Rating: MMMMM

Clint Eastwood’s latest film, Invictus tells the story of the true events that followed the 1994 election of Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa, and Mandela’s subsequent attempt to unite his fragile and divided country with the help of South African rugby captain, Francois Pienaar.

Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon,
Running time: 133 mins

Based on John Carlin’s bestselling book, ‘Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game that Changed a Nation’, Invictus begins just after the release of Nelson Mandela from prison – with one scene in particular capturing the separated nature of the country, presenting two playing fields bisected by a long road – on one side white schoolboys play rugby, on the other black children play football. In this scene along with many others (and coupled with the use of real archive footage) Eastwood clearly and simply presents South Africa as a culturally divided nation torn apart by apartheid, but one that Mandela (Morgan Freeman) aims to rebuild.

Following the dissolution of the apartheid system and the oppressive politics that went with it, there is feeling in the country that all symbols and remnants of white Afrikaner power should be disbanded in order to build a new South African identity. However, Mandela recognises that this could potentially deepen the cultural rift between whites and blacks. While attending a Springboks rugby match, Mandela realises that uniting the country behind the national team would be a great foundation on which to build the new South Africa. President Mandela therefore enlists the help of the Springboks’ captain, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) and the two work together to make the rubgy team an emblem of national unity and one that all South Africa could support.

From the outset, Invictus is a warm, intelligent, inspiring film that presents its vision of hope with impressive conviction and overwhelming power. The film boasts a great script, (which is in fact surprisingly funny as Freeman is given some charmingly pithy one-liners as Mandela) great performances and a wonderful spirit that will win over those not au fait with rugby, sport or knowledge of the period in South African history. Eastwood has delivered a beautiful film that combines wonderfully directed personal scenes (those between Mandela’s security team are great, as are those between the President and Pienaar), emotional and haunting moments (where Pienaar visits Mandela’s cell on Robben Island is wonderful) and fast-paced adrenaline-charged rugby sequences.

In a role he was seemingly born to play, Morgan Freeman is completely convincing as Nelson Mandela, possessing all the gravitas and presence needed to play the man who has become such a symbol of greatness and goodness around the world. While Freeman’s accent does falter at times, this is a minor problem in a performance that is otherwise pitch perfect – Mandela is never presented as all-knowing and godlike, but a man struggling with his own problems, living apart from his family and estranged from his wife.

Matt Damon is also very good as captain Francois Pienaar, lifting what could have been (in the face of the Mandela character) a fairly dull and quiet role into the realms of inspiration, particularly in the Robben Island sequences and the closing stages of the rugby world cup final between South Africa and the fearsome New Zealand All Blacks.

Invictus is a wonderful, charming and uplifting film that will satisfy sports fans and newcomers alike. Eastwood has produced a piece of work filled with moments of sheer joy that will have you misty-eyed and a sense of hope that will stay with you long after the credits have rolled. One of the best films of 2010 so far, just fantastic.

Rating: MMMMM

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 ‘geezer’ director Guy Ritchie’s adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic character (and the world’s most famous detective) the inimitable Sherlock Holmes.

Director: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, Mark Strong, Kelly Reilly, Rachel McAdams
Running time: 128 mins

Infamous British gangster-thriller director Guy Ritchie’s take on the world’s most famous detective may not be the most faithful or accurate depiction of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Victorian detective, but his new Sherlock Holmes film is likely to be the most fun.
At the point in which the film begins, our heroes, the eponymous Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Doctor John Watson (Jude Law) are soon to be separated from being London’s brilliant and unrivaled ‘consulting detective’ partners by Watson’s impending engagement to his love Mary (Kelly Reilly). However, before the pair are to part ways, one more case must be solved – one that requires all of Holmes’ remarkable powers of deduction, observational skills and helping hands of Dr Watson. It is a case unlike any Holmes has ever confronted, apparently defying the laws of logic and science, one that terrorises London in a chain of strange and ritualistic murders and one that is seemingly orchestrated from beyond the grave by the recently deceased Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong).

The first point of praise for Ritchie’s film is that the plot of Sherlock Holmes is well conceived and structured, being complex and intriguing enough to be a believable case that Holmes and Watson have to solve, but straightforward enough for the audience not to be lost. Some parts are messy but never confusing, and the film as a whole is so damn entertaining that even the odd plot contrivance can be forgiven. There is a wonderful tension between the scientific and the gothic, capturing the tone and flavour of two Victorian phenomenons, coupled with a glimpse of the forward march of progress so omnipresnent in the late nineteenth century. The script is well written, clever and funny, is pleasingly lacking in the “me old china” -isms of Ritchie’s repertoir and perhaps more importantly, captures the brilliance and intelligence of Conan Doyle’s original character.

