Rating:

From celebrated director Jane Campion comes a biopic of nineteenth century Romantic poet John Keats, exploring his romance with Miss Fanny Brawne, beginning in 1818.

Director: Jane Campion
Starring: Abbie Cornish, Ben Whishaw, Kerry Fox, Paul Schneider
Running time: 119 mins approx.

Critically acclaimed for her early 90s period drama The Piano, New Zealand filmmaker Jane Campion has created a beautiful and heartbreaking film in her latest effort, Bright Star. Exploring the life of John Keats (Ben Whishaw) and his doomed love affair with Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish), the film is beautifully shot – Campion makes excellent use of colours, textures and lighting to a wonderfully romantic effect. One scene in particular in which Fanny reads one Keats’ love letters takes place in a wooded sea of violet-hued bluebells, the bright purples and swathes of green perfectly contrasting each other. Throughout the film Campion uses her pastoral setting very well, utilising the landscape, trees, woods and flowers to create a believable and stunning world for the characters to fall in love in.

And fall in love they surely do. After an initially frosty first meeting, the feisty Fanny Brawne enlists Keats to teach her about poetry and language. At first, Fanny is not much enamoured by the young poet but this feeling changes rapidly after she notices Keats’ anxiety and affection for his brother who lies seriously ill. The two then meet with quickening frequency and find themselves entangled in a passionate love affair that sets the wider community gossiping. However, with Keats’ own health in serious speedy decline, a dark shadow is cast over the lovers’ affair, one that even the strongest love cannot overcome.

The gentle and tragic story of Bright Star is very well directed with the exception of a few scenes which are too languorous – it appears that Campion was aiming to create moods of tension and repressed passion but instead these scenes simply run out of steam.

Consequently the second act is slow and needs more dynamism and drama to keep the film interesting. However, in terms of acting, Bright Star certainly excels. Abbie Cornish is very good as the headstrong Fanny Brawne, simultaneously eliciting sympathy whilst not being an instantly likeable lead heroine. However, as her love for Keats blossoms, so does our fondness for her, to the point that her sorrow in the film’s tragic conclusion is heartbreaking. Cornish’s performance in this particular scene is excellent – Cornish presents Fanny feeling the emotional pain physically and with an arresting intensity.

As Keats himself, Ben Whishaw is haunting, having a suitably poetic quality about him. He is at all times thoroughly convincing as the young poet, being attractive, quiet and possessing a certain beautiful melancholic air. The only problem with Whishaw’s portrayal of Keats is that the character could at times do with some angry passion to measure the tender embraces and pained looks that seem to dominate his relationship with Fanny.

Bright Star is a beautiful, gentle and tragic romance that combines wonderful production design with good storytelling to haunting effect.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MMMM

Review of Richard Linklater’s 1930s set period piece about the great Orson Welles’ theatrical triumph – his version of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.

Director: Richard Linklater
Starring: Zac Efron, Claire Danes, Christian McKay
Running time: 114 mins

Richard Linklater’s latest film sees Orson Welles (having already taken the airwaves by storm on radio) perched on the brink of conquering the stage, starting with his production of Shakespeare’s classic history play Julius Caesar, set to be performed at the Mercury Theatre on Broadway. The ‘me’ of the title is teenager Richard (Zac Efron), the audience’s window onto the theatrical world of Welles and his company.

The casting of Efron in this particular role (a serious part and one lacking the squeaky, shiny happiness of the High School Musical franchise from which Efron made his name) may surprise a few, but Efron delivers a solid and utterly convincing performance as Richard, the young man who falls under Welles’ beguiling charms and finds himself part of the cast, playing Lucius, Brutus’ (played by Welles himself) servant boy and resident ukulele player. Efron, as previously mentioned, demonstrates that he is clearly a young actor blessed with multiple talents, being able to perform like an old Hollywood star with skill in singing, dancing and acting – the former and latter of which are on display here. Efron’s credible performance will with any luck silence harsher critics often out for his blood.

