film is aimed (sort of) at realism in its depiction of war, but then at the start of the film we have an almost anthropomorphised goose who spends his time berating the farmer, peering malevolently round doorways and chasing the evil landlord off the farm. Then there's the ridiculous moment when Albert and Joey victoriously plough the bottom field, just as a tide of curious villagers apparently sprout from the next-door field, and as they head towards a particularly treacherous looking rock which is evidently going to trip both horse and plough, the plough blade slices through it as if it is cheddar cheese. I'm no ploughman but I find that a tad unrealistic. This film is a curious mix of mawkish sentimentality and grim reality. The problem may be with the story; some characters are introduced as if they are going to be important and then forgotten about (hi, random pretty girl in car near the start of the film, and also the goose). Then there's the French girl, Emilie, who charms us for a few scenes but by the end of the film all we get is some mutterings from her grandpere who suggests she's died, although this is by no means clear despite the fact that she's the only character I felt any empathy with.

The feel of the entire film is old-fashioned and outdated and I have to wonder at Spielberg's decision to drench the production in cheesy storytelling traditions when the stage play was so successful using a more innovative and original approach.

There are some good scenes in the film - the section with Emilie and her grandpere is sweet, and I loved the section where poor Joey has tangled himself in barbed wire in No Man's Land and a young German soldier joins a young English soldier to cut him free. However, the majority of this film was a sad disappointment and I can't help but lay the blame at Mr Spielberg's door; much as I like his other family films this one falls well short of expectations.

Hugo and The Artist

Hugo, based on the book of the same name by Brian Selznick, tells an enchanting story of an orphaned boy (Asa Byutterfield of Striped Pyjamas fame), a genius with clockwork, who lives in a Paris train station winding the clocks and stealing food. He inherited an old automaton from his father and attempts to make it come back to life. After stealing one tool too many from a toymaker who has a small shop in the station the old man catches him and makes him work to pay off his crime. Hugo meets the man's goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Moretz of Kick Ass fame), and together they discover that the old toymaker is in face Georges Melies, a pioneer of early cinema.

Hugo is a slightly odd combination of whimsical adventure story and historical drama about the birth of cinema. Also odd in that it is directed by Martin Scorsese, not known for whimsy or children's films. However, this is not just a children's film. Our two protaganists are 13, both having the sort of slightly stretched look that young teenagers often suffer, and both are in some way older than their years so they do not come across as immature. Also the film benefits from being very French in inspiration. Like the films of Jean-Pierre Jeunet and his forebears the story encompasses the smaller dramas of the supporting characters too - the budding relationship between an elderly couple (Frances De La Tour and Richard Griffiths) who are kept apart by an angry dachshund being my favourite. Rather than flattening everyone beneath the wheels of the central couple's storyline, as so many American blockbusters do, Scorsese includes and indulges these minor storylines and the film is all the more engaging for it.

As a film fan Scorsese obviously relishes the chance to tell the story of Melies' early films: fantastical wonders, produced in the early 20th century in a giant greenhouse (for the light) and even shown in colour (Melies and his wife painstakingly coloured in each cell on the film), with amazing special effects and costume. I found these to be some of the most fascinating sequences of the film and also the most affecting, as Melies has to sell his entire stock during the First World War and turns into the embittered old man Hugo met at the start of the film. The two parts of this film blend together very well and both are equally enjoyable - the sections with Hugo and Isabelle exploring the old station are enchanting and the latter half where they discover Melies' past is fascinating. Very much worth a watch if it's still showing near you.

Empire described The Artist and Hugo as being "an overpoweringly emotional film fan’s double-bill", and having seen them both within a week I agree that they do complement each other very well. However, I have to confess that I probably enjoyed Hugo the most. The Artist is undoubtedly an interesting addition to the fold - filmed in black and white and almost entirely as a silent film, with orchestral soundtrack, it is a throwback to the glamorous silent films of the 20s. It tells the story of the change from silent film to talkies during that decade through the plot device of a young aspiring actress, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), who falls for an older established film actor George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). They fall in love despite Valentin being married but tension arises as she becomes the new darling of the cinema-going public, starring in the new talkies, and he falls out of favour as he doggedly pursues silent films.