As is to be expected from a Guy Ritchie movie (in the face of his previous work, Lock, Stock, Snatch, Revolver), there is a certain amount of fisticuffs and bare-knuckle fighting in Sherlock Holmes which some might feel incongruous with the tone of the original source material. Surprisingly, however the inclusion of the violence is not to the detriment of the film – the scenes where Holmes takes on a prizefighter in a boxing match are coupled with a voice-over of him explaining his punches and techniques, presenting the violence as another facet of his detective skills.

In terms of performances, the central pair are without a doubt the stars of the show. Robert Downey, Jr. as Holmes is excellent, intensely likeable and very charming. Likewise, Jude Law as Watson is also very good. The two together are brilliant, exuding charisma and a fantastic physical comedy that elevates the film above being simply entertaining and makes in out-and-out fun – their bickering ‘old married couple’ act is very well done, to the point where the relationship becomes the heart of the film and the mystery plays second fiddle – this is not a criticism however as the friendship dynamic between the two men worked so well, being funny, poignant and enjoyable.
Mark Strong as the villanous Lord Blackwood is deliciously evil and suitably gothic but never descending into camp devilry, maintaining a malevolent sensibility that is genuinely creepy. The only piece of characterisation that perhaps doesn’t work as well as the rest is Rachel McAdams as Holmes’ female foil and ‘love interest’ despite her being a crucial part of the film’s climax.

Sherlock Holmes is a good, solid, enjoyable and hugely entertaining action blockbuster that packs as many laughs as it does punches – Downey, Jr. and Law’s comic timing is fabulous. Go see.

Rating: MMMM

Review of the latest fantasy feast for the eyes from ‘maverick’ director Terry Gilliam.

Director: Terry Gilliam
Starring: Heath Ledger, Christopher Plummer, Lily Cole, Verne Troyer, Tom Waits, Andrew Garfield
Running time: 122 mins

Terry Gilliam is not known in the film industry for having the best luck with his projects; as documentary Lost in La Mancha proves, he has been unfortunate enough to have film sets and equipment float away following mass flooding on location. But Gilliam and show business as a whole was struck the heaviest of blows with the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the star of Gilliam’s latest film. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a strange merging of worlds which sees a topsy-turvy olde worlde sideshow (the ‘imaginarium’) incongruously placed in contemporary London. Dr Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is an aging monk, who with his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) and other oddball characters, tries to scratch out a living by travelling around and ‘performing’ for the public. They are joined by Ledger’s Tony, who attempts to glamorise the show and generate more revenue for the group. From this point onwards, things spiral out of control (and comprehension), sending the characters into vivid and spectacular dimensions, requiring twice as many eyes to fully appreciate them.

It is sad to say that despite the legacy of wonderful performances that the late Heath Ledger leaves behind (Brokeback Mountain, The Dark Knight and even early work such as teen hit 10 Things I Hate About You), his final work on celluloid in Terry Gilliam’s latest film is not Ledger’s best. As Tony, the mysterious stranger who joins the oddball ‘family’ of a travelling sideshow, Ledger gives a bland and mediocre performance, a turn which lacks the spark he so clearly displayed in other roles. But Ledger can hardly be blamed for this, given that his character is so confusedly written, creating a role which (even in different circumstances) would be difficult for any actor to make sense of, even one with Ledger’s talent. Following his death, a trio of actors (and friends) Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped in to play different aspects of Tony’s personality, a feature which works well and certainly adds to the character. This is surprising seeing as this element of the film is potentially problematic to say the least, but is instead one of the most successful parts of the film.

As for the rest of the cast, Christopher Plummer as the titular Parnassus is solid, as is newcomer Andrew Garfield as Anton. Music fans may be able to recognise Tom Waits in a bizarre turn as Mr Nick, the demonic foil to Parnassus. Verne Troyer of Austin Powers fame is similarly awkward, cracking wise with clichéd one-liners. However, plaudits must go to model-turned-actress Lily Cole who gives a surprisingly subtle and convincing performance as Parnassus’ daughter, the flame-haired Valentina, proving that she is much more than a doll-like face. But fundamentally, Gilliam’s fantasy opus is deeply flawed. Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson once said that the key to great storytelling (and good filmmaking) is to strategically ask and answer a series of questions in the audience’s mind, and Gilliam, for all his wonderful ideas and creative talent fails to do this, leaving the audience asking more questions (arguably the location of any kind of plot structure) than the film is capable of answering. Instead of being taken on an adventure through breathtaking fantasy worlds, the audience is left floundering. The messy structure and lack of narrative rhythm make The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus a thoroughly strange experience – a visual masterpiece with a story that is virtually impossible to understand.