Claire Danes is as good as ever, in a role that pleasingly sees her in a bitchier role than usual with a character more reminiscent of Sookie in Igby Goes Down than the pure Juliet (William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet). However, as good as Efron and Danes’ performances are, the film belongs to relative newcomer Christian McKay in a role he was seemingly born to play. It is no wonder by playing someone as egocentric, selfish and charismatic as Welles that he steals the show – he has a bewitching way of drawing the audience to him – but his performance is of such tremendous excellence, vivacity and believability that any scene without him is left wanting and rendered almost flat, lacking the energy his performance brings to the piece – something which becomes almost detrimental to the film as a whole. However, come awards season, McKay presents himself as a dead cert for acting nominations.

The story is an interesting one, avoiding the now saturated genre of biopics and concentrating on the character of Orson Welles in one specific time period. Linklater’s 1930s setting is convincing and well produced, with exquisite art direction that passes the Isle of Man for New York city. Linklater has produced an entertaining and enjoyable film in Me & Orson Welles, however a problem is posed by a rather languorous third act, an almost plodding final section which could perhaps have been avoided by better editing. The last few minutes really do slow down proceedings, a great shame in a film that is otherwise funny, intelligent, entertaining and engaging.

Rating: MMMM

Review of Julie & Julia, the meeting of two true stories about love, cooking and the love of cooking.

Director: Nora Ephron
Starring: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina
Running time: 123 mins

Nora Ephron’s Julie & Julia tells the two true stories of American celebrity chef Julia Child coming to write her bestselling cookbook Mastering the Art of French Cooking in the mid to late 1950s and Julie Powell, a woman who in 2002 sets herself the challenge to cook the entire range of recipes from Child’s book in the space of one calendar year.

Julie Powell (Amy Adams) works for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation in the turbulent aftermath of the September 11^th attacks. A self proclaimed ‘failed writer’, stressed in her job and disillusioned with her power-dressing career-driven friends, Julie seeks solace and comfort in doing something she really enjoys: cooking. Suffering from failed-potential syndrome, Julie’s self confidence takes a knock when she discovers that one vapid, gaudy member of her group of Manhattan girlfriends writes an online blog about her garish personal exploits, tales of scandal that are read by hundreds of fans. Knowing that she herself could write anything much better, Julie sets about writing about cooking and her love of all things gastronomic, turning to 1960s American cooking icon Julia Child for inspiration.

Soon Julie is living her life by the book that ‘taught America to cook’, garnering herself support, fans and personal problems in equal measure. As with many unwavering routines (Julie sticks to the recipe count religiously), committing one’s life to the cause eventually begins to be a burden – not only on Julie herself but those around her too.
Meanwhile in the second of the dual-strand narrative, Julia Child (Meryl Streep) and her devoted husband Paul move in to a house in 1950s Paris, falling in love with the city, its people and its food.

However, although Julia enjoys her life in Paris, she feels she wants ‘something to do’ and decides to pursue her penchant for food, enrolling in the Cordon Bleu school of culinary arts and defying the social rules of the time, being a female student in a male dominated environment. The end result is Julia’s ascendancy to famed television cook, one whose kitchen is made a replica of and displayed at the renowned Smithsonian Museum.

A lesser director than Ephron might be unable to marry the two strands together, yet what we have is a flowing, wonderful joy of a film with sympathetic and beautifully crafted characters whose lives complement each other across the years. Julie & Julia is the second time that Amy Adams and Meryl Streep have appeared alongside each other (see review of Doubt), but it is a real shame that the two never share any screen time as both actresses’ performances are excellent. Amy Adams confirms her reputation as a leading lady with presence as Julie Powell, portraying the real-life blogger with convincing and subtle quirks. Meanwhile Meryl Streep once again proves that she is without doubt one of the greatest actresses to appear on celluloid. Her Julia Child is a heart-warming, loveable and charming woman, a spirited bon-viveur drinking in all the world has to offer. Supporting her all the way is Stanley Tucci as Paul Child in a similarly winning performance.

With its mix of endearing and interesting plot, likeable characters and incredible spirit, Julie & Julia is a delicious treat for all.

Rating: MMMM

Review of Coco Avant Chanel, biopic of  French fashion designer and style icon,
Gabrielle ‘Coco’ Chanel, starring Audrey Tautou and Alessandro Nivola. French with English subtitles.

