Darkest Hour

Whenever anything to do with WWII comes up, I am always taken back to my childhood.  Both my parents were in the war, and Mum especially like to let her thoughts about what happened be known.  As a result I know Churchill almost as well as Wilson and Heath, the prime ministers I grew up with.  It will be interesting to see how he is portrayed, I thought, and that was really the primary reason to see the film.  So I'll start with those comments.
Firstly, the make-up department need to be congratulated - Gary Oldman looks like Winston Churchill throughout the film.  There was only one scene, about mid-way through, a sideways shot from behind - just for that instance I doubted.  He acts like Churchill too, and if he gets any awards for this role he deserves them.
How 'true' the story is, I have too little knowledge to judge, but it seemed pretty realistic.  So from that point of view it is an impressive film.  I'm hoping it is accurate, if so I have learnt some things I didn't know:

• How much Atlee was supported by his party
• How keen the Labour party were to fight
• How much the pressure on Churchill, and the desire to get rid of him nearly bought the war to the wrong end.

Having recently seen Dunkirk, the peril of the entire British army was very apparent, and the understanding of the need to rescue them very clear.  That was well portrayed here too, so was the loss of the garrison at Calais.  Those scenes showed the relationship between his secretary - Elizabeth Layton (Lily James) and the prime minister.
Much has been made in the media of Kristen Scott-Thomas and Clementine Churchill, however, I thought that Lily James did a better job and had more real acting to do, portraying a woman, initially scared of Churchill, to one of his greatest supporters - miming parts of his speeches.

Of course, we know the end, so I don't really have to say more.  The film simply illustrates the power of words well spoken - Churchill was a master of that skill.

Recently there have been some excellent films, and this is one of the most excellent.  Well worth a view.

Paddington 2

It seems like almost everyone likes Paddington 2.  It has the longest sequence of positive comments ever on Rotten Tomatoes.  Although I haven't put a review there, I could have and it would have been positive. In many ways the film is a throw-back to my childhood.  Someone in the film said something like "Paddington looks for the best in everyone - and finds it".  That is the flavour of the film, and it is a fitting tribute to Michael Bond's originals.  It is, what is now known as, a feel-good film, so not usually my first choice.
Paddington is rescued from a river by the bear he later calls Aunt Lucy, who gives up her planned trip to London to look after him.  So, as her 100th Birthday arrives, Paddington is looking for that special present.  When he finds it the trouble starts.  He ends up in prison and has a remarkable effect on the prisoners.  Enough of the plot, but just remember its not a who-dun-it.
The film contains plenty of action sequences, mainly involving the bear, who looks incredibly real.  This is some of the best mixed human and animation that I have ever seen.  It is seemless except for one scene where a crowd are watching the bear walk down a corridor - and some of their heads do not turn at the right time.  That's a shame because it momentarily took me out of the story.
The family and the regulars from the last film are back, and the acting is excellent, if not particularly challenging.  I especially like Sally Hawkins as the ultra-innocent credulous wife - getting it right all the time and never really seeking the credit.

I didn't particularly want to see this film, but it was definitely worth a watch and I would recommend it to all.

We saw this film near the end of its run at CineWorld in Basildon - there were just the two of us in the theatre, so no noisy children, or adults.  A very positive experience all round.

Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi

I'd heard good and bad things about The Last Jedi, so I went with an unusual sense of anticipation.  In some senses I was not disappointed.  There is plenty of Star Wars type action, there are the familiar characters, and some new ones.  Not yet having seen "The Force Awakens", I may have missed a few of the on-going story lines, but the Star Wars universe appears to be consistent - very important for me in a series of films like this.
I did think that perhaps the ebb and flow of the rebels verses the empire was getting a bit predictable.
That aside there are several other stories going on.  They are also familiar parts of the Star Wars series.  The young Jedi (female this time, a requirement in 2017) refuses to take the advice of her trainer and goes her own way.  This may or may not have been disastrous.  There is also a love story involving turning a Jedi from the dark side.
The special effects are good, but if they weren't it wouldn't be Star Wars, the action sequences are long and detailed which is great, but ...
It didn't feel enough like a Star Wars film.  There was just too much poking fun at itself - rather like a Roger Moore Bond film it just wasn't quite serious enough.
However, I enjoyed it and would recommend you see it if this is your sort of film.  If you're a proper Star Wars fan you will have seen it already, more than once.  Let me know what you thoughts.

