Drive

‘Drive’ is the story of a ‘driver’ (Ryan Gosling), a man who is never named. He works in a garage but moonlights as a stunt driver, a budding racing driver and as a getaway driver for the local criminals. That’s a lot of driving.

He’s a bit of a loner, who doesn’t go much for words or even facial expressions. Although he does break in to a smirk of sorts when he finds out he’s got Carey Mulligan (who plays Irene) living next door.

Then Mulligan is at it too, throwing in big deafening silences and long evocative looks, in her case trembly, dewy-eyed and innocent ones. The two of them say so much by not saying anything but it works. In this way she sort of hits on him and he gets involved in her life, befriending her young son Benicio along the way.

You can only assume she’s fallen for Gosling's tough but caring persona and his silent charm, it certainly wasn’t his chat up lines, the few words he does utter are around the toothpick that hangs permanently from his lips. I’m not sure where he put that when he snogged her in the lift, which was the films only departure into passion and that was only as a diversion so that he could kill someone. This is a romance that never goes anywhere but then Mulligan does still only look about fourteen, despite having a son.

Now I’ve gone and mentioned the killing. Gosling's character bursts into violent life mid-film, embracing violence on a sort of ‘Eastern Promises’ level. It kicks off when Irene’s husband Standard (Oscar Isaac), who was in jail, is released on parole and people are keen to settle scores with him. Standard thanks our driver for looking after his wife while he was inside, seemingly oblivious to the chemistry sizzling off the pair of them, even in his presence. The two of them get on and our man offers to do a driving job for Standard to pay off his pursuers but it all goes horribly wrong.

The violence then gets ratcheted up with the driver doing a hatchet job on all the mobsters who come to get him until it’s a case of last man standing. Some of the scenes are accompanied by the sort of gallows humour that is right out of the Tarantino scrapbook.

Overall it’s an absorbing piece of cinema. Some would call it slow but I’d call it tense and involving. The soundtrack is pulsating, the cinematography great and the dialogue lean, obviously. Even the car chases, of which there are plenty, don’t irritate like they normally would.

Acting wise, Gosling is great, the man gets more impressive with each film he does. Mulligan is good too and backed by a strong supporting cast of mobsters. One of the best films of 2011 or 2012 depending on when you see it.

My Week With Marilyn

‘My Week With Marilyn’ is based on the memoirs of a guy called Colin Clark. Clark was a twenty-three year old who made himself so annoying hanging around the offices of Laurence Olivier’s production company that they eventually give him a job, probably just to get rid of him. It turned out to be some job. When Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams) comes to England in 1956 to film ‘The Sleeping Prince’ which was to become ‘The Prince And The Showgirl’, Clark (Eddie Redmayne) is hired as the third assistant director, or general dogsbody, for the film.

This film is not particularly meant to be a biopic of Marilyn Monroe but it does give a great insight into the craziness of her world. Monroe was a total nightmare to work with. The film portrays her as not some much a great actor but as a great star. One that was an immense frustration to Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) as she repeatedly messed up her lines and was constantly late arriving on set, that is when she turned up at all.

When she did she was constantly babied by her acting coach Paula Strasberg (Zoe Wanamaker) who spoon fed her most of her lines.

Meanwhile Clark, who had spent most of his time on set drooling after the film’s star, suddenly ends up being the go-between between Monroe and the production team. She takes a bit of a liking to him and he becomes her confidant, sympathising with her troubles while trying to get her to return to the film set. He gets to spend a week with her, taking her on, among other things, a tour of Eton, which somehow ends up with Monroe skinny dipping in front of him in a river.

We’re like in fantasy land for a young lad of that era or I suppose any male of that era. Unlike everyone else Clark can see through her many flaws and see the vulnerable person she really is. Lust can do this for you.

Of course the last thing you need when you're hoping for a tumultuous one night stand with the biggest sex symbol in the world is for Emma Watson to be hanging around on set, working I think in the costume department.