This film is certainly a curiosity and there are some very clever sections in it, notably George's dream sequence where he cannot find a voice in a world of sound, as well as an extremely talented dog; however it doesn't really do anything new for the format, its interest lies in the fact that it is a very accurate 21st century reproduction of what film was like 90 years ago. It's certainly fascinating to see that in this day and age director and writer Michel Hazanavicious has produced a successful film which is entirely in black and white with only a few lines of dialogue, and I can't deny that the film is sufficiently engaging and enjoyable. It's also very restful; the restrictions of this format means that, by necessity, the storyline is simple and the pace is slower than modern films so you just have to sit back and appreciate the music and the attentive period detail of the beautiful sets and costume.

I suspect the reason that this film has had such a rapturous reception from the critics is because it's a film-geeks heaven, especially for those who have a nostalgia for the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood. However, as a very modern film fan myself, I enjoyed it but was not blown away by it. Of course I appreciated the work that had gone into it, the charisma and talent of leading man Jean Dujardin, and the novelty of sitting in Oxford's aging George Street Odeon watching such a throwback, but it's purely a very clever reproduction - this is not doing anything new or original. Although, perhaps it's not meant to. If you're a fan of old films you'll love this, but I suspect that it will cling on for longer in the Indie cinemas than it will in the multiplexes.

Breaking Dawn: Part 1 and Immortals

I wasn't sure whether to blog about this or not, which should give you a clue to my opinion of it. Breaking Dawn: Part 1, as you might expect, is an adaptation of the first half of Breaking Dawn; the final book in the Twilight series. Now, unfortunately this section of this book is terribly self-indulgent and I remember when I first read it thinking that it's a good job Stephenie Meyer had such a dedicated audience by that point otherwise the book may well have not been commissioned. The film, being a faithful adaptation, suffers from the same flaws. The plot is terribly melodramatic and cheesy, as well as slightly disturbing in parts (take note, the birth scene is no prettier on the silver-screen than it is in the book, and this is the PG-13 version!).

The other problem is that this film suffers the same affliction as the previous two; it is simply a paint-by-numbers glossy retelling of the book. Indie director Catherine Hardwicke did a tremendous job of the first film, sticking close to the story but also making it her own, and ensuring that the finished film retained the dream-like feel of the book. Sadly Hardwicke and Summit then parted company (one can only assume because they realised they were sitting on a cash-cow and decided to make the series more commercial) and instead went with popular mainstream (and male) directors who were more than happy to include product placement and generally tart the thing up a bit. Thus Bella, who looks pretty but realistically teenage in the first film, starts looking rather too coiffed in New Moon etc. She is supposed to be our everywoman, and is part of the reason the books are so popular - every female fan I speak to agrees that Bella is so easy to identify with because she's going through that awkward teenage phase that readers of any age will be familiar with. I digress; Breaking Dawn just looks too glossy, too perfect. It feels like a feature-length trailer for the book rather than an interesting retelling. I look forward to the second half, which gets on with a much more appealing storyline and the excitement of lots of new vampires to meet.

Immortals, directed by Tarsem Singh (previous films The Cell and The Fall), tells the Greek myth of Theseus. I'm not good on Greek mythology so I couldn't tell you if it's accurate but essentially Theseus is sent by the Gods to stop King Hyperion who is trying to find a powerful weapon which could destroy the whole of Greece. He's already captured a virgin oracle (Freida Pinto) and killed Theseus's mother so Theseus and a few freed slaves must battle minotaurs and more to stop Hyperion.

