Movie of the Week – About Time

This week’s movie: About Time (2013)

On his 21^st birthday, Tim discovers that he can travel in time (a family tradition passed down from father to son), thereby changing the events in his life. At first it seems like a gift and Tim uses it like any young man would to get the girl of his dreams. Time travel is a tricky thing, however, and Tim soon realizes that if he meddles too much, everything he knows can be undone forever.

The film is written and directed by Richard Curtis, who also wrote other romantic comedy favorites Notting Hill and Bridget Jones’s Diary (as well as writing the great Mr. Bean series). About Time is his third feature that he wrote and directed, his first two were Love Actually (everyone’s favorite) and Pirate Radio; he also wrote the dramas Girl in the Café and War Horse. On About Time, he worked with composer Nick Laird-Clowes, cinematographer John Guleserian, and production designer John Paul Kelly.

The cast is very good. Domhnall Gleeson and Rachel McAdams star with Bill Nighy, Lydia Wilson, Lindsay Duncan, Tom Hollander, Margot Robbie, Will Merrick, and Tom Hughes in support.

About Time is a very charming romantic comedy. It also has a strong emotional dramatic undertone, giving the overall narrative a bit more weight than the average rom-com. The film is very funny as well. It is my favorite romantic comedy of 2013 and among my favorite twenty-five films of the year. It is a must-see for fans of rom-coms and Richard Curtis’s work.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Video On-Demand

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) – Review

Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a very fun action film that in many ways surpasses the first. The film finds Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson on the trail of their greatest nemesis Professor Moriarty. The best aspect of this film is the relationship (and the scenes between) Moriarty and Holmes. They play off each other extremely well, and are the main reason this is one of the better action films of the year. Plus, their scene together at the climax of the film is phenomenal. Director Guy Ritchie is maybe a bit over indulgent in the style that he has created for the Sherlock Holmes franchise. There is a lot of slow motion (and by a lot I mean A LOT). However, while this should get old quickly, the artistry of the mise en scene during many of these slow motion shots, and the way each frame is designed, is fantastic (especially when Holmes and crew are being chased through the forest with mortars going off). Other aspects of the film are a bit exaggerated as well. Holmes is almost a caricature of himself with countless sight gags and an over-the-top performance by Robert Downey Jr (almost bordering on Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow in the later Pirates of the Caribbean films). That said, his character still works in the framework of the narrative for two reasons. Ritchie has built the series around the infusion of humor, and thus some silliness is not only expected but encouraged. And, Holmes is grounded as a character, despite all his antics, because his relationships with Moriarty, Watson and Irene Adler feel real and have a truth to them – thanks to great performances and chemistry among the actors. Also to Ritchie’s credit is how well he paces the film. He continuously keeps the narrative moving, with building tension and great action set pieces. While the film lacks a strong mystery aspect to it (which could be taken as a huge flaw in the film – as Sherlock Holmes is the world’s greatest detective so of course a film with him should have a fantastic mystery plotline to it – and probably should be), the film is too much fun to be overly concerned with the fact that the audience knows everything from the beginning (more or less) and does not have to figure anything out. Plus, some of the principle characters (specifically Simza Heron) are pointless on a deeper level and only serve to forward the plot. Ritchie also takes full advantage of his actor’s comedic skill and does a great job with the humor, as the film is quite funny at times, but he also still manages to have the stakes feel real and does not lose the overall tension of the narrative – again thanks to good performances and chemistry (plus, again, the showdown between Holmes and Moriarty is brilliant and makes the film really a success). A Game of Shadows is a highly entertaining film that also manages to keeps its characters feeling real. It is a lot of fun to watch.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Guy Ritchie has probably made his most entertaining and rewarding Hollywood film with A Game of Shadows (though it is not quite as good as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels). He has found a good balance between his own aesthetic style and creating good characters that exist in entertaining narratives (something lacking in many of his recent films). Hans Zimmer’s score is brilliant (like almost all of his recent work). It is likely to be among the most deserving but overshadowed scores of the year (plus, he took himself out of the running for the Oscars). It is both intense and playful with the character (here is a sampling). Philippe Rousselot’s cinematography is also top notch. (As state above), his shot compositions, working with Ritchie, are very good. They have so much kinetic energy and yet still capture the beauty of the surroundings and the gravity of the situation. Sarah Greenwood’s work (she is becoming one of my favorite production designers) is also very good, matching the tone and feel of the piece perfectly. Ultimately, even given the fame of the character, this is a star vehicle, and in so much should contain an iconic star performance. Downey Jr. has done just that with both the Holmes films. Here, while he is a bit on the caricature side, he brings life and complexity to the character, portraying his gift as a curse and playing jokes to hide the pain. Jude Law is great as Watson, and really his performance is essential to grounding the over-the-top nature of Downey Jr.’s Holmes. Jared Harris is the perfect choice to play Moriarty. He is himself not menacing in a physical way, but his face and line delivery inflict so much weighted terror that he is completely believable as the world’s greatest criminal mastermind. He is in every way a wonderful match to Downey Jr., which he absolutely needed to be for the film to work. Stephen Fry is quite funny and Noomi Rapace is decent, both playing grievously under-written characters (though, they do forward the plot and are not the focus of film). Fry however makes up for his lack of true character with a wonderful performance, the same cannot be said for Rapace. Kelly Reilly and Rachel McAdams are both good in their small but important appearances.