Clark dates Lucy (Watson) and seems to be in with a great chance of finding the back of the net, she is more his level, which is admittedly still some level but then there’s Marilyn... Would he be able to look the lads in the eye down the pub on a Friday night if he didn’t at least give it a go... Marilyn Monroe or Hermione Grainger? Tough call. It begs the question just how a big a star is it acceptable to cheat on a potential girlfriend with... Lucy doesn’t take his pursuit of Monroe well but she’ll get over it. Perhaps.

It's not really a film that really goes anywhere but it’s the acting that makes this film, in what is an excellent cast that also includes Dominic Cooper and the acting institution that is Judi Dench, as is enshrined in law. She plays Sybil Thorndike, who was in the 1950’s appropriately enough was also a Dame and an institution herself.

The main plaudits though go to Michelle Williams, who really throws herself into the role of Marilyn Monroe and does an extraordinary job. You believe she's Monroe. A cert for an Oscar nomination you would think. Also Kenneth Branagh who’s portrayal of Laurence Olivier was also superb. Loved it.

Arthur Christmas

We take our seats for Arthur Christmas, an Aardman production, which turns out to be informative stuff. It appears that the title ‘Santa Claus’ is actually a sort of hereditary peerage handed down from father to son. The current incumbent of the title is Malcolm Christmas (Jim Broadbent) who was passed the title from his father, the now retired Grand Santa (Bill Nighy). Malcolm is expected to retire this year to hand over the ‘reigns’ (ha ha ha) to his eldest Steve (Hugh Laurie). Steve is the smart arse currently in charge of the North Pole Command Centre that tracks the Santa ‘project’ across the world. Meanwhile his younger son Arthur (James McAvoy) can only look on in wonder, from the post room to where he has been banished, as he's accident waiting to happen.

Christmas night is now a high-tech military operation involving thousands of elves and a giant spaceship in order to get millions of presents delivered in one night. Now it all makes sense at last.

This year’s operation at first appears to be a great success and much to Steve’s annoyance, with Mrs. Santa (Imelda Staunton) by his side, Malcolm postpones his retirement. All though is not as it appears, one child has been missed and their present, a new bike, remains undelivered.

Steve refuses to attempt to deliver the missing gift being more than happy to accept that one minor blip has occurred in his operation, one present out of millions, not a bad ratio. So it is left to Arthur and Grand Santa, assisted by Bryony (Ashley Jensen), the elf from the Wrapping Department, to go on a renegade delivery mission using the olden day methods of sleigh and reindeers (albeit ones on drugs, they snort magic fumes to power them through the sky). All to ensure that one little girl is not the child Santa forgot.

The idea behind the film is original, fun and very creative, at first. The film loses its way badly in the middle third of the film where too much mayhem ensues as our ‘heroes’ get repeatedly lost and into many sticky situations. It cheapens a great idea and feels extraneous.

Eventually, perhaps half an hour too late, we meander our way to the expected heart warming finale that eventually just about saves the film. Good stuff but should have been better.

Tinker Tailor Solider Spy

Now I remember the 1970’s BBC TV Series of John le Carre's 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy'. I vaguely recall it at the time but have re-watched it since, although even that would have been some time ago. I found the series fascinating but it also baffled the hell out of me and that was a seven part series that had over five hours to tame the meandering plot. The new film version however intends to do this in just over two hours...

So perhaps they’ll cut out those long pregnant pauses of unspoken dialogue and those lingering meaningful stares that didn’t convey very much... Nope.

Like the TV series the film nonchalantly tosses little bits of raw information or ‘hints’ at it’s largely unsuspecting audience and says make of that what you will. It is not big on explanations. In fact so little is made of the revelation of some vitally important points that you’re likely to miss them. So concentrate, don’t blink. Don’t even think about going to the toilet.

Essentially there is a double agent, a mole, amongst the heads of British intelligence, known here as the ‘Circus’. At the time all this was very current affairs, now it’s a 1970’s cold war history lesson. Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) is sent to Budapest by boss man ‘Control’ (John Hurt), to bring in a Hungarian General who wants to defect to the west and will reveal the mole's identity but the meeting is a set-up.