'Dunkirk' at the Rio, Burnham-on-Crouch

Where can you go in Essex to get two seats to see a current film, buy a large bar of fruit and nut and still have change from a tenner? Answer: The Rio in Burnham-on-Crouch. We didn't go there because it was cheep, we went because we had walked past it so often and wondered what it was like inside.  There are a choice of sofas and regular cinema seats and plenty of room between the rows.  We chose regular cinema seats.  It's a 1930's building and still has the feel of that era, I hope it doesn't change.  It's certainly worth a return visit.  No booking though - for the whole 1930's experience you have to queue!

So to the film.  Dinkirk (IMDB entry) is an unusual film.

There is no star to follow through the film, instead there are three stories, from three different points of view, and also through different time periods (1 hour, 1 week).  They are cut together in a rather odd way which seems to make them fit.  I have seen comments on the realism that the film portrays and undoubtedly it is made in such a way as to convey the danger and fear that must have been felt by those involved.  However, it lacks the horror of a film like 'Saving Private Ryan'.  The deaths that are shown (and there are very many) are all slightly sanitised - no body parts, just whole dead bodies.

At the beginning of the film and for more than the first half the main mood is hopelessness.  Everything that is tried to get the soldiers off the beach simply ends in more death and the loss of another destroyer.

The story of Dunkirk is one that I grew up with.  Both my parents were in WWII, and living in Southend-on-sea, the story was of cockleshell heroes.  The film is true to this at least (although the main 'little boat' does not come from Southend), the only real hero is the captain of that boat.  Many of the things he says sound to me like they come from genuine survivors.  I have read some critisism that there is a lack of empathy.  Maybe that is true, but I doubt it - the film certainly portrays the emotions that I have heard about - the enormous pride in being Britsh, the unerring sense of duty and, if necessary sacrifice, the determination above all else to be kind to those who have suffered - not by everyone, of course.  They are all there and are of their time.

I don't know how historically accurate it is, I haven't researched that yet, but there were a few things that made me wonder.  The haircuts were one.  All the pictures I have seen from WWII have 'short back and sides', only seen on a few here.  The lack of helmets, when there are plenty to spare, and none of the commanding officers even passing comment seemed very out of place - where had the discipline gone.

All these things said, it works as a film.  It engaged me and kept me engaged throughout.  The characterisations worked at that level, which is all that can be asked.  It certainly portrayed the story and gave the basic historical facts.

As war films go, it is among the best, and well worth the long drive to Burnham to see it.  It is not easy viewing though and I'm not sure if survival at the end is victory or relief.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

I'm assuming that you all know the story, so if you don't see the film (or better, read the book) then return.

My recent experiences of Cinema attendance meant that it was quite a long time since I was last at a Film Theatre.  We again attended the 'Empire' in Basildon.  It was not quite as bad, still popcorn on the floor. How about not filling the buckets to overflowing?  Being boxing day there were not that many people there.  No box office either, so if you went without credit/debit cards you would not have got in!  We had deliberately avoided the 3D option.  Screen 8 is an odd shaped theatre.  I must have been in it before but I don't remember the screen seeming to be set at an angle, so the right side is further away than the left side - a very strange experience, especially during the sailing scenes.