Gilliam’s moments of true genius (and these are many) are overshadowed by a sense of bewildering confusion. There is a certain amount of cruel irony in Tony’s speech to Parnassus, how he must meet the public half way between what they want and what he wishes to show them – if only Gilliam could live by his own character’s words. Once Gilliam marries his vision and creativity with well structured plot and narrative, we will surely have a masterpiece on our hands. Until that day comes however, we are left with a film that is as confusing as it is visually arresting.

Rating: MM

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

Co-created by an ex-Police reporter David Simon, HBO’s crime series ‘The Wire’ (set on the streets of Baltimore, Maryland) boasts a multi-layered narrative framework and an excellent ensemble cast, including British actors Dominic West as Det. Jimmy McNulty and soon-to-be-huge-star Idris Elba as the charismatic Stringer Bell (who in fact was tipped to be a future choice for James Bond in the G2 section of The Guardian a few months back). Not only does the show feature standout realist performances from each and every actor, but the show is brimming with a richness and depth not seen on the small screen in a long time. This may be due to the fact that the show is based on the real-life experiences of both of the show’s co-creators, Ed Burns (a former homicide detective) and the aforementioned David Simon – however, I feel the show’s potency is more than somewhat linked with what it expects from its audience. In comparison with other high-profile television drama such as ‘ER’ which presents the audience with a short recap of footage from previous episodes (“previously on <insert drama series here>…”), not once in its 5 seasons does ‘The Wire’ offer its audience a chance to refresh their memories.

It expects us to keep up with the complex and multi-layered plot strands and character arcs, and if we can’t, well tough. As odd and demanding as this sounds (and even damn right incongruous to the way we approach serialised television), this apparent expectation is certainly to the show’s credit. ‘The Wire’ knows it is an intelligent piece of drama, and therefore expects a certain intelligence and amount of concentration from those who choose to watch it.

Another area that the show excels in is the depth of its characters. Initial viewings may prove difficult, in that the sheer number of characters is slightly overwhelming, but after a couple of episodes it becomes easier to identify character from character and to understand the complex plot. But not only are the plots and narrative strands rich and multifaceted, the character development seen in ‘The Wire’ is next to none. In comparison with various other crime television franchises employing a black-and-white moral environment where the police are the upstanding heroes and the criminals are the ruthless villains, ‘The Wire’ refuses to subscribe to this outdated and essentially preposterous view. Instead, the show deploys a striking vision of moral ambiguity in the presentation of the citizens of Baltimore. In place of valiant and noble police we have a rag-tag group of officers, each with their own approach to their work (which often seems to serve only themselves) – leading to corruption and egotism throughout the force. On the street, the drug dealers and gang members are not the evil blackguards that other media has led us to expect; they often display more integrity and decency than the cops pursuing them. It must be said however, that the show is primarily male focused, which is a definite problem. Arguably the show features Sonja Sohn as Det. Kima Greggs as a key member of the police team, but really this does not make up for a distinct lack of female characters.

As acting goes, performances featured in ‘The Wire’ are second to none. British actor Dominic West (seen recently in ‘Breaking the Mould’ for BBC4 and ‘The Devil’s Whore’ on Channel 4) is excellent as Det. Jimmy McNulty, as are Clarke Peters and Wendell Pierce as Lester Freamon and Bunk Moreland respectively. The only major detraction in terms of the actors’ performances is that the language used by those portraying characters from the ‘street’ tends to be esoteric real slang and dialect specific to the Baltimore area – as a result it is sometimes difficult to understand just what it is they are saying. Therefore it is sometimes useful to watch the show with subtitles on so you can catch every word and keep up with what is undoubtedly one of the best, most sophisticated and engaging television dramas ever made.

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

The remarks in the interview certainly ring true when looking at the plethora of ‘rom-coms’ that I myself have been subjected to in recent memory that I can only describe as tedious, throwaway slush that serves its purpose and no more (and can be bought in bulk in 2,3 and 4 disc box sets from many a retail outlet). These films are shamelessly formulaic and predictable, nearly all of which share the same basic premise (boy/girl meets girl/boy, they get to know each other – cue plot device that means that the two have to separate/have a fight/reason that they cannot be together/token ‘betting’ incident  – the problem is resolved and the film ends with the two miraculously and blissfully happy together). Having said this, sadly I am as guilty as the next twenty-something female for actually going in search of this drivel, seeking it out in times of woe, boredom and self-indulgent girlishness. But I have to ask myself why I watch these films, sometimes again and again (or a film that seems like every other one of the same ilk) when I know that they are plot-lite and cliche ridden with endlessly contrived scenarios and poorly scripted dialogue. As Ms Bullock pointed out in her conversation with Wossy, rom-coms are neither funny or romantic. Some of them barely pass as entertainment.

