annabrownie Reviews

Circle of Friends (1995)

Simply an enjoyable movie

[7/10 · 14 January 2010]

As a general rule, I am picky about adaptations of books on the big screen, but there is much to love about this version of Maeve Binchy's excellent novel. I loved the book from the first time I read it, and was delighted to find a film version to rent. The cast are really very good and the movie is well-written and directed. Minnie Driver is wonderful as Benny, with Chris O'Donnell portraying a slightly more sympathetic Jack than the selfish young man in the novel, and excellent support from Geraldine O'Rawe, Saffron Burrows, Alan Cumming and Colin Firth (getting to play a cad rather than the hero for a change).

There are, of course, some major differences from the novel but nonetheless the film works, in and of itself, and it is still extremely enjoyable. I can accept that for a Hollywood movie, a more conclusive ending was required than that provided by Binchy in the book, and it was made believable by the chemistry between Driver and O'Donnell in the last few scenes.

I would agree that the sexual life of savages would be an unlikely subject for first year students in 1950s Ireland, but I like Ciaran Hinds as the lecturer, so I'll let it go...I also would have liked to see more of Binchy's supporting cast make it into the movie - Mother Francis, for example, who brought up Eve, or some of the other friends outside of the college group such as Clodagh or Fonzie. Obviously a film has limitations that do not hinder an author, but I would also have liked there to have been more back story for Nan - just why she chooses Simon, for example. And I could always use more interaction between Eve and Aidan, whose scenes in the book are richly comic and translate very well onto the screen.

Despite my quibbles, I have always liked this film, and I would recommend it to most people, whether they have read the book or not, for its entertainment value.

The Secret Policeman's Ball (1979 TV Movie)

Comedy gold

[10/10 · 19 December 2008]

Moments of genius are somewhat expected when you are watching a show involving several of the Pythons, Peter Cook and Billy Connolly. Peter Cook is on superb form, even making the usually unflappable John Cleese laugh! One of the real breakout performances from this show, however, is Rowan Atkinson. At this point he was not especially well known, since Not The Nine O'clock News only started in that year and Blackadder was yet to come, but he delivers some superb performances. He joins three of the Pythons for the Four Yorkshiremen sketch, but it is his one-man performance as the Schoolmaster that truly showcases his talents. He begins by reading a register, and while some of the names are funny, it is his delivery that turns this simple premise into brilliant comedy. This whole show should be enshrined as a testament to the superb quality of British comedy in this period. I would agree with another reviewer that more recent editions of the show have become more hammy, as well as being less sketch-based. This is the original, and absolutely the best.

Casino Royale (2006)

There's a new Bond on the block...

[10/10 · 5 September 2008]

The Bond franchise has provided some of the most entertaining movies ever made, but recent outings for 007 have been less than stellar. Barbara Broccoli and co have re-invented the series again, thanks to direction from Martin Campbell (who re-made Bond for the 90s with Goldeneye) and borrowing from the Bourne films to create a real 21st Century Bond, even though this is meant to be an origins story. Just as Chris Nolan and Christian Bale rejuvenated Batman in Batman Begins, so Campbell and Daniel Craig have done the same for Bond.

Which brings me neatly to my next point. Many people, Bond fans or otherwise, were very vocal in their concerns about whether Daniel Craig would make a good Bond. All those doubts must have laid to rest within the first minutes of the pre-credits sequence, and certainly by the time of the free-running chase. Craig's Bond is more physically intimidating than Bond has ever been, and the film's fight scenes are more brutal, more physical, in consequence. Thanks, perhaps, to Jason Bourne, the filmmakers are not afraid to show a bruised and battered Bond, something which has rarely been seen, thanks to his apparent ability to dodge all bad guys. This is a return to the colder, more raw, perhaps less sophisticated personality of Bond as he was in Dr No - Bond as Fleming intended him.