The film itself was better than the cinema experience.  A long time ago I read the book and my memories of the story are not that clear. Eustace I remember, and the general plot, but Eustace as a dragon I don't.  However, Will Poulter who plays Eustace is undoubtedly the star of the show.  I began to dis-like him almost immediately. Watching his transformation from a horrid little boy always relying on his doting parents to someone of more mature character, indeed even courageous was the best part of the film.  The cause of the change is 'the annoying glass is always half full person', as he is described by Eustace, of Reepicheep.  An animated mouse, voiced by Simon Pegg, whose tail was given to him by Aslan.  Which brings me to the special effects.  Always unobtrusive they, in many ways, bring the film to life, but that is what they are for - magic can only occur this way.  I'd like to know how real the Dawn Treader was.  If it was part of the special effects it was VERY good.  Some were a little tired though.  When the invisible mansion appears, it seems to build itself, like so many reconstructions of the Colosseum or similar ancient building you may watch a documentary on.

The story is better, on film, than Prince Caspian - much better.  It moves at a constant pace, sometimes forgetting to pause for thought as we move from island to island and closer to the source of all evil.  It does though slow for the final (well until the last book) goodbye to Narnia for the Pevensy Children, and also the parting of Reepicheep and Eustace.

The story has a clear Christian basis and this is not eroded by the film.  The morals are still there, some easier to see than others, but all still intact.

My verdict: Well worth a visit to the cinema to see it.

The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight
Back in Gotham city, with possibly the best Batman villain ever. The film is the traditional Batman plot - an arch-villain tries to destroy the city (why isn't important). Batman to the rescue, who then has to overcome his own self doubt, his lack of trust in most of those around him, and the Gotham public in particular.

This version however has a nice addition to the challenges to be overcome. There are copycat batmen all over the place. Of course, these vigilantes need the real batman's protection as much as the rest of the citizens, if not more. It's a nice way to start the film, and like so many of the other little twists it caught me out. "What is this, Batman with guns - whatever happened to ZAP - KERPOW?" I should have been playing closer attention.

Was it me or does Batman's voice get deeper throughout the film?

It is a good action packed film, though some of the action scenes are filmed in too-much close up. This is a recent trend in films, and a very bad one, because the audience disengages with the film. Having said that, the relentless pace needs a few breaks.

The jokers "Do you want to know how I got this smile?" is already passing into the culture - such is the impact of the film.

Morgan Freeman is excellent as the Chief Executive, particularly when an employee discovers what Wayne Enterprises are up to. Michael Caine as Alfred is now the benchmark for the role.

My main problems with the film are its length, and its certificate. Just when you think its about to be over, the Joker recovers and causes even more serious mayhem - a standard now as plots go. From then on I was wondering how many more improbable escapes Joker might make.
In the UK the film is certified '12'. With the level of violence, and the darker themes, this is not appropriate. So the film becomes one more nail in the only useful part of the certification system - to help protect children from the excesses of adult life.

A good film, a good Batman, A superb villain. Heath Ledger is sadly gone, and this film stands as his brilliant last work.

Quantum of Solace

To misquote Star Trek "It's Bond Jim, but not Bond as we know it".

There are several things missing that make it difficult to readily identify this as a Bond film (as my 19y.o.+ children spent several minutes pointing out:

• The start sequence does not have him firing his gun into the screen.
• There is almost no use of the Bond theme, traditionally played when Bond is getting the upper hand.
• There are next to no one-liners.
• The kill rate appears rather high, and the violence is more realistic
  
• No 'R' - and no gadgets (a sad loss)
• No end 'joke' with the girl
  

There maybe others too, perhaps I'll add them later...
However, for me there were other more significant problems. I have read all the Bond books. The books this character is supposed to be based on. Of all the Bond's there have been I believe that Timothy Dalton came closest to presenting the right character. Daniel Craig is not a good Bond, the characterisation is too intense, too dark. Bond is a dark character for sure, but not in his day to day dealings with people. Here he is a charmer, there is little or no charm in the character in this film. Only the cold blooded killer side of the character is shown. Ruthlessly efficient, but cold and distant.

The story itself, as a follow up to the previous film, was quite reasonable, the reality better than in most Bond films, but still a little fanciful. Cars going down cliffs don't explode - good - they don't. However after having all his cards cancelled, bond is driving a car two scenes later - where did that come from? The story though is easier to follow than in some of the films and the links are better placed. The uncovering of the unknown organisation with people everywhere should provide another film or three. That's S.P.E.C.T.R.E (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) I suppose.