The meeting at a Budapest cafe ends with Prideaux shot and taken away to endure months of vicious interrogation, cue a particularly shocking scene, before he is eventually returned to Britain where he is ‘retired’ to live in a tatty caravan and to teach at a public school. Which is very 1970’s, these days even public schools don’t employ shady men who invite young boys into their caravans.

Back at the Circus, Control has died and his deputy George Smiley (Gary Oldman) has been forced to retire in shame at the botched operation. Yet the investigation is reopened when agent Ricki Tarr (Tom Hardy), a loose cannon if ever there was one, turns up with pillow talk corroboration of the mole theory gleaned from a love affair with the wife of a Russian intelligence officer he was tracking. Smiley is subsequently drawn out retirement to track down the mole.

Tarr promises to help Smiley, if he can reunite him with his Russian blonde, a promise he cannot possibly keep. Smiley’s suspicions fall on four men:- Percy Alleline (Toby Jones), who is now head of the Circus and three other top ranking officials, Bill Haydon (Colin Firth), Roy Bland (Ciaran Hinds) and Toby Esterhase (David Dencik).

I’m giving a more linear version here, which the film does not, instead relying on the dreaded flashback. You soon lose count of how many times we end up back at that Lenin themed staff Christmas party.

Assisted by Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley investigates. Talking to the increasingly bitter Prideaux and the sacked head of research Connie Sachs (Kathy Burke) who suspects that the Soviet Cultural Attaché in London is really a spy. Smiley discovers that pages have been removed from the duty officer's log book for the night Jim Prideaux was shot. So he speaks to the duty officer himself, who tells him who was the man in charge that night...

The Circus's Russian intelligence source ‘Merlin’ is looking increasingly dodgy as indeed is the entire operation coded name ‘Witchcraft’. Now who was the man responsible for that, and could the same man simply be shagging Smiley's wife to make any accusations levelled at him by Smiley look like sour grapes.

Having gleaned enough, Smiley set a trap and catches the traitor. If you’ve not blinked the mole’s identity is no great shock and perhaps that’s part of the problem with the film. I think perhaps the film makers knew it too and jazzed up what happened next.

Some say this is a masterpiece. So you're supposed to describe it as compelling, tense, absorbing, involving etc etc and in some ways it was. Some would say dull. In reality, it's probably somewhere in between. It’s well made with strong performances all round. Gary Oldman's portrayal of Alec Guinness, sorry Smiley is excellent. Just gen up big time before you see it.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part Two)

‘It all ends’ here of course. I’m all for that, as long as they hang on a few minutes whilst I quickly revise part one (whilst the adverts are on) and then tee-up the subtitles (Wikipedia) for part two. Now is not a time to get lost.

So, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. The film picks up swiftly from where part one left off, with Johnny No-Nose (Mr Voldemort to you) stealing the awesome elder wand from Dumbledore's tomb. Now I am invincible... and all that... cackle, cackle, cackle etc etc.

Meanwhile our three heroes continue to play hunt the horcrux to undermine Voldemort’s invincibility idea, as usual surviving only by the skin of their teeth.



In one instance stealing a dragon to escape from Gringott's Wizarding Bank, destroying half of London as they go before ending up in a lake. With all three of them soaked to the skin, Harry and Ron take off their wet clothes and share a ‘manly’ torso moment, well, until Ron can no longer hold his stomach in. In the last film it was Harry and Hermione in a topless clinch, I hope this isn’t a weird reworking.

Then with Hermione beginning to unbutton her dress, we all (the men) sit there with bated breath. Go Hermione go, but no, this time she keeps her kit on. That could well have been the moment when you'd wished you'd paid extra for the 3D version but, typical girl, she'd rather be cold and miserable.

Anyhow back to ‘horcrux watch’. Pretty soon they just have two left to destroy. There is Voldemort's snake Nagini and then rather inconveniently they find that there’s one imbedded in Harry himself. Oops, that’s a bit weird and a bit tricky too. Harry says his goodbyes and heads off to sacrifice himself for the greater good.