I loved Tarsem's previous film, The Fall, and I'm very excited about his next project: Snow White adaptation 'Mirror, Mirror' so I thought I'd give Immortals a try too. Firstly, I am delighted to confirm that it's far superior to this summer's other Gods vs. mortals story: Clash of the Titans. Immortals is closest to 300 in style but is marginally less outrageous. It's more like the epics of the 60s which I remember watching on daytime TV when I was revising for exams on study leave as a teenager. So, there's no real surprises here but the story is compelling enough and the cast do a very solid job. Henry Cavill as Theseus is cutting his action-hero teeth in preparation for his first outing as Superman next year, Luke Evans who appears to have appeared from nowhere this year is appropriately godlike as Zeus, and Mickey Rourke is in evilbastard mode as grizzled old battleaxe King Hyperion. It's all very OTT but it's incredibly stylish and the action scenes are done well, even if the non-CG bits of set and costumes occasionally look a little homemade (during Theseus's rousing speech to the troops one soldier's shield is visibly deteriorating as he enthusiastically bashes his plastic sword against it). As a Sunday night's entertainment it is more than adequate even if it doesn't quite live up to the high camp and imagination of The Fall.

The Help

Oh dear, I've seen three good films in the last few weeks and haven't had a spare second to blog about them. This is what comes of deciding to take an evening class, and start making various complicated garments, all in the run-up to Christmas. However, as I've been looking forward to The Help for so long and finally saw it last night I decided I must blog about it. It is a fairly faithful adaptation of Kathryn Stockett's best-selling novel set in 1960s Mississippi, in Jackson to be specific, where Medgar Evers was shot for suggesting that black people should have the same rights as white people. The plot follows two black maids in and around the period when Evers was shot, and a white girl who decides to tell their stories in a book which will expose the racist attitudes simmering below the surface of respectable Jackson society.

I adored Kathryn Stockett's book, to the point where I have ranted to various people about how this book should be set reading in schools and should supersede To Kill a Mockingbird as it carries the same messages but in (arguably) a much more accessible and enjoyable manner. I was excited to see how relatively inexperienced director and screenwriter Tate Taylor would adapt the rich and dense story. I was even more excited when the cast was revealed: Viola Davis as Aibileen, Bryce Dallas Howard as Hilly, Alison Janney as Mrs Phelan, and True Blood favourite Nelsan Ellis in a minor role. I suspect my expectations were too high as the film didn't quite meet them, but still I thoroughly enjoyed it and my only complaint is that it doesn't match the achievement of the book in expressing the extreme inbalance between the rights of black and white people in such a powerful way despite never explicitly showing the civil rights protests, the violence, or Evers' shooting (we hear about it on TV only, which Mrs Phelan soon turns off). The fim feels a little lighter, a little fluffier, but I can't put my finger on why exactly. Of course some sections of the book have to be chopped and changed, but the bulk of the maids' stories remain intact and it is only peripheral plot lines that are edited.

There is much to like about this film though; as I suspected the cast is brilliant. Howard nails the angelic exterior and toxic interior required for Hilly. Viola Davis is a perfectly lovable Aibileen and Octavia Spencer a hilariously out-spoken Minny. Emma Stone, who I adored in Easy A, wasn't quite the Skeeter I had in my head but makes her just as likable and funny as in the book. Allison Janney, as her mother, is brilliant and gets all the best lines, even if her cancer storyline is relegated to an occasional remark and a penchant for wigs. Cicely Tyson also deserves a mention as Skeeter's beloved maid Constantine, who appears only briefly but with an accent (cajun?) I could have listened to all day.

What the film does express even better than the book is how recent all of this was. Just by dint of actually visually showing us that this was in the swinging 60s; the gateway to the modern age, and yet the attitudes were no better than a century before. Seeing the cars, the clothes, the mod-cons, that I've seen a hundred times in old family photos, it's shocking to realise that when my parents were growing up black people in the American South were still regarded as second-class citizens, as a different species almost. It's powerful stuff but for anyone going to see the film who hasn't read the book I have to urge you to do both, as there is even more clout in the book, as well as more depth to the characters you'll love from the film.