The film's bad guys are very well drawn, three-dimensional villains, and the threat here is that of well-funded terrorism rather than a megalomaniac trying to destroy/take over the world. Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is superbly chilling though ultimately cowardly. He is the prime villain of the movie, but there is someone behind him who we do not properly encounter until the end of the film, setting the stage for the new film, Quantum of Solace.

The women in the film are more three-dimensional than many Bond girls, particularly Eva Green's captivating Vesper Lynd, with her intelligence, spirit and shadowed motives. Her verbal sparring with Bond when they first meet is superb and funny.

The action set pieces are not as prominent as they have been in recent years, although they are still spectacular. Additionally, Bond's reliance on gadgets has been considerably reduced - his Aston Martin contains a life support kit and storage for his Walther, but little more. The car chase from the casino out into the countryside, complete with record-breaking, seven spin, death-defying roll off the road, is thrilling and not overly long.

The film ends with the true emergence of Bond, strengthened and cynical thanks to his experience in this story (not least a torture scene that had every male in the cinema cringing), and ready to take on the upper hierarchy of villains previously represented by Le Chiffre.

This is an excellent film, well written, well shot and very well acted. Craig's Bond harks back to the older, pre-gadgets movies like Dr No and From Russia With Love, but also has something new for the 21st Century. This is the best Bond movie in a long time, and sets the bar for Craig's next outing, which I await with pleasure and anticipation.

Elizabeth (1998)

Flawed, yet still wonderful

[8/10 · 27 August 2008]

When watching this film, as with many historical dramas, I have to 'turn off the historian part of my brain', which would rather like to scream at times. Although I love this movie, and have since I first saw it, I must agree with a number of the reviewers on this site who have pointed out the numerous historical inaccuracies.

Elizabeth I herself is superbly portrayed by the truly marvellous Cate Blanchett, who totally inhabits the role. However, the real-life Elizabeth was far more politically savvy and personally dominant than the somewhat easily-influenced queen of this film. The awarding of 1999's Best Actress Oscar was a crime against Blanchett, whose work in this film far surpassed Gwyneth Paltrow in the much lighter Shakespeare in Love.

Her supporting cast are almost uniformly superb, from Joseph Fiennes to Christopher Eccleston to the almost-movie-stealing Geoffrey Rush. The latter turns in a truly wonderful, Machiavellian turn as Francis Walsingham; had he not also richly deserved his Oscar nod for Shakespeare in Love, this performance would have been worthy of a nomination. Allowed off his leash by Elizabeth towards the end of the film, he faces off against Eccleston as the treacherous Duke of Norfolk: "I must do nothing by your orders. I am Norfolk." "You were Norfolk. The dead have no titles...You were the most powerful man in England. You could have been greater still, but you had not the courage to be loyal." "So cut off my head, and make me a martyr. The people will always remember it." "No. They will forget." Absolutely brilliant.

The cinematography and set pieces are glorious, bright, colourful. In this respect, the filmmakers capture the essence of the Tudor court, its pomp and ceremony.

However, if it is historical accuracy you look for in a film, do not look for it here. The film conflates certain characters, meaning that they behave totally differently from their real historical counterparts. For simplicity's sake, it seems, the Duke of Norfolk who lived in Mary's reign and put down the Wyatt rebellion (dying shortly after) is mixed with the character of his grandson, who conspired with Mary Queen of Scots to depose Elizabeth, marry Mary and ascend the throne as her consort. Additionally, Elizabeth's first real love, Robert Dudley, later Earl of Leicester, seems to have been confused with a later favourite, his stepson Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. While Leicester was indeed beloved by the queen, both of them were well aware that nothing could come of it. Elizabeth knew of his wife (in the film she finds out from Cecil) from the date of his wedding, and although historians will never agree on whether their relationship was ever physical, the mysterious death of Amy Dudley meant that there was never the slimmest chance of them being anything more than the lifelong friends they were. In the film Leicester conspires against the Queen, while in life he remained faithful unto death, forming part of her group of staunchest male supporters, along with Cecil, Walsingham and Hatton. It was Devereux who plotted against Elizabeth, and he was beheaded for it. The other major discrepancy is the character of Cecil. Although extremely well played by Attenborough, he is far too old in the film. Cecil was Elizabeth's greatest adviser until his death in 1598, when his equally brilliant son took over his role. He is sidelined too early in the reign according to the film, as well as appearing far more feeble in comparison to Elizabeth than he really was.