And I have to say that I don’t really know why I watch them, arguably wasting time (and sometimes good money) on films that I won’t remember in a month. The only reason I can think of is that they are wonderfully escapist and revel in projecting certain ideologies and approaches to life that simply wouldn’t be conducive to reality. But really there is a dark heart underneath all the airbrushed hope and happiness – these films in reality are MEANT to be all the same and to follow their barely-hidden formula. Rom-coms are there to part innocent and unsuspecting women from their money and the sad thing is that some ladies are more than happy to do it. What is worse however, is that these films seem to have an effect on more than just our wallets, as an article in this month’s Marie Claire magazine (“Are romcoms bad for your love life?”, August 2009) explores, there is substantial evidence that suggests that these types of films lead those who watch them to believe in predestined love – which can be damaging to relationship communication. In fact, a BBC News article published in December 2008 stated that psychologists at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh blame romantic comedy films for promoting unrealistic expectations of love and relationships.

So not only are these films poor and predictable, they can be damaging to our emotional and psychological well-being too.
The best advice it would seem would be to stay away from the genre, and to explore new avenues of cinematic delight.

Or, if you are glutton for punishment and in the mood for some frothy entertainment with at least a little bit of brain, seek out one of the following (which are actually decent romantic comedy titles):

Definitely, Maybe (2008)
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)
Knocked Up (2007)
Hitch (2003)
Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001)
Notting Hill (1999)
10 Things I Hate About You (1999)
Clueless (1995)
Manhattan (1979)
Bringing Up Baby (1938)

If you want a realistic depiction of the highs and lows of relationships, try:

Annie Hall (1977)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Sex and the City (TV series)
High Fidelity (2000)

But stay well away from:

Maid in Manhattan
13 Going On 30
The Holiday
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
27 Dresses
Made of Honour
Failure to Launch
The Lake House
Two Weeks Notice
A Cinderella Story
Simply Irresistible

- the last two are absolutely AWFUL, you have been warned.

Entertainment Weekly has posted a list of “24 Rom-Com Cliches” – check it out to see how many you could live without.

Review of Frost/Nixon first published in a January 2009 issue of Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Ron Howard
Starring: Michael Sheen, Frank Langella, Kevin Bacon, Sam Rockwell
Running time: 122 mins

Admittedly I haven’t seen Peter Morgan’s original play, but it really is hard to imagine any medium other than celluloid for which to present the drama played out between Richard Nixon and David Frost in their 1977 televised interviews. The film opens with newsreel footage of the social and political conditions of 1974 and the resignation of President Richard Nixon, then in disgrace following the discovery of the Watergate scandal. For those not familiar with this period in American political history and the events that preceded and followed it, there is helpful narration from characters which form the support teams of both Frost and Nixon. Three years later, Frost embarks on an ambitious project to interview the hated former President.

Before the interviews take place, there are some excellent moments of comedy and drollery, surprisingly more often than not in the form of witty one-liners from Nixon (Frank Langella), delivered with perfect deadpan humour. Sam Rockwell is refreshingly cast against type as James Reston, Jr. researcher keen to uphold the ideals of democracy and freedom, to ultimately procure a confession and apology from the man who he sees has shamed and degraded the presidency. Michael Sheen is very good, mimicking David Frost’s voice and mannerisms exactly. It is Frank Langella’s film though, putting every last ounce of energy into arguably what will be one of the best performances of the year.

Director Ron Howard, it seems, has lost much of the self-indulgent tone displayed in earlier work such as Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind, subsequently rendering Frost/Nixon all the more potent and tense as a result. And tension is the unmistakeable motif here, seen from start to finish. Sexual tension seen early-on between ‘playboy’ Frost and new flame Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall), economic tension for the financing of the interviews (Frost practically financed the interviews out of his own pocket), and the most important tension of all: that between a disgraced and crooked President and the misled American public that he deceived. At the climax of the fourth interview, we see the broken image of a man, bitterly depressed with self-loathing finally and desperately apologise to the country he lied to – and what a mesmerising moment that is.

Rating: MMMM