Jane Eyre

Reader, before I begin. I must confess that I adore Jane Eyre as a story and therefore have no ability to resist any adaptation. I love it in a way that means, far from being appalled at the prospect of a beloved book being adapted, I look forward to any sort of retelling of it. Seriously, if some artistic soul decided to film this story using sock puppets in an empty garage, I would go see it. It's like Shakespeare in that sense, to me anyway. So, when I heard that a little-known American director, Cary Fukunaga, was making a new film version starring an Australian as Jane and a German as Mr Rochester, I knew I would love it regardless. Also, it contains Judi Dench as Mrs Fairfax, a piece of casting that I knew would cure all ills. We all know the story: small steadfast orphan girl, unloved by relations, is placed into miserable boarding school, becomes teacher, leaves to become governess in bleak Yorkshire mansion, falls in love with moody employer, discovers moody employer has mad wife, and goes on to end with a dramatic and satisfying finale which I won't spoil for anyone who hasn't read it (you have to go get hold of a copy now though, go on...).

So, as I said, I was excited when I heard they were making this film (over a year ago now), despite the fact that I love the book and also despite the fact that I regard the BBC's 2006 version as the definitive adaptation. And, unsurprisingly, I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish. They've messed around with the chronology a bit, skipped a few crucial parts of the story, and cast Magneto as Rochester, but apart from that Mr Fukunaga hasn't done too bad a job. It's a sweet and romantic version of the story, and is pleasingly Victorian and bleak in aspect. As ever I loved the costumes, especially the dresses worn by the Rivers sisters, which looked like full-body governess armour, and the severe Victorian hairstyles (of which Jane's satisfyingly falls apart when she heads out onto the moors), but they aren't what you'd call "pretty". The whole thing is very dark and compressing and you can understand Jane's fears of restriction. The lighting is also very pleasing in that there isn't much. As Jane and Mrs Fairfax wander through Thornfield at night we are occasionally plunged into pitch blackness, which makes it all the more delightful when we finally reach Jane's room, lit by a fire and at least 6(!) white wax candles. It all feels very authentic, which I thoroughly approved of - it's the 19th century and we're in deepest Yorkshire, it gets DARK.

The score, by Dario Marianelli, is sadly lacking his usual flourishes and originality, but also works well with the film in that it's surprisingly sparse. We get the predictable tinkly piano for the romantic bits, and sweeping strings for the wide wild moor shots, but there are equally many scenes which are unnervingly silent, which again makes you appreciate just how quiet and remote Thornfield is.

The casting was something of a surprise. Much of it is brilliant - period ingenues du jour Holliday Grainger and Tamsin Merchant are very sweet as the Misses Rivers, and I loved Jamie Bell as St John who is sombre but characterful enough for you to almost feel tempted when he proposes to Jane. As I've said Dame Judi as Mrs Fairfax is perfect casting and I was also pleased to see Sally Hawkins as Mrs Reed, who does pinched Victorian so very well. As for Jane and Mr Rochester. Well, initially I was curious but sceptical that Mia Wasikowska could carry off such a plain and English role, and was more convinced by the casting of smouldering Michael Fassbender as Mr Rochester, as he has so recently proved his acting chops in X-Men First Class and Inglorious Basterds. Unfortunately for lovely Herr Fassbender, it was Ms Wasikowska who really impressed in this film as he proved he doesn't have quite enough depth for such a complex character. I'd been impressed by Mia Wasikowska's performance in Alice in Wonderland but did worry that she'd be just too pretty for Jane, however she does have the sort of face that can be a blank canvas and with the aforementioned severe hairstyle and minimal make-up very much convinces as plain Jane. However, she also grasps the spirit within Jane as well as the exterior, and I found her enchanting and compelling. Hers is a very still and very quiet, subtle, performance, but you are in do doubt that inside this small woman is a conviction and intelligence you could bounce rocks off. The same, sadly, can not be said of our hero. Fassbender has the dark good looks, for sure, and carries off a tight pair of breeches very well indeed *fans self*. However Rochester is supposed to be a man possessed, and Fassbender appears to be merely slightly distracted by the fact that he's got his wife locked up in the attic. Also, they skipped the gypsy bit, which is one of my favourite Rochester moments, though I guess I should blame the editor/director for that. I was convinced by Jane and Rochester's relationship, thankfully, but wanted more depth and passion from Mr Fassbender, which was sadly lacking. Still, he does look undeniably fantastic so I'm not complaining too much.

