Damned United

Our film choice tonight is the 'Damned United' which is supposedly about Brian Clough's infamous 44 days in charge at Leeds United in 1974 but actually turns out to be more about his time at Derby County. This certainly endears it to me. Perhaps they had to cut all the Leeds stuff out after all the lawsuits that have been mooted. The film is based on the book by David Peace, which is a mixture of the facts and his own ideas of what might have been going on behind the scenes.

I had quite a few reservations about going to see it. They said a lot of it was made up and they portrayed Clough in a bad light but I disagree. The Derby side of the story was mostly accurate and I though Clough came out of it pretty favourably. There was only one scene of him drinking, they hardly portrayed him as a drunk, as apparently the book did.

Michael Sheen plays Clough, he who did Tony Blair in The Queen, so at first it's a little difficult to take him seriously but he is actually rather good as Cloughie, delivering all those famous Clough quotes.



Don Revie (well played by Colm Meaney) was once Clough's idol but the reason he grew to hate Revie was apparently because he did not shake his hand when Leeds came to Derby and beat them in the FA Cup Third Round in 1968.

The film flicks backwards and forwards between his brief time at Leeds and his much longer spell at Derby but there is a helpful graphic that rolls the years backwards and forwards so that flashback averse folk like me can keep up. The film uses a lot of archive footage, to which they cleverly superimposed the actors from the film over their real life equivalents.

The 1970's football scene is captured well and the stadiums recreated in all their dilapidated glory. Not sure Derby's Baseball Ground was ever quite that ramshackle but it was a good effort. Did 1970's dressing rooms really have ashtrays for each player? It was an age when many tackles were actually cases of GBH of which Leeds were (allegedly) the masters but they were also a very good side, as two championships show. Although it's hard to believe that when you look at the physical state of some of the actors chosen to play the Leeds players. Many of them seemed too old; Bremner and Clarke wouldn’t see 40 again. Others though were good likenesses.



If anything, it would have been nice to have had more of the Leeds side of the story. The players were described as Revie's surrogate sons but little was shown of the Don Revie era, so we don't really get a feel for that.



Yes, there were inaccuracies and also some stuff surprisingly left out. No mention was made of the fact that the teams met again in 1968 in the League Cup Semi-Final as Clough started to weave his magic at Derby. Although Leeds won both legs, Clough's revenge did actually came much quicker than in the film, as Derby beat Leeds 4-1 in their first home game against them after being promoted in 1969. The 2-1 win in the film never happened and the 5-0 drubbing that was highlighted actually came much later in the 1972-73 season after Derby were crowned champions.
In fact little is made of Derby pipping Leeds to the title that year, you'd have thought Clough would have crowed a bit about that particular victory.

Jim Broadbent is excellent as Sam Longson, Derby's chairman and Clough leaves Derby when 'Uncle' Sam takes seriously his resignation attempt. In truth Longson is glad to be shut of him. Clough's assistant Peter Taylor (Timothy Spall) persuades him to take over at lowly Brighton and the sequence of events was changed here too. I've no idea why. Clough and Taylor were actually in charge at Brighton for 32 games and not as the film implied, that Clough left before he even started work there. They could have included some of their time at Brighton and he also didn't go back after he left Leeds.



The film suggests that he took the Leeds job because he wanted to eclipse Revie's achievements there. Not that it works out that way at Leeds. He upset all the players from day one when he told them to throw all their medals in the bin because they hadn't won anyone of them fairly. He never got the dressing room back after that and was dismissed after seven games.

He got the last laugh in the end and did pretty well at Nottingham Forest, whilst Revie failed as England manager and was then charged with bringing the game into disrepute when he left to manage the UAE.

The film is less of a film, more of an interesting history lesson and despite the inaccuracies, it's a good one. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Woody Allen has always been a taste that I've never quite acquired but tonight we go see 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona', his latest 'return to form'. Don't they say that every time? It's basically another of his films about relationships.

Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) are spending the summer in Barcelona. Vicky is there to study and at the end of the summer she is committed to marrying Doug, probably the safest man in the Northern Hemisphere. Cristina meanwhile is committed to nothing and only knows what she doesn't want, rather than what she does. They are two girls with differing views on a lot of things but especially on the subject of love and relationships.

They meet a divorced painter called Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) who propositions them. He invites them to spend a weekend with him in Oviedo, where they will sightsee, drink wine, and, he hopes, make love. Cristina being the adventurous type and intrigued by Juan Antonio, who is rumoured to have a violent marriage behind him, accepts at once. Vicky is the opposite, straight-laced, conventional, and cautious. She is appalled at the very idea and refuses but reluctantly comes along to keep Cristina company.



Juan Antonio is as good as his word. He takes them sightseeing, plies them with wine, and invites both girls to his room. Vicky still declines and although Cristina tries to play hard to get, she isn't very good at it. Then just when they are about to get it on (or off, if you prefer) Cristina develops an ulcer and is too ill for any passion.



So for the rest of the weekend Vicky has to take up the baton and go sightseeing with Juan Antonio but of course without the passion. Cue yet more wine and when Juan Antonio discovers that she has a weakness for the romantic sound of the Spanish guitar, you just know where it's going to end up. After a guitar concert in the park, Vicky succumbs to his charms. This is where the film lost me. It just seemed so out of character for staid old Vicky to give in so easily and after so little effort from Juan Antonio or perhaps all women that easily swayed, if you strum the right strings.



When they return to Barcelona, Vicky reverts to type and keeps quiet about queue jumping her friend, so Juan Antonio returns to plan A and the much easier to seduce Cristina. Glad of a second chance, Cristina wastes no time jumping into his bed and then moves into his house. Sorted. Until the ex-wife appears.

The ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz), has attempted suicide and Juan Antonio lets her move back in with him... and Cristina. Cristina seems to not be bothered about this.

Now things get a bit crazy, Maria Elena completely rewrites the situation by suggesting that Cristina was in fact the missing link in her marriage. Cue the three indulging in sexual tryst. Cristina confesses all to Vicky, who seems secretly jealous of her friend, stuck as she is with boring old Doug who she has now married after he came out to Barcelona.



All though is not well in the love triangle for Cristina and she moves out, cue another bust up between Juan Antonio and Maria Elena. Oh well thinks Juan Antonio back to Plan B and invites Vicky to his home for lunch. Just as she is about to allow herself to be ravished again in walks a gun toting Maria Elena. Vicky is shot in the hand and in the process finally gets over her Spanish lover boy.

So Vicky goes back to dull Doug and Cristina is still Cristina not knowing what she wants. They all end up back where they began.

Odd fare. A film with many unexpected but never very gripping plot twists. It was an implausible story about some pretty uninteresting characters and I think that was the problem. The acting was decent, though I can't work out whether Scarlett Johansson is a good actress playing a dumb blonde or a dumb blonde playing a dumb blonde.

Marley And Me

It's my girlfriend's fault. It all started when I got the usual pleading 'please take me' email and being the dutiful partner, that I am, I naturally obliged but I should have known better. I should have trusted my natural instinct and stuck with Coen Brothers films, Che double bills or even something with Leonardo DiCaprio in it. Ok, so perhaps that's pushing it.

Now don't get me wrong, 'Marley and Me' is decent enough film and full of doggie humour, but it really should have been given an 18 certificate. It's horrific, it's no cuddly dog story. It's certainly not suitable for young children or even sensitive forty-something's for that matter. It's quite simply the most harrowing film I've seen in years, probably since 'Lassie Come Home'.

The film is based on the memoirs of John Grogan and about how his dog, Marley, influenced his life. The 'plot' is incidental really, yes there are people in it but the only character development that happens or that matters is that of Marley.