Summary & score: A Game of Shadows is one of the most entertaining films of the year, mainly in a purely spectacle sense but also due to the excellent chemistry and portrayals of Holmes and his greatest nemesis Moriarty. 8/10

Midnight in Paris (2011) – Review

Review: Midnight in Paris is a funny, sweet and intellectually engaging comedy. Writer-director Woody Allen looks both at the psychology of nostalgia (looking back to a Golden Age) and picking the right person to love. The narrative’s protagonist, Gil, feels as though he is living in the wrong period, looking back to Paris in the 1920s as the perfect time and place to have lived (as it was populated by many of his influences). This overwhelming nostalgic feeling makes the present appear mundane – he is not able to appreciate his life, always looking back. This seems to be a common theme to many people’s lives – holding onto the past and not living for the present. Allen structures his film almost as a parable. Gil is so fixated on his Golden Age, he floats through his present seemingly unaware or just apathetic (to a degree) about how his life is developing – having an urge to change it, but maybe not quite the commitment to do it, as it is a fantasy, he can never really go back to that time and live then. But, Allen then uses time-travel to allow Gil to live out his dream, which enables him to find a truth about his life. What is interesting about the film (and I thought it worked well) is that Allen inserts the time-travel fantasy aspect into the narrative without really making a big deal about it, or even having his protagonist question it to a large extent (which leaves the audience wondering if these scenes are actually happening or just imagined, though it seems that there is a magical property in the world of the film and that the events actually do happen). The journey Allen creates for Gil reveals that while nostalgia can serve as an influence on a person’s life, that person still should live for the present and in the present. Many of Allen’s films are about relationships (probably all of them really). Here, Allen looks at a man in the wrong relationship, which he figures out as he comes to terms with his ‘life lesson’ learned as the parable plays out. Interestingly, Allen also introduces what seems like the right woman for Gil to both juxtapose his fiancé (who is not) and make the point of the parable. The film works very well on different layers of reality and relationships and has a nice charm to it – almost a sense of playful wonder like a small child’s imagination, which gave the film such an enchanting allure. Allen is also not afraid to engage his viewers on an intellectual level, with countless references to painters, poets, novelist, and other artists (many well known to all, and others that are not as well known to the average viewer). Allen does not feel the need to teach the audience about who these artists are or why they are important, rather he includes them as part of the fantasy (and really sort of like an in-joke or winking eye for those who know who they are). The film also seems to comment of art. Allen suggests through his characters, particularly the pompous Paul (who thinks he knows everything about everything, and just comes off very poorly), that art is not so much about what someone says is good or tells you to feel about it, but about how you feel about it solely and how you alone experience it and how it affects you (taking a jab at the profession of criticism and the canonization of art). Midnight in Paris, at its heart, is a story about being happy in your life as it is, not picking a relationship because it seems like that is the person you are supposed to be with as deemed by society and not reminiscing too much in the past, because you might miss the present.