RIP Harry... or rather not. Let’s just say, he got out of that one nicely. Just don’t ask me to explain it, even Wikipedia didn’t seem sure.

Which brings us to the final battle.



Of course there’s a battle, as there must be, but as ever battles leave me cold despite the wholesale attempted slaughter of the students (nice thought). It’s all a bit too exciting for me, I preferred the doom, gloom and depth of part one but I cope. The film is exciting yes, but it’s mainly the Daniel Radcliffe show, fair enough, while Emma Watson pants and gasps in the right places and Rupert Grint sucks his stomach in and smashes the odd horcrux.

Severus Snape bids a tearful goodbye, slaughtered by Voldemort and his tears, yes his tears, reveal an interesting secret he’s been keeping to himself.



The pleasantly deranged Bellatrix Lestrange checks out too, in a costume that Tim Burton probably has his wife Helena Bonham Carter wearing for the weekend lie-in, and explodes into confetti. An interesting way to die and less messy I guess.

I would say Maggie Smith stole the show, as Professor McGonagall, you’d certainly want her in charge of protecting your castle, if it wasn’t for Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom who steals several scenes.



He has the best line for a start, with a cheery “Well that went well” as they all narrowly escape death, to stepping forward to single handedly denounce the dark lord and slaying Nagini, Voldermort’s snake, the final horcrux. Then all of a sudden Voldemort gasps his last and the movie kind of ends a bit quick.

The big question of course is does Harry get off with Hermione? Afraid not. Then does she get off with Draco Malfoy? Again sadly not, but wouldn’t that have been cool. Oh well, Ron will have to do then. Then we're back at King Cross Station platform 9-3/4, again looking very St Pancras, which must really confuse the American tourists. It's odd that at this point they suddenly leave the CGI paintbrush in its box and don't age the characters much for the final scene nineteen years on with them all packing their own offspring off to Hogwarts. Bless.

The first film came out in 2001, when JK Rowling was still working on book five. Since then its taken ten years, seven books and eight films but the marathon is finally over and I feel like I've run one myself. Like my running, it started well, peaked too soon, flagged a bit in the middle, made you momentarily want to give up, then got its second wind, ran the last stretch well and then tonight sprinted over the line. Just don't ask me for a resume of the whole lot. ‘It all ends’, I think.

Never Let Me Go

Tonight ,‘Never Let Me Go’, not the vampire one. It is based on a book by Kazuo Ishiguro, which I haven’t read. It’s a dark, depressing tale, which opens with a man in hospital on an operating table but soon we get flashbacks to the happier surroundings of a typically English boarding school. The period is the late 1970’s/early 1980’s and it is here at Hailsham that Ruth, Tommy, and Kathy H grow up together. They fall in and out with each other and do all the other things kids do.

Tommy is a bit of a misfit but Kathy is always keen to help him out and he becomes the not so secret love of her life. Their affection is mutual but ultimately he's stolen from her by the jealous and much more confident Ruth.

Boarding school is often a sheltered existence but this school is more sheltered than most, there are no parents in the background, no brothers and sisters at home. The children don’t question it, in fact they don’t question much and when a new teacher (Sally Hawkins) reveals the reason for their existence, and is fired the next day for doing so, they pass it off with a shrug. They had suspected something like that all along. They are human clones, born to exist solely to have their organs harvested once they reach adulthood.

This is an alternative Britain, where life expectancy has risen to over one hundred years because science has eliminated disease by taking organs from clones like them. The dating of this in the past rather than the future is interesting, does the author suspect this goes on now... and the period adds to the ‘1984’ touch the film already has.

When the three of them are old enough to leave ‘school’ they are moved into a farmhouse where clones from other institutions in the ‘National Donor Programme’ reside. The other institutions were more ruthless places. Hailsham was an experiment in treating the donors humanly; elsewhere the clones were treated more like livestock. Now though, for all of them, the clock is ticking. The farmhouses are simply waiting rooms until the day of their donations arrive. Meanwhile Tommy and Ruth are very much an item and consequently the relationship between the two girls gets more strained by the day.