In fairness to the filmmakers, they do not claim that this is a true historical account of the early years of Elizabeth's reign, and as I said above, I cannot help but enjoy the film, as long as I do not focus on the errors! Great camera work, wonderful acting, brilliant dialogue - everything else you could need for a great film are here, so perhaps in the scheme of things historical accuracy is not the be all and end all...

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Can't help loving this movie...

[8/10 · 27 August 2008]

There are so many things I could complain about in this film - the interesting approach to English geography for starters - but I still can't help but love it.

Kevin Costner is pretty good as this quintessentially English hero, but it is his supporting cast that make the movie. Morgan Freeman is great, Nick Brimble is perfect as Little John, with Soo Drouet wonderful as his wife Fanny ("I've given birth to eight babies. Don't you talk to me about getting' hurt"). Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio plays Marian with spirit and Christian Slater is a great Will Scarlett. But it is the villains that make this film so utterly enjoyable. Michael Wincott and Geraldine McEwan provide superbly hissable support as Guy of Gisborne and Mortiana respectively, but the film truly belongs to Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham. He gets most of the best lines ("Locksley, I'm going to cut your heart out with a spoon", "Call off Christmas!" etc) and a fantastic battle scene culminating in a wonderfully drawn out and dramatic death.

The film mixes humour, romance and action very well, and I defy anyone not to be swept along by the story, from the opening brawl in a Jerusalem prison to the wedding finale, attended by an oddly Scottish Richard the Lionheart. Overall verdict - cheesy but excellent!

Troy (2004)

Actually a pretty good movie...

[7/10 · 12 August 2008]

While I have not read the actual Iliad, I do love mythology as a whole and have read several different versions of the story of the Trojan War. This film captures the essence of the conflict, and the script and cinematography are excellent. I disagree with some changes made (eg. the deaths of Menelaus and Agammemnon, both of whom survived the war) although I realise that it would be a somewhat depressing film if all the deaths in the myths were shown on screen.

The film is mostly very well-cast, although there is not really that much chemistry between Kruger's Helen and Bloom's Paris. Peter O'Toole, Brian Cox and Brendan Gleeson all give wonderful performances. Brad Pitt brings the right balance of tortured soul/arrogant warrior to the role of Achilles, but it is Eric Bana, as Hector, who is the real star of the movie in my mind. I always liked the character of Hector in the myths - Troy's answer to Achilles in terms of fighting prowess, but without some of Achilles' flaws. I also have a certain soft spot for Sean Bean as Odysseus, partly because I really like Sean Bean and think he is really good in this film, but also because Odysseus is my favourite character in Greek mythology - brave, highly intelligent, rather cunning, and with a healthy dose of common sense.

One thing I do not like as much is how short this film makes the Trojan War seem. Most of the myths agree that the war lasted longer than the few weeks suggested in the movie - it took them quite some time to make landfall on the Trojan shore to start with. Also, in many of the stories it is suggested that Achilles' son, born before that warrior left Skyros, was able to join in the war after his father's death (which did not take place on the night Troy fell), even though he was only about 10 years old.

Aside from that, the film is very enjoyable, the battle scenes brilliantly filmed, the sense of time, of antiquity, excellently conveyed. Taken overall, this is actually quite a good movie.

(If this film inspires an interest in the Trojan War, try reading Lindsay Clarke's The War at Troy and The Return from Troy. These are very detailed accounts and the second one covers more of the aftermath of the war than the Odyssey.)

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

An enjoyable film

[8/10 · 9 July 2008]

Although this film does not quite compete with Gladiator in the epic stakes, Ridley Scott handles the subject of the Crusades with the same brilliance he brought to Ancient Rome.