John (Owen Wilson) takes the plunge out of the 'dream' life of a single male, that his friend Sebastian prefers, and into wedded life with Jennifer Aniston. Not too bad a plunge when you think about it. Both are journalists and after their wedding they move to Florida. At which point John brings another blonde into his life and in an attempt to short circuit his wife's 'biological clock' buys her a Labrador puppy. They nickname him 'clearance puppy' because he was going cheap for reasons that soon become apparent. Deciding not to call him 'Bob', John christens him 'Marley' instead. For this point onwards their lives are never the same again but if you've a dog owner, you'll know that that would be the case.

As Marley grows up he never he loses his puppy energy and destructive streak. No object is beyond the capabilities of his teeth, which all sounds spookily familiar. Marley proves almost un-trainable and even humps the dog trainer, played by Kathleen Turner. John sums Marley up as the simply the world's worst dog.

He is also there to intrude on their most private moments; although quite how those full wine glasses remained upright I'm not sure. He also embarrasses John when he is house hunting and plunges into the swimming pool. Yep, that happens.



Instead of chucking him in the skip, although at times Aniston is clearly tempted, but like a child, and again there you're tempted, a pet is not someone you give up on because they are hard work. Well not for most of us. In the end, she realizes that Marley is, and always has been, an integral part of the family.



Meanwhile life goes on but Marley remains the constant denominator throughout. They try for kids, at first they miscarry, and then they manage three of them. There is a stabbing in their neighbourhood, so they up sticks and move. John has by now become a successful columnist and bases most of his articles on Marley's antics. I must mention Alan Arkin who is rather good as his editor but enough about the people. This film's about a dog.



So is it a good film? Well probably not. In fact I'm sure it's a lousy movie if you're not a dog owner. Someone without a dog would just see it as a mediocre chick flick with a silly dog in it and if you've seen one Jennifer Aniston romance you've probably seen them all. Perhaps the film doesn't try hard enough to make non-dog lovers love Marley because he's mostly shown destroying something. Us dog owners know that the rest of the time your dog is loyal, adorable and your best friend but not enough of that was shown.

I take the view that it's a memoir and can therefore gloss over the flaws. The problem with this memoir is that having been shown a period in John's life and all of Marley's, I suppose we had to be there to the bitter end. So if you've a dog lover, I warn you that if you go see this film you need to know what you're getting yourself into and don't forget the tissues.



As Marley grew older and his legs started to go, I saw what was coming and I spent the last thirty minutes or so of the film trying to prepare myself for the inevitable. The whole film connected with me on a personal level because it jolted back memories of the three dogs my parents had when I was younger, that I watched grow up, mature and then leave us and of my two back at home.

When the ending finally came it was far harder to take than I had anticipated, partly because it was way too long and emotional. It was absolutely excruciating stuff for any dog owner, who knows that one day he'll be having that final conversation with his best pal on the vet's operating table. As Marley slowly closes his eyes, knowing that his duty to his family is finally done, John tells him 'You're a great dog' and there's not a dry eye in the cinema. I'm sure there were grown men crying out loud or were they all biting on their knuckles, as I was, to muffle the sobs.

In the end it was quite a realistic portrayal of what owning a dog means. I wonder if John got himself another dog and if he didn't, what the hell did he write his columns about?

Revolutionary Road

It's the 1950's, Frank and April Wheeler, but we’ll call them Leo and Kate, are living the American dream in a nice suburb somewhere on Revolutionary Road. Everything seems great on the outside, but in reality neither is happy. Kate wanted to be an actress but she was crap at it so she became a housewife instead. Leo hates his office job but has no idea what else he could do instead. Leo at least livens up his dreary day by takes a dip in the typing pool but Kate, stuck at home, just becomes the bored housewife from hell and quivers that bottom lip, which has been cut and pasted from ‘The Reader’. Other than that, not much happens. It's rumoured they had kids but you only see them a couple of times, I think they got taken into care. It's perhaps all true to life but it makes odd cinema and it’s hard to feel sorry for either of them.



Then Kate suggests that they move to Paris, just because they can. They don’t have to be like everyone else in the suburbs. They can escape their rut of repetition and have a life instead. She'll work as a secretary for one of the big organizations whilst Leo becomes a kept man so that he can find himself. A good offer but Leo’s a bit sceptical, after all what's life without the typing pool, but Kate quivers that lip and talks him round.