Keira Knightley plays Ruth and I've always had a bit of a problem with Keira’s acting. She’s much the same in this. When the two leading ladies are required to do ‘sad’ Keira does it by quivering her bottom lip as if it's on a puppeteer’s string whereas Carey Mulligan, who plays Kathy, does it with every part of her face. Different class. Although the rivers of tears were perhaps a bit overdone by the special effects department.



Roll on a few years to 1996. Kathy is now a carer, the only recognised way to dodge the knife for a year or two. Carers help the others through the donation process until eventually they too have to face their own demise. She comes across Ruth, who she hasn’t seen for years, in one of the hospitals. Ruth has already made two donations. No one usually survives a third and they’ll be no Holby City style cardiac team rushing around trying to save a donor. They are simply said to have ‘completed’ and it’s Goodnight Vienna.

Ruth leads Kathy to Tommy (Andrew Garfield), who has also made multiple donations. At which point Ruth apologizes to them both for stealing Tommy. Just a touch bloody late love.



Although... had Tommy already donated his brain at that point, so that he was unable to choose between the two girls for himself? Ruth clearly thoughtlessly forced him to have night after night of raucous sex with her, against his will, and in Kathy’s face, when they all lived in the farmhouse together.

This does though tally with the theme of passive acceptance that runs throughout. There is no fight in any of them. Their situation is seemingly just one more thing to add to the long list of things a teenager can get pissed off about but CBA to find a solution to.



I guess, the point is supposed to be that they have been bred and raised to accept their fate, just like farm animals and farm animals don’t tend to plot revolution. People though are not farm animals and although she claims to regret it now, Ruth did at least have the balls to embark on a passionate affair during her short life. While the other two generally just wandered around looking lost. Kathy would probably never have gotten around to jumping Tommy even if they’d been given another 50 years to live. She only pairs up with him now, in 1996, because Ruth throws them together and equally it’s Ruth who persuades them to seek out their former guardians to find out if the rumour that people who are in love can be given a deferral, a few more years of life, is true. It isn’t. This though shows that there's perhaps a little fight in them somewhere.

Yet nobody, not even Ruth, rebelled in the face of the establishment. No one ever tried to run away. Would anyone have tried to stop them if they had? Who knows? They had wrist bands to clock in and out of the farmhouse but other than that... nothing, no watchtowers, no razor wire. What's the worst thing that could have happened to them? Death? ‘Never Let Me Go’ isn't a story that is big on answers.

Instead their fate is chillingly accepted and the utter passivity of the three of them is heartbreaking but also quite annoying.



So, no, the story does not have a happy ending. There is to be no final twist. In the concluding scene Kathy stares out across the fields, both her friends are now gone, her carer duties are completed and her first donation is scheduled. Although she can at least reflect on the fact that she did finally get to slip into bed with what was left of Tommy and thankfully found something that had yet to be donated.

In her life, as I guess in ours, there are no deferrals, no second chances. In the end we are all powerlessness to prevent death. It comes to everyone and always too soon, perhaps leaving us all thinking that we've not had enough time to do what we wanted to do.

This was a difficult film to make I would imagine and ‘Never Let Me Go’ is very good, to a point. It is dark, tragic and thought provoking, yet it's exasperating because it’s difficult to get attached to any of the characters or their unfulfilled love affairs and therefore the overall impact is perhaps not as great as it could have been. Still, I do love an unhappy ending.

Submarine

Tonight ‘Submarine’ which has been getting some approving write-ups, although it could just be another ‘coming of age’ story and it is Ben Stiller's production company... still we give it ago.

Fifteen year old Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts), with his Paddington Bear duffle coat, is probably the sort of kid you tried to avoid at school. He’s a bit of a loner and consequentially, a magnet for bulling. He’s also a bit of a fantasist and the film opens with him imagining the national outpouring of grief should he die. Well in Wales anyway, which is where this story is set. Still, it’s unlikely.