There are plenty of Bond action moments, some of them very good. The parachute drop into the sink hole for example. Here though is my most significant problem with the film. The way it is shot and cut. Scenes in the action sequences change so quickly I can't tell what is going on. They are filmed so close up that at times they could be anything. Are the stunts getting too hard to do for real? Was Jaws jumping (sorry, falling) out of the plane the greatest stunt ever - almost certainly the most dangerous. If Bond is going to survive the action sequences must be top notch and easy viewing.

Now to the hype - "Bond is out of control" - really not new, it is after all part of the character of Bond even in the books. By control, we mean control by his superiors. To suggest that Bond had somehow had his view blinded by being betrayed by Vesper (Casino Royale) just didn't work. Only his ruthless efficiency in chasing the 'bad guys' is really seen. That IS what Bond does. He is relentless, and always has been in every film and book. After saving the world (well South America) and expecially the Americans (from themselves), then only at the end does he deal with his personal issues.

'M' - So Bond thinks of M as his mother - no wonder. "You've been a naugthy little boy hand over your toys" - OK she didn't say it, but the feel is the same. 'M' is now more Motherly that Mother in the Avengers. Judi Dench is wasted in the role.

The Bond girls also failed to live up to expectations. Olga Kurylenko was like a female version of Bond, and Gemma Arterton was given a name that just begged for one-liners. She was also wasted. Neither of them did enough (or were given enough to do?) to really shine.

So in summary, plenty of action, enjoyable story, quite a good film - certainly worth seeing, but James Bond - I'm not so sure - only the name hasn't been changed to protect the guilty.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

For my birthday I was promised tickets to see the new Indy film, dubbed in our house Indiana Jones and the longest film title ever. Probably not true, but to the film. It starts well, Indy trapped by the Russians, who have invaded an American airbase in Area 51 (where else). The action starts early, and the chase scenes are good, but the detection of the object being sought with power from a bullet was a little strange. Magnetism is stated as the cause, but I don't recall there being iron in gunpowder. Still suspend your dis-belief and the story works well so far. There are plenty of wise cracks from Indy to remind you that he's now a much older man, and his physical abilities are more limited. I can't fault Harrison Ford for his acting, but then he IS Indiana Jones. Cate Blanchet as the 'baddie' Irina Spalko was impressive, and suitably menacing, but not too menacing. Then 'The Fonz' arrives, well Mutt Williams who turns out to be the real key to the adventure as a whole. Indy and Mutt are the two characters that make the film worth watching. The chase for the crystal skull begins and is soon over. John Hurt is wasted in the role of Ox, he just seems to hold the skull and look vacant, surprised or anxious.

There is a scene with a snake – mandatory now for Indy, but this one has some truly awful special effects, that make the 1930's films look good. However not all the special effects are bad, the ants were done very well, and were probably the scariest thing in the film.

How the adventure was to end was pretty obvious from the time they found their way into the pre-historic 'building'. It could probably have take less time overall and was a slight disappointment. How the film was to end was anything but expected, but even that took too long. “All's well that ends well” seems to be the message. Has Harrison Ford announced his retirement from the role?

Overall the film was worth watching, but I doubt it will be a classic, and for me probably isn't on the DVD list for Christmas.

Flushed Away

On IMDB.
A google preview.
Have a look at the preview and see if its your sort of file. By the makers of Wallace and Grommit, I was probably going to enjoy this film. I was not disappointed. A reasonable plot, some decent characters, and more jokes at other films expense than I can poke a stick at. It scores only 3.5/5 on the google page overall. I thought that was slightly disappointing, but I suppose across that many reviewers its not bad.
Our pet rat - Rodney is left alone, the house to himself. A sewer rat is left in the house by a freak event in the sewer and flushes Rodney down the toilet. He finds himself in Rat London, and meets Rita, and her enormous family. He's helpless, clueless and a danger to himself and others as Rita battles the baddies for a fake gem. Then there's the quest to get home, and some interesting chase scenes, but this part of the film if any lacked cartoon invention, if not cartoon jokes (they are there a plenty). Finally rat London is saved from the frog baddies, some of whom are french - definitely an intended pun I think.