Director: Anne Fontaine
Starring: Audrey Tautou, Alessandro Nivola, Benoit Poelvoorde, Marie Gillain
Running time: 105 mins

Coco Avant Chanel as one might expect from the film’s title, tells the story of Gabrielle ‘Coco’ Chanel’s early life, in her younger days before the advent of her now world famous fashion house. The film charts Chanel’s origins from coquettish young cabaret dancer to professional hat maker, going on to design and make clothes to sell in her Paris store, a shop which still stands today.

Coco Avant Chanel is beautifully shot, cutting effortlessly between intimate interior scenes in the social world that Coco finds so stuffy and the fabulously lit outdoor sequences displaying rural France in all its pastoral glory. It is clear that no expense has been spared by the art department with a wealth of costumes and colour palettes that are visibly authentic and correspond well to Chanel’s signature styles. But never is the art and design of the film allowed to take over the story of Chanel’s often troubled life. And it is these peaks and troughs which make her such an interesting personality. Audrey Tautou is excellent in the title role, although never conjuring the same kind of engagement she achieved in the superb Amelie (2002) – this is perhaps due to the very nature of Chanel as a personality, a somewhat aloof and distant woman, battling with emotional demons and familial hardships. Alessandro Nivola is excellent as Chanel’s love interest, Arthur ‘Boy’ Capel, mastering both British and French accents with effortless aplomb. The supporting cast including Chanel’s rich benefactor Balsan and sister Adrienne are also very good.

Living at a time where corsets and bustles were the norm, Chanel instead rejects the conventional forms of dress, refusing to subscribe to the corseted fashions of the day and wearing dresses and blouses without the customary whalebone support. However, Chanel’s decision to do so is not entirely linked with mere creative whim – it demonstrates both her practical nature and uniqueness. Instead of riding side-saddle surrounded by copious amounts of skirt fabric like her female contemporaries, Chanel chooses to wear masculine trousers and shirts enabling her to straddle a horse like a man – thus freeing herself of the restrictions posed by women’s fashion. However, Chanel’s rebellious attire and behaviour divides the opinions of those around her – some believe her to be a shameless radical who should know better, whereas some approach her outfits with a certain reverence and admiration. One lady is so fascinated by Chanel’s wardrobe choices that she asks her to design and make her a hat, a commission which sets Coco on a journey which will eventually lead her to make her fortune in Paris, the fashion capital of the world. Where the film succeeds particularly is in the sequences demonstrating Chanel’s keen eye for detail, panning around to focus on patterns of lace, particular colours, shapes, lines and textures that strike the young designer.

Coco Avant Chanel is a pleasing and interesting study of an intriguing woman, one whose life will continue to fascinate long after the credits roll. An entertaining watch not just for fashion lovers, and a well put together piece of drama that is a credit to the biopic genre.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MMMM

Review of Michael Mann’s ‘biopic’ of the notorious American criminal, John Dillinger.

Director: Michael Mann
Starring: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, David Wenham, Stephen Dorff
Running time: 140 mins

In the 1930s, America was swept by a crime wave, with the notorious criminal John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) at the centre. Michael Mann’s new film follows Dillinger, his associates and a special team of Federal Agents – led by Melvin Pervis (Christian Bale) – in their attempt to take down Dillinger and his gang.

As with Collateral and Miami Vice, 2009’s Public Enemies is photographed digitally, a technique which tends to add a slight blur to the frames. In Mann’s two previous films this worked well, adding an aesthetic quality (especially the slick urban environment of Miami Vice) that when coupled with the predominant use of steadicams, gave a documentary feel. Sadly, Mann’s penchant for shooting in this way does not work well here. Public Enemies being shot with steadicams and on digital detracts from the overall style. The period setting causes the inevitable blurring to seem very out of place – as the film cannot possibly be a documentary the action therefore seems contrived and false. Mann can also be faulted for his direction, in that his actors sometimes deliver lines of dialogue that are barely comprehensible through being spoken too quickly, quietly or lost under heavy accents. The action sequences in the film whilst being very well executed are at times too lengthy and poorly lit to be engaging – one scene has two of Dillinger’s gang members running through a dark forest, pursued by the feds, all of which is very difficult to distinguish in the dark (although this near-blackness does allow for the gunfire to illuminate the characters’ faces which is a nice touch). However, these are minor setbacks in an otherwise excellent film.