The story is narrated by Oliver himself and he talks us through what is a well observed insight into the ‘hell’ of teenage life in a time before computers, mobile phones and social networking. To everyone's surprise and particularly his own, a female classmate takes an interest in him. Jordana Bevan (Yasmin Paige) is (slightly) more worldly wise than Oliver but equally as quirky, only in different ways, and comes with her own duffle coat.



They start an unlikely romance, although she bans any form of affection, at least in public. Her idea of romance is to set fire to his leg hairs, which Oliver is fine with but desperate to lose his virginity, he would happily put up with worse. In fact, Jordana is pretty much a complete mystery to Oliver, your typical opaque teenage girl. However, things go better than you would expect and they form a relationship built on a shared love of setting fire to things and bullying, although the bullying part is totally against Oliver’s principles but he knows he has to compromise, if he’s to get his end away.



His chance comes when he gets the house to himself one night and woos her with a prawn cocktail and a terrible seduction scene that sees her running for the door. However Jordana returns when she reads the note he gave her thanking her for taking his virginity... even though she didn’t, but he still gave her the note. She takes him back upstairs to do the honours.

Oliver tries to lift their relationship above mere arson and other minor misdemeanours by taking her to see ‘The Passion Of Joan Of Arc’, a silent film from 1928, and offering her King Lear, JD Salinger and Nietzsche to read, but she still prefers the arson and of course setting fire to his leg hairs. Well there’s always the sex. She does though gradually lower her guard, invites him into her life and even takes him home to meet her family.

Alongside this ‘romance’ is the story of Oliver’s parents, Jill (Sally Hawkins) and Lloyd (Noah Taylor) and their marriage, which is on the rocks. Oliver knows this because his parents haven’t left the dimmer switch in their bedroom on low for months, meaning they haven’t been getting up to what he has.



Despite this, his father, a depressive man who is the Open University professor personified (lifted straight off a 1970's TV screen), yes that once was his job, offers relationship advice to Oliver. Well, he did once rip off his vest in a fit of passion. He also presents Oliver with a mix tape of music to soundtrack his relationships. Complete with upbeat songs for the good times and depressive ones for the inevitable break-up.



The main reason for his parent’s rocky spell is Graham (Paddy Considine), an ex-boyfriend of his mothers’, and now a flamboyant new age ‘I am a prism’ mystic ‘ninja’, who has now moved in next door. A man who deserves everything he gets.



Oliver tries to help save his parents' marriage but ends up doing anything but. From his teenage point of view I guess all his actions made sense, whereas from our point of view they didn’t, which I imagine is the point. The film kind of mocks adolescence and gets its laughs by exposing the difference between Oliver’s interpretation of events and reality.

The film is amusing but to say it’s a comedy, as has been advertised, would do it a huge disservice, it’s more than that. In fact I enjoyed the drama more than the humour. Although the audience tonight frequently got the two mixed up. Like at Jordana's house, in a moment that was supposed to be poignant. Jordana's mum has a brain tumour and when the whole family started to fall apart in Oliver’s presence, Oliver didn’t know where to put himself. It was affecting and painful but not funny.

Oliver is a brilliant caricature of a deeply serious teenager, who is as equally endearing as he is appalling. Horrifically he plans to assassinate Jordana's dog to teach her about grief but thankfully it doesn’t happen. The dog gets run over by a train before he gets chance. Yet, he still gets his chance to be a bastard to her. When she requests his presence at the hospital for emotional support when her mum has a life saving operation, he stands her up. At a time when she needed him most and for what we see as no good reason.



She dumps him and he flips his father’s mix tape over to listen to the break up side from which pours Alex Turner’s solo début. Which is perhaps a bit too modern for a professor straight out of the 1970’s but we’ll let that pass.

An excellent film, about the horrors of growing up and some, perhaps a bit Adrian Mole-esque at times but hugely enjoyable.

The Fighter

You can't say that Marky Mark isn't diverse. From the ‘Funky Bunch’ to Calvin Klein underwear to ‘Boogie Nights’ and an acting career. Now Mark Wahlberg is even producing films and in the case of ‘The Fighter’ both starring in them as well as producing.