The film looks exactly how you would want it to look, the locations are gorgeous and dramatic, and they use both North Lees Hall and Haddon Hall to great effect as Thornfield. I also loved the Rivers' cottage and Jane's apartment/schoolroom; solid-looking functional buildings that nonetheless are convincing as places that Jane feels safe and protected. I also enjoyed the 'crossroads' moment on the moors when Jane runs away from Thornfield. The darkness of the night scenes mean that when you do get a sunny scene you appreciate it all the more, and there are some very pretty scenes when Jane and Rochester are falling in love over the summer.

I wasn't entirely convinced by the adaptation of the plot. There are a few sections missed out from the book so that, for example, Adele becomes a small French mystery as we never hear how Rochester acquired her. Also, they've fiddled with the chronology a bit by having the film start with Jane arriving at the Rivers, and then flash back to Jane as a child and then to Thornfield. It works fairly well but means that the Rivers section is then a little disjointed as it is spread throughout the film.

However, as you may be able to tell, I liked this film a lot, and will most likely go and see it again before too long. A solid adaptation that doesn't quite tick all the boxes but is a pleasing and enjoyable watch. Read the book or see the 2006 TV version for all the good stuff they missed out!

Beginners

On a sultry night in Oxford I decided to give Beginners a try at the Phoenix in Jericho. It could only be an improvement on the last film I saw there: The Princess of Montpensier - French and very very dull. I'd seen a trailer for Beginners and as it stars Christopher Plummer (as a fan of The Sound of Music I have a soft spot for him) and Ewan McGregor (possibly my favourite actor ever) as well as Melanie Laurent who starred in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, I felt compelled to see it. As it turns out the trailer rather misrepresents this quirky little film. It presents it as a story of a pensioner who discovers the gay scene after his wife dies, and how his son comes to terms with his father being out and proud. In fact Hal's exploration of his sexuality happens mostly off-screen and is incidental to the main plot-line which is his slow deterioration as he dies of cancer, and how Oliver (McGregor) comes to terms with both his parents deaths, and struggles to maintain a relationship with charismatic actor Anna, who he meets at a party shortly after his father's death.

Despite my slightly skewiff expectations I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I'd expected something rather jolly and fun, whereas it turns out the film gets more and more melancholy, and the slightly happier ending seems somewhat tacked on. Nonetheless there's a lot of gentle comic relief to be had, primarily in the shape of Hal's small Jack Russell Terrier, Arthur, who has the most expressive face I've ever seen on a dog, and who gets comedy subtitles. Any film, in my opinion, can be improved with a showbiz dog and this is no exception. The love story between Anna and Oliver is also very sweet and diverting at first, not least their almost-too-perfect first meeting at a fancy dress party where he is dressed as Freud and she has laryngitis and communicates via a small note-pad. Laurent as Anna is effervescent but little different from various other 'ideal love-interests', though of course the story is not primarily about her. Ewan McGregor as Oliver is the beating heart of the film and it's a delight to see him untrammelled by contrived storyline or character - the film has a very naturalistic style a lot of the time and the character of Oliver is very well realised and fleshed out. You can;t help but feel for him as he's dealing with his father's refusal to accept that he's unwell, or expressing his fears about his relationship with Anna. Him and the dog together make this film a joy to watch.

His father's story is interesting and the writer has managed to find a fresh take on the 'discovering your sexuality' storyline by having an 80 year old man come out, and it's touching to see Hal's joy at finally being able to express himself honestly. The scenes with his lover, Andy (Goran Visnjic, a million miles away from Dr Kovac), are also very sweet. However Hal had accepted the fact that he was gay in his teens and his wife was well aware of it, so there's no emotional journey here, it's simply his behaviour that has changed, which means that this could never be the central arc of the film. Much of Hal's exploration happens off-camera or in the background and we see surprisingly little of it. As for Oliver, although obviously discomforted by the fact that he was unaware of his father being gay, he's very accepting and simply relieved to see his father so happy and occupied during his last few years of life.

