Rating: MMMM

Review of Disney’s return to traditional 2-D hand-drawn animation and to familiar fairytales, this new adventure based on the tale of ‘The Princess and the Frog’.

Director: Ron Clements, John Musker
Starring: (voices) Anika Noni Rose, Bruno Campos, Keith David, Oprah Winfrey
Running time: 97 mins

Disney’s latest fairytale adventure sees the House of Mouse return to their roots with a hand-drawn animated fantasy based on the well known tale, the story of a princess kissing a frog to find her prince. This incarnation of the story is set in New Orleans in the late 1920s and our heroine (and princess) is Tiana, a hardworking and stoic waitress who dreams of one day owning her own restaurant. She works two restaurant jobs to save enough money to purchase a property which she plans to revamp into “Tiana’s Place”. However, her life takes a new and different course at the arrival of the handsome and exotic Prince Naveen – who, after dabbling in the dark arts of voodoo is turned into a frog by the evil villain Facilier.  Before she knows it, Tiana finds herself  also transformed into a frog and she and Naveen are forced to begin a journey to make themselves human again.

From the get-go, The Princess and the Frog is a fun, dynamic and entertaining film. It has all the ingredients of the famed ‘Disney magic’, but has something that lifts it above the rest of the studio’s fairytale canon. Firstly, the film’s heroine Tiana is not only the first African-American Disney princess, but she is one of their few heroines who is NOT a completely passive female character. Tiana works hard to achieve and realise what she wants – which incidentally is NOT simply to marry the handsome prince of her dreams. She doesn’t believe in wishing for things, she knows that you have to strive for what you want in life, not wait for it to fall into your lap without your lifting a finger. And she does NOT need a man to swoop in and save her, she is capable of saving herself.

Secondly, the film’s romantic plot that builds between Naveen and Tiana is not the hackneyed (and frankly unhelpful and unrealistic) depiction of ‘love at first sight’, it is a mutual affection based on friendship, respect and love. Naveen is not the perfect dreamy Adonis put high on a pedestal, he has flaws enough himself and in the face of the inevitable happy ending, supports Tiana’s ambitions instead of forcing her to change (unlike Ariel’ staying human in The Little Mermaid). This realtionship dynamic comes as direct result of the film’s ‘road movie’ style direction – Tiana and Naveen must journey through the swamps of Louisiana in search of a cure to their amphibiousness and on this journey they begin to trust and learn from each other.

The Princess and the Frog has everything – the characters are likeable, fun and sympathetic (the trumpet playing alligator Louis and Cajun firefly Ray are both wonderful creations, the latter playing an astonishing part in the emotional tone of the film), the musical numbers are dynamic and entertaining, the film is warm, bright and original and boasts a lot of laughs, for both adults and children (some lines have real wit and there is a lot of subtle humour throughout the film). And for this critic, where the film succeeds most is in its pleasingly positive portrayal of girls, relationships and outlook on life. A beautiful and entertaining film. Well done Disney.

Rating: MMMM

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: MMM+

Delayed review of director Chris Weitz’s The Twilight Saga: New Moon, the second instalment in the 4-part series of  the teen vampire romance, based on the novels by Stephenie Meyer.

Director: Chris Weitz
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Michael Sheen
Running time:130 mins

In the last Twilight film, star cross’d lover Bella Swan made a request of her vampire boyfriend, teen dream Edward Cullen, to change her from her state of “fragile little human” to one of vampiric immortal. Edward declines, reluctant to end Bella’s life for her and transform her into a “monster”. It is this desire and denial between the two (coupled with Edward’s uncertainty about how wise it is to carry on the relationship, based on earnest concerns for Bella’s safety) that creates palpable tension at the beginning of New Moon, eventually reaching crisis point after a tiny papercut at her birthday party puts Bella’s life in danger. Edward consequently breaks up with her, leaves the town of Forks, apparently out of Bella’s life forever.

As one might be able to predict, given the level of eye-gazing and soul searching our lovers engaged in during the first film and the level of besotted infatuation between them, Bella does not take the break-up well. In fact, to say that is an understatement – she enters a downward spiral of what can only be described as depression and near mental breakdown. Socially alienated and tortured by horriffic nightmares, Bella is a lost soul. That is until she is reawoken by friend Jacob Black. By spending time with Jacob, Bella’s emotional healing begins – until a dark secret Jacob is harbouring threatens their friendship.