‘The Fighter’ is actually based on a true story. It is the tale of ‘Irish’ Micky Ward (Wahlberg) a fighter trying to make a go of it in the ring. One of his coaches is his half-brother, Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale). Dicky was a boxer himself in the 1970’s and 80’s. His main claim to fame being his 1978 bout with Sugar Ray Leonard which made him somewhat of a local legend. Dicky still tells the tale of that fight, over and over again, where he knocked down Sugar Ray. Even though Sugar Ray may have tripped... and went on to win the fight.

Now years on, Eklund is being followed by a film crew, who he believes are making a documentary about his possible boxing comeback. In truth though, Dicky is now a shadow of his former self and the film crew are more interested in his drug addiction.

This habit makes Dicky an unreliable coach and he’s always late for training sessions. Micky’s manager would probably fire him; that is if his manager wasn’t his domineering mother Alice (Melissa Leo). Dicky and Alice organise all Micky’s fights for him but things have not gone well recently. Micky has become known simply as a stepping stone for other boxers on their way up to better fights.



The opening of the film is slightly annoying as we are introduced to the close knit but slightly dysfunctional family headed by the overbearing mother and with half a dozen or so even more annoying sisters. Once the film gets going though, it’s rather good.



After losing four consecutive bouts and being pushed, by Alice and Dicky because they all needed the money, into an unwinnable fight against a fighter from a higher weight division, Micky come to a realisation. He has tried to remain loyal to his family but it is costing him his career. They are holding him back and he knows it. If he wants to get anywhere in the boxing world, something needs to change.

When Micky hooks up with local barmaid Charlene (Amy Adams), she gives him the impetuous to do it and helps him pull free from his suffocating family. Which, of course, they don't thank her for. Adams is way out of her usual comfort zone in this film, this being a far more serious role than anything I’ve seen her do before and she does brilliantly.



When Dicky winds up in jail, both brothers eventually start to get their respective acts together. Dicky finally kicks the drug habit while Micky gets new management involved and starts boxing again. Mickey O'Keefe is now his sole coach. O'Keefe is a sergeant in the Police and in real life was the mentor of Micky Ward. O'Keefe plays himself, as in fact does Sugar Ray Leonard, who has a small part.

Micky moves up the ranks but still there in the background are his family, his brother still offering advice even from his prison cell. Then Micky gets a shot at the World Welterweight title against Shea Neary. Problem is, with Dicky now released from prison, can he reconcile his family with his girlfriend and his coach and get everyone on side for the biggest fight of his life?



Underneath it all Dicky turns out to be a nice guy, someone you'd actually want in your corner. Though, I’m still not sure about the mother. I didn't really know Melissa Leo before this. Her character is so annoying Leo must have done a really good job.



The cast are the real strength of this film, in which Bale is outstanding. It is much more than just a film about boxing and the main 'fighting’ take place not in the ring but outside it. Another good film, in a good year so far.

True Grit

‘True Grit’ has been remade by the Coen Brothers, which becomes the second remake I've seen this year and it’s only February. I hate remakes almost as much as I hate sequels. The Coens have attempted to justify their new film by saying they wanted to 'go back to the source material' of Charlie Portis' novel and do a more faithful adaptation rather than a remake of the 1969 film starring John Wayne. Which I think was a pretty good film first time around... wasn't it? It’s just a hazy memory and I haven’t read the book either.

The Great Lebowski himself, Jeff Bridges, plays Rooster Cogburn and Matt Damon is Texas Ranger ‘La Beef’ or LaBoeuf even. The undoubted star though is young Hailee Steinfeld, who is outstanding as a headstrong teenager, 14-year-old Mattie Ross. A stubborn girl who will stop at nothing to revenge her father's death. Not difficult casting though, just get a stubborn teenager to play a stubborn teenager, there's plenty around.



As she continually proves throughout the film she is well capable of taking care of herself, except perhaps when guns are involved. In her pursuit of the man who murdered her father, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), she seeks out Cogburn. Cogburn is a Federal Marshall with a reputation for not bringing in his prisoners alive, which endears him to Mattie. Unfortunately he is as equally effective at getting drunk as he is at killing.