I enjoyed the low-key style of this film; it's 50% indie romance, very much in the mould of Shopgirl. However the director spices things up with a non-chronological story - Oliver meets Anna in 2003 after Hal has died but his relationship with her is informed by his parents' relationship and his recent bereavement so we see his memories of his mother and father interspersed through the love story. The other half of the plot involving Hal's cancer is very touching and adds a lot of gravitas to the film but thankfully doesn't become too heavy-going, as it was I could hear a lot of sniffling from my fellow Phoenix patrons! I really loved this film and would definitely see it again for the performances alone. A perfect viewing on a hot summer night.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

It all ends indeed. Incredibly, it's been 10 years since the Philosophers Stone hit cinemas, and 11 years since I first picked up a Harry Potter book in a moment of curiosity in our school library. That book was Goblet of Fire. I was bored of revising for my AS levels and decided to have a break and see what everyone had been raving about. One chapter later I was hooked. I read all four of them in 2000 and waited with anticipation to see what the first film would be like. That week in December 2001 is etched in my memory as the week that I saw The Fellowship of The Ring and The Philosophers Stone. I was equally blown away by both. What struck me most about the Harry Potter films, although some may disagree, is how faithfully they stuck to the books. At the tender and impressionable age of 16 I was amazed that Chris Columbus had created a Gryffindor common room that was almost exactly like the one that existed in my head. 10 films later and they haven't all been instant hits - both Prisoner and Order took me a while to get used to - but after extensive re-watching I love them all equally. I suspect that Deathly Hallows Part 2 might be one that will also need a couple of viewings to really bed in. Despite the fact that David Yates and co have only had a third of a book to deal with here there is an awful lot going on and, much like the book, tying up all the loose ends proves rather complicated.

It's difficult to critique this film as its successes and failures are so closely tied to those of the book. My favourite sections remain the Gringotts heist, the Snape/Lily flashback, and the discovery of Aberforth and the resurrection of the DA. The Gringotts bit is great and starts the film off with a bang. Helena Bonham Carter once again proves what a skilled actor she is, playing Hermione in polyjuice disguise as Bellatrix. She's so despicable and terrifying in full-on Bellatrix mode, but it's incredibly easy to see past the terrifying get-up to the scared 18-year old girl within. That small section on its own would be enough to make me want to see the film again (also, is it just me or is Ron rather hot as a disguised death-eater...). It's marvellous to see Griphook (Warwick Davis) again, that wiliest of goblins, and I loved the whole section with the dragon. Who'd have thought one could feel sorry for a dragon? Nevertheless, the poor beast is exactly as described in the book and looks even more realistic than the dragons in Goblet of Fire, CG having obviously moved on since 2005!

The key reveal section towards the end of the film with Snape was very well done, and goes a long way to explaining the mystery of Harry Potter's strange life, including his relationship with Dumbledore, how he survived the attack that killed his parents, and the link that has tied his whole life to that of Voldemort. I enjoyed the flashback scenes where we get to see young Snape and Lily (kudos to the two young actors who must have found it strange being brought in to such an established franchise right at the end), though the sequence wasn't long enough for my liking, though I can appreciate that cuts had to be made. However, once that was over the end of the film seems to tail off somewhat. I think this is partly down to the adaptation of the book. The Room of Requirement bit was as exciting as it is in the book (even if they changed the exact location of the diadem - grr), and I very much enjoyed seeing the excellent Kelly MacDonald as Helena Ravenclaw but whereas the mad dash around Hogwarts somehow works in the book, in the film it didn't quite gel somehow and I occasionally lost sight of how everything fitted together and where we were going.

I anticipated that the main points of contention would be the 'Kings Cross' scene in Harry's mind, and the flashforward at the end. The Kings Cross bit actually worked surprisingly well on film; better perhaps than in the book. I remember being utterly thrown by it the first time I read the book, and even on re-readings it never quite makes sense to me, but as it had to be slightly simplified for the film, and we get a clearer visual reference, it actually fits in with the story more convincingly. As for the flashforward, perhaps the less said the better. Fans were divided on this scene in the book and although I was fine with it in my head, on screen the various 18-21 year olds are not very convincingly 'aged up' and it all seems a little clunky. I was looking forward to seeing the final scene, and I am glad they kept it in, but I do wonder if there's an argument for using older actors rather than trying to convince us that a fresh-faced 18 year-old in her mum's clothes (hello Bonnie Wright) is a middle-aged mother of three.