As the animation gets more realistic, and the animation is VERY realistic, so the whole feel of the product moves away from the cartoon genre that it came from. That's a pity. I think back to Roger Rabbit and the handcuffs. Those type of jokes are completely absent here. This type of animation has the potential to switch between the two, and make something truly unique.

My recommendation, if your a Wallace & Grommit fan, don't miss it.

Casino Royale

So does Daniel Craig make a good Bond? Forget the film this seems to be THE question. There was a mixed reaction from the assembled passengers in the car on the way back from the Cinema. His Bond is certainly harder and somewhat more realistic than the Brosnan version, closer to Timothy Dalton (my personal favourite). There is blood that needs to be washed off, but no bruises, and recovering from 'flat lining' to full health inside an hour is just a step too far. Still that IS Bond, so I shan't be too critical, it is part of why the entertainment works.
So to some of the truly impressive things about the film. The 'free-running' chase was remarkable, the best chase I've seen in a long time. Its' sheer energy, effort, and surprises, and the looks of exhaustion on the actors faces made it a real high light. The contrast between action and physiological tension - in and out of the poker game - was also a good mix, and something of a rarity in Bond terms. A nice addition, and other piece of reality that makes the fantasy more believable. Then there are the stunning special effects, the record achieved of turning a car over seven times, and driving through a moving bendy bus. Both these have been on so many spoilers, and were even in adverts at the start of the show, that they are de-valued before they are seen.
Some things are missing from the usual formula. No outrageous gadgets - Bond survives using his wits, intelligence, and fighting skills. That makes for a better story, although I did miss the banter with Q. Which brings me to quips, there aren't really any of those either - Bond is a much more serious, reflective character, hard nosed, less flippant. This is probably closer to the books. Womanising is largely missing, too - and where it does occur it is so obviously used as a means to an end, not as a character trait.
The big new addition to this Bond is a real woman. Not the 'Oh James' types of the seventies and eighties, nor the ones who can clearly look after themselves, and think they can do the job better. This one (Eva Green) is intelligent, and involved in the plot, she's also affected by the mayhem around Bond (and therefore her) in a realistic way. She is a proper love interest for Bond, not just a woman on the side. This was the only part of the film I really didn't enjoy. I'll call it the Travel Brochure Scenes. Just too long, half the length would be more than enough. We get the picture, and we know it isn't going to last, so just get on with the story.
Yes, the story. Partly about Bond, and partly about his mission. Some of the strategy seems a little strange - we're going to bankrupt this man so that his associates will kill him, and then when they threaten to do just that they are eliminated. Or did I miss something?
Key elements of the genre are retained. Bond does not kill any innocents. Bond is not corruptable, he has a job to do and is true to it. People are important, property is not. This film provides a way to develop the newly promotes double-o in other ways, to keep the interest of a new generation, and three older generations judging by the audience.

Was it a good film - Yes. It was not too long, just about right. Should you go and see it? If you're a Bond fan or enjoy action films - yes.

Cars

Details on IMDB.

The story of a racing car rookie who is likely to win the most prestigious trophy in his sport, and be the first rookie ever to do so. This is Pixar animation at its best, unfortuneately its also creepingly disney. By which I mean its overly sentimental and moralising. I've heard a review that said its a film for eight year old boys and the love interest was tacked on to gain a wider audience. Maybe, but its a seamless addition, if its an addition at all. this is a less punchy film than I've come to expect from Pixar, have they lost their edge? No, if nothing else stay for the credits and watch them - that's more like it! There are some good jokes in the film and they are nicely set in the story, I particularly liked the tractors.

Overall its watchable, but not nearly as funny as I was expecting.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Details on IMDB.

There is a plot outline on IMDB, read it if you must, but the plot is not the main reason for seeing this file. The story is darker than the first, but nevertheless great fun and very funny - people were laughing loudly in a very packed cinema. We had to see the second showing after the one we intended to - it's so popular. Worth the wait - YES!