Orlando Bloom just about carries off being the lead in a major film. Certainly his performance here as Balian of Ibelin is a great improvement on his Paris in Troy. His development from country blacksmith to noble's son (albeit illegitimate) to defender of Jerusalem is well portrayed.

However, the stand out performances in this film do not come from the lead. Liam Neeson is excellent as Balian's battle-weary father Godfrey, the ever-wonderful Jeremy Irons is superb as Tiberias, chief minister of the King of Jerusalem, and Edward Norton brings pathos and dignity to the role of the King, Baldwin IV, forced to wear a mask due to his leprosy. Equally excellent is David Thewlis as a Knight Hospitaller, favourably portrayed in comparison to the Templar order in the movie.

The leaders of the Muslim army are portrayed with sensitivity and care. Saladin, in particular, comes across as noble, dignified and honourable, much more so in fact than some of the Christians he faces. This has basis in fact; some evidence suggests that Richard the Lionheart (who did not, sadly for Ridley Scott, require directions to Jerusalem from Balian, but rather travelled via Sicily) found his opponents more worthy of respect than some of his allies during his own crusade.

The "baddies" of the film are not the Muslims who threaten the city of Jerusalem, but rather some of the "Christians", who desire war with the Muslims for their own purposes, and use the excuse of religion, and the support of fanatical religious men, to achieve their ends. Marton Czokas as Guy de Lusignan, husband of the King's sister Sibylla, and Brendan Gleeson as the hotheaded Reynald de Chatillion play these parts excellently, coming across as self-seeking, arrogant and dishonourable. To start their war they attack a Muslim caravan mostly composed of women, including Saladin's sister. When they ride out of Jerusalem into the desert to meet the Saracens in battle (many of their men falling by the wayside due to dehydration) they are conclusively defeated.

It is left to Balian to organise the defence of Jerusalem. Ignoring the advice of the Bishop to "convert to Islam and repent later", he makes most of the men of the city knights, using the same words Godfrey uses to knight him earlier in the film. The battle and siege scenes are superbly shot. The parley between Balian and Saladin underlines how honourable these two men are in comparison to Guy and Reynald.

While the romance between Balian and Eva Green's Sibylla is a little-needed and entirely invented subplot, the plot and characterisation as a whole are excellent.

As with Ridley Scott films in general, the cinematography and sense of time and place are wonderful. Although this film, as I said earlier, does not quite measure up to Gladiator, it is still an excellent example of the epic genre and altogether an enjoyable film.

A Knight's Tale (2001)

So it's anachronistic...who cares??

[9/10 · 9 July 2008]

I have actually lost count of how many times I have watched this movie. I bought it as soon as I could - and in fact still own it on VHS!! I have a degree in history, with medieval Britain and Europe my special interest, yet despite this film's historical inaccuracy, I still love it.

The plot is not original, yet the film works because the cast are so vibrant, so obviously having fun, and they utterly inhabit their characters. The dialogue is hilarious and touching (sometimes simultaneously) and the rock music soundtrack works astonishingly well in this setting. Heath Ledger was the biggest name in this film when it came out, and he is a superb lead, but the rest of the cast are also excellent. Mark Addy and Alan Tudyk provide wonderful and absolutely hilarious support as the closest friends of Ledger's character, William Thatcher, a peasant boy who seizes an unlikely chance to "change his stars" and become a knight. Laura Fraser is likewise great as the blacksmith who joins their little band after fixing William's armour. Rufus Sewell is a very good villain, suitably posturing and nasty, and although you don't loathe him entirely, his downfall is extremely satisfying. Shannyn Sossaman is perhaps the weakest of the leads but she is still a credible romantic interest. One of my favourite characters is Edward, the Black Prince, who has relatively little screen time (in fact, he appears in disguise for some of it) but who is nevertheless very well portrayed by James Purefoy. My favourite character, however, is Geoffrey Chaucer, played by Paul Bettany, of whom I am something of a fan, mainly due to this film. He is hilarious, clever and witty, and his speeches as he announces William at tournaments are amongst the finest moments in the film.