As ever, Johnny Depp excels in a charismatic role – the real life John Dillinger was reported to be an engaging and captivating personality, one that Depp masters and delivers very well. Certain scenes present Dillinger’s charisma shining through a tough-guy persona, including a moment where Dillinger offers a woman a warm winter coat when he and the gang have just taken her hostage. It is in the scenes with love-interest Billie Frechette (played to sultry, sassy perfection by La Vie en Rose’s Marion Cotillard) however, that Dillinger is at his most charming. One scene in particular has a coquettish Billie in the bath, leaning her leg in an overtly erotic way, to which Dillinger responds superbly. This playful rogue behaviour is also in abundance in what is arguably one of the film’s best scenes, where Dillinger takes a visit to the Police department building and blithely walks around the special ‘John Dillinger Unit’, a whole detail of police assigned to tracking and apprehending him. Surprisingly enough, Depp outshines his co-star, super-ego Christian Bale as the latter portrays Agent Purvis with a lack of intensity or depth. This said, Bale’s performance may seem underwhelming in contrast to Depp’s maximised screen time and much of the plot given over to the romance between Dillinger and Billie Frechette (which may anger some audiences, eager to see the number of tommy gun battles so promised in the film’s trailer).

Public Enemies is yet another sterling addition to the already stellar Michael Mann canon, providing an interesting narrative trajectory, good performances, wonderful period details and costumes and the best insight into crimefighting in 1930s America since The Untouchables.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MM

Review of “W.” first published in November 2008 issue of Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Dreyfus, James Cromwell
Running time: 129 mins

Oliver Stone’s long anticipated biopic of President George W. Bush, simply titled “W.” is finally here. I’d like to be able to say that its worth the wait, but sadly it just isn’t. From the get-go “W.” just doesn’t feel right, with a sense of uncomfortable awkwardness lurking in the background like Sarah Palin on Obama’s victorious election night. The film’s first proper scene has all the ingredients of a snappy opening salvo, yet the cast’s efforts simply fall flat. Stone hasn’t been able to get the tone right, with the film seeming like it just can’t make up its mind what it wants to be (an eerie echo of Bush’s early life and career), an out-and-out mocking indictment of the bumbling President we all love to hate or a more insightful and sympathetic drama telling his life story. In light of all the pastiches of Dubya that we have been exposed to over the years, it would have been far more interesting to watch a Frank Darabont-style portrait of the President’s life (although this again would have been hard to stomach and would arguably been shamelessly partisan). Stone instead presents us with an amalgam of the two that just doesn’t work.

Having said this, the cast do well with what they’re given. Josh Brolin in the title role is very good (he even has Bush’s walk uncannily spot-on), as is Elizabeth Banks as First Lady Laura Bush. Thandie Newton, although having a small role is so convincing as Condoleezza Rice that I thought at first it really was her. However, James Cromwell as George Bush Snr. is a let-down, seemingly pulling the same pained expression of paternal disappointment when addressing his son throughout the entire film. This though, the sense of disapproval and constant disapproval from his father that Dubya lives with does inspire some sympathy. It seems all he wants to do is make ‘Poppy’ proud of him, try to be the perfect son and move out of the shadow of his older brother Jeb. It is from this, and some other genuinely poignant scenes that we see Bush as just a simple guy, way out of his depth, trying to do the right thing but getting things very very wrong. In Stone’s presentation of this we find the most uncomfortable scenes of the film which, simultaneously are the funniest – but then that’s not saying much, as the only comedy to be found is in the gaffes made by Bush or the dark irony of the ill-judged foreign policy cabinet meetings. And these meetings in fact, despite a few witty remarks were very uncomfortable to watch, seeing an inept and falsely elected government take steps to effectively legalise torture (evidential in the treatment of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay) and start an illegal war for oil and empire on false grounds without a second UN resolution and with no exit strategy whatsoever. Disappointingly it must be said that Oliver Stone, a director who has in the past dealt with lives of Presidents (Richard Nixon, JFK) with flair and intensity has really misfired with this one.

Rating: MM