Technical and acting achievements: Woody Allen makes a film every year (which is amazing). He writes such great dialog and characters that his films are entertaining even when maybe they do not work all that well as a whole. Recently, he has been making many films in Europe (and I think to great success). For this film Allen chose Paris, which is such a beautiful city. Allen definitely approaches it from a touristic perspective, which is immediately apparent in the opening montage (made up of mostly famous sites in and around the Tour Eiffel, Champs-Elysees and Louvre). But, the characters are tourists, so it makes sense. However, Allen, cinematographer Darius Khondji and production designer Anne Seibel create such a wonderful aesthetic (mixing the fog of fantasy with the period décor and look of the 1920s and early 1900s/late 1890s) for Paris of the past, populated by bars, apartments and other locations that are not touristic, making for a nice juxtaposition between tourist and immersed in the culture (reminding me a bit of Audrey Hepburn in Funny Face, when she seeks out the beatnik culture in Paris). It is great just how out of place Gil looks in the scenes in when he goes back in time. Both Khondji and Seibel do phenomenal work on the film. The cast, filled with great performances in almost cameo roles, is excellent. Adrien Brody, Gad Elmaleh and Alison Pill are all brilliant and funny in small roles. Marion Cotillard is just so alluring and transfixing. She plays her role perfectly. Corey Stoll is genius in the film. His Hemingway commands the screen and pretty much steals every scene he is in. Michael Sheen plays his role so well, that it is almost impossible not to hate his character Paul. Rachel McAdams does a good job playing a woman who is beautiful and driven, and sort of the bad guy, as she is not right at all of Gil. Owen Wilson brings the right about of enthusiasm and wonder to the role of Gil to make it work.

Summary & score: Midnight it Paris is a lovely film, with both a bewitching aesthetic and narrative. 8/10

Sherlock Holmes (2009) – Review

Sherlock Holmes is a fun time at the theatre. The film lives and breathes on its characters, especially Holmes and Watson. Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law bring the characters to life, maybe not how one would expect, but they are amusing, have great chemistry and ultimately save the film from being just another mindless buddy Hollywood action outing. The issue with the film is the story and some of the characters are only there to set up the next film, which can still work, but here it creates some narrative structure problems. The ending of the film (the final showdown between Holmes and Blackwood, not the epilogue that follows it) seems to just happen, there is not sense of build up, no expectation, leaving the viewer feeling like there was more to come (and there is if you consider the sequel), but not so much in a cliffhanger way, more of a this story feels stunted and incomplete, thus it organically feels like there is more (but there is not, at least not with Blackwood). Guy Ritchie (who has made a series of bad films following his first two good films) must be pretty happy to have had such a great cast, saving him from yet another blah film. His visual style (slightly copied from The Hughes Bros.’ From Hell, but not quite as dark) works well, and Ritchie does use his camera well, though the editing is a bit awkward at times. Hans Zimmer delivers another very good score, which fits quite well with the tone and the material. Back to the performances, as they are the point, and why someone should want to see this, Downey Jr is nothing short of great, though he seems to have mixed a bit of his own oddball acting with a dose of Captain Jack Sparrow. Law, on the other hand, feels very much like a Ritchie character, and is played very well, complimenting Downey Jr’s work perfectly. Their chemistry alone is enough to build a successful franchise on. Rachel McAdams is good, but her character is fairly pointless, other than to set up the villain of the sequel. And Mark Strong, who is always good, really does not have all that much to do, but still makes a suitable villain, though the story could have used a bit more direct interaction between Holmes and Blackwood. Another issue, arising from the Blackwood character is that it was interesting and kind of cool that the dark magic seemed real, putting Holmes and Watson off their element, making the revel feel like a let down, and overall hurting the story. Eddie Marsan and Kelly Reilly are good in their small roles (it is nice to see Reilly get in a big American movie, I hope she gets more roles here in the future as she is generally very good). So at the end of the day, Sherlock Holmes is very entertaining, but hollow, surviving (if not succeeding) on the fine work of its actors. 7/10