As with many of the films I suspect that my expectations of this one were just rather too high, and I need to rewatch it to enjoy the film on its own terms. I also plan to read the book again as my cinema-buddy and I left the screen fruitlessly trying to remember which bits had been edited and what had been changed. What is obvious is that, consistent with the franchise as a whole, the film is made for fans of the book, and Yates has kept the film as faithful as possible to both the source material and the previous films. And, of course, if not all of the scenes fit with the pictures in your head, then you can return to the books, which I suspect will outlive their silver-screen adaptations anyway.

London Film & Comic-Con

Saturday marked my first ever convention, a spectacular affair known as LFCC at Earls Court in London, which means that I can do my first ever convention blog post. Having enjoyed Jen's blog posts of American cons over at the fabulous EPBOT I thought I'd put a few photos up here.

As this was the first con I'd been to, I decided to observe this year and maybe attempt dressing up next year. In general the standard was really high so I'd definitely need plenty of time to design and make something. About 10% of the visitors were in costume and it was such a huge place that we didn't even see all of them. Also I only plucked up the courage to ask for photos towards the end so most of my pics are from the 'Cos-Play Masquerade' where the cosplayers had to go on stage and do a little 'bit' to go with their costume. These were very entertaining, especially the Disney cosplayers who took it all very seriously, singing along to carefully timed music and acting out key scenes. Here's Ariel, Prince Eric, Belle, Mulan, Lilo, and Rapunzel.

And another Rapunzel with Flynn

There were also lots of Star Wars cosplayers, including a very scary Darth Vader and a gang of Stormtroopers patrolling the queue outside. I wasn't brave enough to take their photo but here are two of many Jedis.

And a very believable Tusken Raider, who made appropriate noises, and threatened members of the audience.

Also, lots of anime/manga people, which I'm not as familiar with, but they looked really good. I especially liked this guy's hair:

But my favourite costume of the day was this guy, dressed as Ezio from Assassin's Creed 2. Look at the detail - and his concealed wrist-blades properly retracted and everything. Honestly, it took every ounce of restraint not to ignore all personal boundaries and inspect his costume more closely. I figured as long as I got a photo I could just study that!

We got to see various celebrity guests too, including these lovely Harry Potter actors:

Left to right that's Georgina Leonidas (Katie Bell), Stanislav Ianevski (Viktor Krum), Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley), Devon Murray (Seamus Finnigan) and Alfie Enoch (Dean Thomas). Natalia Tena, who plays Tonks, turned up later but I didn't get a photo, which is a shame as she was wearing a rather outlandish outfit (as Tonks would, I think you'll agree). They were all lovely and very enthusiastic, Alfie Enoch in particular was incredibly excited, and Devon Murray did his 'water to rum' spell from the first film, which charmed pretty much everyone in the audience. We almost didn't recognise Harry Melling when he came in, having slimmed down from playing Dudley, but he also got a very good response. They all had interesting responses to the questions and seemed excited about the future now that they're finished with the franchise. It was great to see them all in person so close to seeing the final film too!

We also saw Brent Spiner (Data) talk. Here he is:

We mostly went to see him out of curiosity but I think all four of us ended that half hour a little bit in love with him. He's obviously a veteran of the con circuit but he was genuinely engaging and entertaining, really responsive to the crowd, and did a very funny impression of Patrick Stewart's Shakespearean tones when telling Trek anecdotes. Go Brent!

I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing, and managed to restrain myself round the merchandise stalls. I got a True Blood mug and some American chocolate bars (including a Butterfinger for very geeky personal reasons - I'm a big fan of The Chase). I definitely plan to go again next year and would like to go in costume. I'm thinking either steampunk or LOTR, but we'll see.