This movie should not work, but Brian Helgeland has somehow managed to create a wonderful, enjoyable, funny film, with great action, brilliant characters and excellent dialogue. I never tire of watching it and hope I never will.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

I got better...

[10/10 · 8 December 2007]

This is possibly the most quotable film in existence. Pure genius from the opening scene to the intriguing climax (no spoilers here). This is my favourite Python film, with every character hilarious and wonderfully wacky. Each Python takes on a number of parts, with Palin carrying away the palm with no less than ten roles, and each is brilliant. King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table abandon Camelot (which is a very silly place, don't you know) in favour of the Quest for the Holy Grail, as ordered by God, who parts the clouds especially to have a chat. Along the way, the Knights - including Lancelot the Brave, Galahad the Pure, and Robin, the not-so-brave-as-Sir-Lancelot - encounter a number of ingenious and, indeed, silly, obstacles. The Python team are responsible for some of the most original and ingenious comedy ever seen on television or the big screen. This film is amongst their absolutely best work. Watch it, or you may just regret it for ever.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

This is, quite simply, a great movie

[9/10 · 18 September 2007]

I want to stand up for this version of Pride and Prejudice. What's with all the negative comments I've been reading? This is really an excellent film, and as a fervent Austen fan I'm happy to say I was really impressed with the translation from page to screen, as was my Mum, with whom I went to see the film. We had both seen and loved the 1995 mini-series (I own it, in fact), but we still enjoyed this very much and some parts we actually preferred to the TV version. I have lost count of how many times I have read Pride and Prejudice since I first picked it up at the age of about 13, and it is one of my all- time favourite novels, so I'm quite a strict critic when it comes to adaptations (I tend to be, anyway - my sister has to practically gag me if we go to see an adaptation of a book I like, to stop me pointing out faults).

Matthew Macfadyen is really a great Darcy. I would have liked him to get more screen time, because I thought he really captured the character as I had imagined him. He is also rather easy on the eye! He really convincingly conveyed Darcy's internal struggle over his feelings for Lizzy, and also the two sides of Darcy's character - the supercilious, proud side, and the more humorous and affectionate side he showed in the Pemberley scenes.

Keira Knightley was excellent as Lizzy. I always had a slight problem with Jennifer Ehle as Lizzy - she is a great actress, but I felt that in looks she overshadowed Jane - which was the wrong way round! Keira, whilst being very attractive, does not appear quite as overtly stunning, and you can see why Jane and not Lizzy is considered the beauty of the family. Elizabeth is an emotional and complex character and Keira really pulled it off.

The interaction between Elizabeth and Darcy is superbly scripted and very well handled by the two leads. There was physical tension between them as well as emotional, especially when they were dancing and after Darcy's first proposal. If you look in the special features on the DVD there is a section on 19th Century courtship which discusses the importance of dancing as the only physical contact between men and women in this period, and the choreography in the movie really shows this. I think it was very wise of the screenwriters to end the film without any kissing between either of the two engaged couples. This is exactly how courtship would have worked in this period, so it adds to the authenticity of the setting.

The rest of the casting was also very good. Tom Hollander was perfect as Mr Collins, Judi Dench could play Lady Catherine with her eyes closed if she so chose, and Simon Woods brought a perfect balance of eagerness, sweetness and humour to Bingley. The other Bennets were also very well cast - I had reservations about Donald Sutherland, but he was excellent, and Brenda Blethyn absolutely nailed Mrs Bennet.

For a first time director, Joe Wright has handled this difficult project with amazing skill. The cinematography and soundtrack are excellent and the costumes are wonderful.

The adaptation of books to screen will always be controversial. Everyone has their own ideas about how people should look, dress and behave, and no film crew will ever be able to please every fan completely. However, with this film, they've done a very good job of bringing Austen's own favourite of her works to the screen, and for that, I for one applaud them.