I have a problem with one aspect of Rooster. At times you need subtitles to understand what he’s saying because his rambling is totally incoherent at times. The Coen's are big on accents, so I've no doubt they got the accent they wanted but when you add in that he’s a drunk as well... subtitles please. That's not something I usually say, I’m not into subtitles.



Beefy too is looking for Chaney but for another crime he committed, so he and Cogburn team up and set off in pursuit but refuse to take a ‘girl’ into Indian territory. Mattie is having none of that and she chases them down. They reluctantly accept her and set off across terrain where it always seems to be snowing, just like Sheffield.



Cogburn’s general behaviour and particularly his drinking soon cause Mattie to lose faith in him. She is right to be disillusioned as the trail to finding Chaney goes cold and only by chance do they eventually find him.

The film is actually a bit simple for the Coens. You keep looking for the hidden meanings but there aren't any. It’s just a straightforward, decent film and it’s much funnier than I expected. Rooster even turns out to be a bit of a hero in the end.

Good film but... I'm still not sure why they made it.

Brighton Rock

I hate remakes of anything and a remake of a film that is highly regarded as a classic of its time, such as ‘Brighton Rock’, should really be avoided at all costs. I haven’t, shamefully, read Graham Greene's book, nor had I, until last week, seen the original 1947 film and perhaps that is why I rather liked this remake.

The book and the film were set in the 1930’s but this remake by Rowan Joffe has shifted the action to 1964 and makes a few slight plot changes. This was bound to upset the purists, just like modernized versions of Shakespeare do but I kind of like those too. Personally I think if you're going to do a remake, at least do something a bit different with it. Straight copies are pointless.

So out goes the mob era and in comes a backdrop out of Quadrophenia. e.g. mods on mopeds on Brighton promenade, only it’s not. We had to go see this film because 1960’s Brighton has been recreated in Eastbourne and we were there when they filmed it. The dogs, well one particular dog, barked all the way through the filming, so there we sit in the cinema straining our ears trying to see if they’ve edited him out or not.



In this version, we get more of an intro and a bit more background to the characters. Not that this makes any different to the likeability of teenage sociopath and wannabe gangster, Pinkie Brown. Richard Attenborough was brilliantly sinister as Pinkie in the original, here Sam Riley (you know Ian Curtis) takes on the scowl but somehow he doesn’t seem as menacing as Attenborough. He's more moody teenager with an attitude problem than a gangster. The effect is much the same though. We feel zero sympathy for his character. Not that we feel any either for Rose (Andrea Riseborough), the nice Catholic waitress who falls for this moody Catholic thug.

Pinkie has murdered ‘Fred’ Hale, a man from a rival gang, and is prepared to cover his tracks by any means necessary. Rose is a potential witness to his crime, so in a bid to shut her up he pushes her into a sham relationship with him. Romancing her is not hard, the poor deluded girl immediately falls for him, hook, line and sinker even though he ignores her most of the time. What does she see him? Though suppose that’s a question we often ask ourselves of people today.



An explanation of sorts is offered when they visit the tower block where Rose lives. A tower block that looks very rundown, particularly considering tower blocks were a bright new idea in the 60’s. Rose lives with her father, a man who is as controlling as Pinkie is. So at least she’ll feel at home with him. Pinkie barters with her father for her hand in marriage, which will prevent her being forced to testify against him until he can find the moment to dispense with her permanently. In the end her father effectively sells her for £150.



Amidst all these crazy Catholics comes the level headed Ida Arnold (Helen Mirren) who is determined to unearth the truth and rescue Rose from the nutter she has betroved herself to.



It was a difficult film to remake but having bothered, I think they made a pretty good fist of it. Very enjoyable. Riley is good enough as Pinkie, as is Riseborough as Rose, well pathetic enough at least. It all ends in tragedy of course and I do love an unhappy ending. The classic scene remains, as in the original, when Rose cajoles him into making a record of his voice in a recording booth on the pier. On record he makes it pitifully clear that he despises her and her failure to ever find out what he said on that record makes a touching finale...