Potiche and Monsters

Two contrasting films from last week's viewing. Firstly, Potiche which was released on the 17th and which Matching Curtains and I went to see at the Phoenix Picturehouse last Wednesday.

Potiche is a French confection from Francois Ozon. Starring French powerhouses Catherine Deneuve and Gerard Depardieu as old flames who, now in their 60s, revive their relationship. She is Suzanne Pujol, a 'Potiche' or 'trophy wife' to the CEO of the umbrella factory which her father originally owned. When her husband falls ill she has to take over the running of the factory while he recuperates, along with her two spoiled children - flamboyant Laurent and scheming Suzanne. She appeals to Maurice (Depardieu), formerly a liberal political activist, now a respected member of parliament and the local Mayor, for help. The four of them make the factory even more successful and Maurice and Suzanne become closer until a revelation about Suzanne's past drives them apart and then her husband recovers and trys to reclaim his job. Will Suzanne be happy to return to life as a Potiche?

I have an on-off relationship with Francois Ozon. I loved 8 Women, the murder mystery/musical he directed in 2002, but found 'Swimming Pool', released the following year, too dark and unsettling. Since then I've given his films a miss but the trailer for Potiche made it look closer to 8 Women than his other releases so I thought it would be worth a try. And, as it turns out, it was. It's as light and fluffy as a French souffle but there's no denying the charisma of its two stars and the writing is 'tres drol'. The story is set in the 70s and the period detailing, as in 8 Women, is a big draw. Also the candy colours, and the Willy Wonka-esque stylings of the umbrella factory makes the whole film look good enough to eat. It may be a little silly, but if you enjoy the French sense of humour or you're a fan of Deneuve and Depardieu then this is a film for you.

'Monsters', the debut feature-film from English auteur Gareth Edwards, was released last December, and I remember thinking at the time that it looked promising but as an apparent 'creature-feature', it was well outside my comfort zone and I never got around to seeing it. However, I was curious enough to add it to my Lovefilm list and having watched it over the weekend I'm tremendously glad I did. The premise is straight-forward enough - aliens have 'infected' a swathe of Central America, effectively dividing North America from Mexico. It is possible to travel between the two countries except during the breeding season when it becomes too dangerous to go near the 'infected zone'. Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy), a budding photojournalist, and Samantha Wyndern (Whitney Able), his boss's daughter, find themselves stuck in Mexico at the start of the breeding season and decide to risk the monsters and travel through the zone to get home.

Having watched the extensive behind-the-scenes features on the DVD I think I may be slightly in love with Gareth Edwards. A former Visual Effects Artist, he directed an acclaimed short film in 2008 and off the back of that got the funding to make Monsters, his first feature film. It's 'guerilla film-making' at its best, he took off to Central America with a tiny crew, a few hand-held cameras, and two actors, and then just travelled around, finding locations by chance, roping in locals as extras, and developing the story and script based on what he found. Some of it may be luck but his dedication and his 'vision' are admirable and he certainly came up with the goods. Monsters is more of a road movie than a horror, thankfully for me as I don't like horror films. Here the focus is upon the developing relationship between Sam and Andrew and also on a pleasantly low-key exploration of themes of segregation, nature vs. machines, and what it would really be like if aliens invaded. Similar aims to 'District 9' but I much prefer Edwards' film to Blomkamp's. It's much prettier and gently prods you to think about what you're seeing, rather than ramming unpleasant imagery and violence down your throat.

The scenes with the aliens are more David Attenborough than Ridley Scott and Edwards' awesome CG skills mean they look incredibly believable and scary, though not purposefully malevolent. It's also amazing how Edwards has built an entire world simply using some cunning visual effects post-production, seamlessly doctoring existing signs, so that an innocent 'welcome to Guatamala' banner becomes a warning against entry to the infected zone. He also takes advantage of the language barrier so that the border guards innocuos Spanish comments become, for his English-speaking audience, warnings against maruading aliens. I strongly recommend renting this film on DVD as the behind-the-scenes documentary showing how Edwards put the film together is equally as impressive as the film itself.