In New Moon, Chris Weitz has crafted a faithful adaptation of Stephenie Meyer’s novel of the same name but a film which sadly maintains the book’s langorous quality and lack of pace, slowing down and picking up in an awkward fashion, exemplified in the film’s anti-climactic third act in Italy (however, this is arguably the fault of the poorly structured source material). However, the film opens well, picking up soon after the events of  Twilight and makes good use of flashback footage of the first film, using Bella’s silvery scar and other reference points to link thematically and narratively with Catherine Hardwicke’s initial outing. However, a detail in which Weitz has done the film a disservice is his decision to change the film’s colour palette; Twilight is shot in a cool, glassy blue, capturing the striking beauty and coldness of both the Cullen family and the film’s location of Washington state (played in reality by Portland, Oregon).

Weitz’s New Moon departs from the frosty colours of Twilight to warm, golden hues which give the pale vampire make-up and contact lenses a garish theatricality and falseness – see above picture of Robert Pattinson’s chalky complexion. New Moon also uses a different composer for its score, which again changes the tone of things – gone is the lilting and decorative piano theme of ‘Bella’s Lullaby’ and in place is a fairly nondescript score, a real shame as there could have been room for linking themes, creating a sense of a whole ’saga’ (as the film is so reticently marketed). We must acknowledge that Lord of the Rings this isn’t, and we will get no such musical continuity here. The featured songs in the film however are excellent, with great tunes from Death Cab For Cutie (who provide the film’s promo single ‘Meet Me on the Equinox’), Bon Iver, Thom Yorke and Muse.

Another area where the film succeeds is in its casting and main players. Kristen Stewart as Bella is very good, anchoring the story convincingly and sensitively. As Edward, Robert Pattinson doesn’t make much of an appearance in the film, but when onscreen is credibly haunting and of course, achingly gorgeous. But Pattinson is not to be outdone in the looks department by Taylor Lautner who is really the film’s show stealer. At all times believable, endearing and generating many scenes of palpable sexual and emotional tension between Bella and the newly ‘buff’ Jacob – for his role, Lautner bulked up considerably, a fact that it is impossible not to notice, spending so much time bare-chested, cinemagoers will undoubtedly leave with his rippling abs burned into their retinas. The first de-shirting is one of many that will cause more than a few giggles, and is something many critics will knock, but as Mark Kermode argues, the film clearly knows its target market (the teenage female) and really there is nothing wrong with the boys getting a little bit naked in face of the plethora of degrading female nudity seen accross the global media.

With more action, more melodrama, more staring and more angst, New Moon would seem on the face of it to be more of the same, but really this second episode has lost some of the quality and fun of the original, sadly making it less enjoyable as a result. Nevertheless, a solid effort that will please fans and Twi-hards alike and guaranteed to be box-office gold.

Rating: MMM+

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 sunny, seasonal romantic-comedy, (500) Days of Summer, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt (‘3rd Rock From The Sun’) and Zooey Deschanel.

Director: Marc Webb
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Clark Gregg
Running time: 95 mins

From its breezy, whimsical and original opening titles to its warm-hearted closing moments, ‘anti-romantic comedy’ (500) Days of Summer succeeds in bringing something new to a stale and formulaic genre (see article) – that of the aforementioned rom-com.

Where (500) Days of Summer breaks away from its predecessors is that we are told from the very start that the boy-meets-girl relationship we are about to see is one that does not end with our hero and heroine living happily ever after together. Yet this does not hamper the film as a consequence. In fact, knowing this enhances and colours (for the better) our judgment of Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer’s (Zooey Deschanel) relationship in each section of the narrative.

Like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind before it, (500) Days of Summer presents the trajectory of a couple’s relationship from start to finish out of chronological order, from day 1 to day 500 – the number

of which is presented by brief intertitles throughout the film – a technique which often makes for interesting and intriguing drama and does so very successfully here. And again, similar to Eternal Sunshine, the film is told from the man’s perspective, a plot device fundamentally crucial to the film’s premise but one which is fresh and original; one of the failings of contemporary rom-coms is that the overwhelming majority are based on female perspectives and hackneyed ones at that.