Johnny Depp is now really good at this character - the way he walks, talks, and 'over-acts' as Captain Jack Sparrow is brilliant. There are some excellent 'cartoon' jokes - Jack tied to a pole, and escaping is worth seeing again and again. There are no lines to match "not impossible - just improbable", but the there are plenty of complex statements for our Captain as he lies and cheats and runs away, all to a good ending. Its fast paced fun almost all the way through as each of the characters pursues his or her own aim, with the compass coming to their aid when they're not sure what they really want. Don't expect any surprises there, if you saw the last one the personal relationships will be no surprise at all.

There are some impressive special effects too, the wheel being the most obviously impressive. The black pearl, moored on the beach did actually look real, so if that was blue screen it really was VERY well done. Davy Jones and his crew are also impressive, as is their ship, but I can't believe enough water was displaced when is goes under. Watch that scene carefully and see if you agree.

So to the actors - Johnny Depp easily gets a brilliant, as you will have already guessed. Was Orlando Bloom (Will Turner) wooden - no, but perhaps a little too earnest. Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann) was at her best when pretending to be a boy on the ship, as 'love interest' she was just a bit too obvious. Jack Davenport (Norrington) - belligerent, dark, and evil - but too small a part really. Bill Nighy (Davy Jones), suitably over dressed and somewhat understated, straying into the realms of a Dr Who monster - should have been scary but never quite made it.

Excellent - go see...

Oh nearly forgot the cliff hanger - but no more on that!

The Da Vinci Code - The Film

Just a short review, because I'm well behind with all my work. I have to say that even though I'd read the book and watched some of the 'de-bunking' programs, I still enjoyed the film. The now famous line about needing a library in a hurry works in the context of the film. Dan Browns story is reproduced well, and the sense of urgency throughout is maintained. An enjoyable tale and well worth the visit. Having said that the film and the book suffer from the same problem. The conclusion is easily guessed, from well before the end. There is also a sense that there should somehow be a twist that just isn't there, so right at the end I felt somehow cheated.

Lets remember its a story, a well woven tale, made of various myths and neatly a cleverly stitched together. That's all - just a story. Its not a documentary, or docu-drama, just a story. So why all the fuss. Well the story undermines the Christian Bible - so I can understand people finding it offensive. Jesus did not take Mary as His wife, Mary did not bear Jesus' child, and most certainly did not end her life in France. Jesus did give His life to save mankind from sin and ultimate destruction. Jesus did rise from the dead to 'prove' what He had done. Jesus did ascend into heaven. Now you know where I stand, why all the fuss. Well its just like the Moslems and the cartoons of Allah. Some people just take their life too seriously - relax and learn to laugh at things instead of becoming so up tight. This story is so unlikely to stop anyone coming to faith, but the people who are demonstrating and protesting just possibly might....

Nanny McPhee

Nanny McPhee
A large family of 7 children with only a father frightens the nanny away.  This has happened many times before we pick up the story.  The last Nanny runs away when the children apparently eat the baby.  That was one of the least convincing parts of the film.  So an ugly super-natural Nanny arrives, with a number of lessons to teach the children.  There are a few other stories running throughout the film.  Will the father marry the housemaid, who is the only one the children like, and is also the only one who likes the children?  Will the horrid old aunt keep supporting them as she has promised?  Will the children learn their lessons?

Will the film live up to the opportunities of the plot?  This one I will answer. No, it does not.  There are plenty of opportunities, but somehow we never get there.  The children aren’t nasty enough, by half.  Think of Wednesday in the Adams family, she was nastier than the whole bunch of them put together.  What of Nanny McPhee, who appears next to people and says “I did knock”.  Think of a scary Mary Poppins, if that doesn’t work for you, you’ll start to understand why this film doesn’t work either.  There are some redeeming features.  The gay morticians, who managed not to say ‘suit you sir’, and the cook (Imelda Staunton) are both genuine clowns.