In terms of acting, the two leads are very good and always utterly convincing as the mostly endearing and sympathetic characters they portray. Joseph Gordon-Levitt in particular should be singled out for plaudits, as his co-star Zooey Deschanel seems to be merely displaying an amalgam of her assorted ‘kooky female’ roles in her performance as the eponymous Summer. Having said this, Deschanel maintains a balance between charming and aloof which at the climax of the film, seems to be a fair summation of Tom’s feelings for her. It may just be unfortunate that Deschanel keeps being offered this kind of alternative yet cute character – she is in real danger of being typecast.

Along with great acting and a fresh premise, where the film also charms is in its design (not that the film prioritises style over its substance) and tone. Where other films exert their American-ness, (500) Days of Summer has more of a European feel: Tom and Summer take a trip to Ikea, not Pottery Barn; Tom listens to melancholic British indie rock music; the movies that display Tom’s misery are burlesques on the films of the Nouvelle Vague.

(500) Days of Summer is a quirky, original and well written ‘anti’ romantic-comedy that ends on a warm high note despite the guy not getting his summery girl.

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 Twilight first published in January 2009 issue Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Peter Facinelli, Nikki Reed
Running time: 122 mins

Its the same old story: girl moves to new town, meets mysterious (and frightfully good-looking) boy, is fascinated by him, starts to fall in love, finds out he’s a vampire – oh no, wait. This is what Twilight essentially is, a teenage romance, where one of the couple happens to be a vampire. Seventeen year-old Bella Swan (Stewart) moves to the town of Forks, Washington to live with her father. There she meets the enigmatic Edward Cullen (Pattinson), to which there is more than meets the eye. The two share a mutual fascination with each other, however Bella soon learns that Edward is drawn to her by a deep yearning desire to drink her blood.

In the film’s characterisation of Edward, there is more of the ‘tortured soul’ of the vampire (first notably introduced on film by Neil Jordan’s Interview With the Vampire) as we see when Bella expresses her desire for Edward to turn her into a vampire (in order for them to be together), he responds by confessing his hatred for his kind, believing vampires to be “killers” and “monsters”
and wishing never to condemn Bella to a similar fate. The film deviates however, from conventional representations of vampirism by removing the hackneyed anti-vampire weapons of garlic, silver and sunlight, replacing these with “ripping them apart and burning the pieces” (this method is mentioned twice in dialogue and appears to be the only way to destroy the blood-suckers) Sunlight, the age-old bane of the vampire  has the effect of displaying Edward’s skin in all its iridescent glory and therefore bright sunny days are avoided by him and his family in order to remain inconspicuous. The scene where Bella and Edward lie on the forest floor, with Edward’s skin shining and glowing however, (despite purists’ argument that the moment remains faithful to Meyer’s novel) feels forced and artificial – the tinkling shimmering sound effects adding to the scene’s embarrassment.

Coming to Twilight with a knowledge of director Catherine Hardwicke’s previous film Thirteen, you could be forgiven for expecting a similar amount of adolescent sexual indulgence, given Twilight’s subject matter of vampirism. This is sadly absent, with the audience (as was evident from the mutterings of fellow cinema-goers) really wondering when anything of that nature was going to happen. Apparently we have to wait for further films in the franchise for anything remotely sexy to happen between Bella and Edward.

But when the films are as fun as this, I don’t mind waiting. The effects, action and wire-work are good, even if the jumping and flying around at times isn’t exactly subtle. The film’s principle stars are also very good, Stewart in particular giving depth to a role which in the hands of another actress could descend into two hours of looking nervous and tense. Luckily, her performance saves Bella from falling into the damsel-in-distress cliché. Bella is subsequently conveyed as a strong, intelligent young woman. In his early scenes, overnight heartthrob sensation Robert Pattinson (in his biggest role to date) seems to struggle, but as the film progresses he find his feet, giving a convincing performance and looking achingly gorgeous in the process – the moment where he steps out of his car (a Volvo, sadly) and puts on his Ray-Ban Wayfarers with a cheeky grin on his face is worth the ticket price alone.

Rating: MMMM