Cue a few minutes of bliss and Leo even jumps her in the kitchen but it's probably not the best eighteen seconds (approx) of her life. Then it all falls apart, it's a costly eighteen seconds as Kate falls pregnant and Leo gets offered a, too good to turn down, promotion at work. The lip quivers some more and their relationship deteriorates. Of course had this film been set in the modern day, Kate would have just taken the boat tickets, the kids and gone.

Poor old Kate, looking a bit haggard I'm afraid, can't even get a decent shag. In frustration she indulges her neighbour Shep (get down boy) who has been panting after her even since they moved in. He takes his chance after Kate's had one too many one night but he can't even match up to Leo's standards.



Kate decides she wants rid of the baby and when the smoking and drinking heavily during pregnancy fails to work, she goes for the DIY home abortion kit instead. At the end you hope Kate is going to shoot herself, in fact you hope she shoots Leo first then herself but no, the abortion goes wrong and she bleeds to death. After Kate dies Leo is shown running down the street, presumably to the nearest bridge to throw himself off but that doesn't happen either. Depressing - yes, but nowhere near depressing enough.

Michael Shannon, steals the film as John, the mentally 'ill' neighbour who's been through the electric shock treatment. He tells it how it is and unsubtly hammers home the message but does it with panache. He was Oscar nominated for the role, where he lost out to that dead guy.

I have to say that my partner loved the film but then she's read the book, I got the impression that a lot of useful background information was missing, including all the character development. The film opens when Kate and Leo meet at a party and you are left to assume they actually liked each other at this point. Then almost immediately the film fast forwards seven years to when they hate each other. Cue lots of yelling and screaming. Whether this was a progressive falling out or whether they just woke up one day and smelt the coffee, I don't know, we’re not told. There are a couple of short flashbacks but any others must have ended up on the cutting room floor.



It's a very pretty, well made film but I can't help feeling it was just a vehicle for Kate and Leo. I think the story got lost somewhere along the way.

Great Gatsby (1974)

The film, made in 1974 and not a huge success at the time, seemed to stick very closely to F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel.

We are sometime in the 1920’s, when Nick Carraway moves into a modest Long Island cottage next door to the large mansion that belongs to the mysterious Jay Gatsby. A man who frequently throws lavish parties but rarely bothers to attend them himself. Gatsby is played by Robert Redford, who somehow to me, just didn't seem right for the role.

Nick is gradually drawn into Gatsby's world, the world of the decadent upper-class, helped by the fact that Nick's cousin, Daisy Buchanan, and Gatsby were once lovers. Gatsby is still totally in lust with Daisy, although she is now married to the immensely dislikeable Tom, who could give her the life of privilege she so desired because five years ago Gatsby had nothing. That’s some women for you; chase the wallet and not the heart. Since then Gatsby had worked his way up the moneyed scale via some highly dubious means.



Now with Nick’s help, because Gatsby comes over as a bit on a wimp on the seduction front, they restart their affair. All this happens amidst a series of indiscretions by, well just about everyone. Daisy's husband Tom brazenly carries on his own infidelity with Myrtle Wilson, the local garage mechanic's wife. While Nick himself longs to get physical with another high society babe, Jordan Baker, but seems to be the one getting the least action.



Naturally they’re all heading for a fall and the film builds slowly towards this. I found the book slowly paced, and it's only like a pamphlet, but the film takes things on to a new, two and a half hour level.

The story culminates in tragedy, several deaths and perhaps a dose of the ‘just desserts’. Myrtle is run down by Daisy but Gatsby carries the bullet for it, literally, despatched by Myrtle’s husband, the only moral person in the story. Who then turns the gun on himself. Despite this triple tragedy, high society and in particular Daisy and Tom carry on regardless, without a care to what had happened. Only Nick and Gatsby’s father attend his funeral.

A pleasant and glitzy period film but not exactly riveting, I’m afraid.

Che Part 2: The Guerilla

'Che Part 2: The Guerilla', jumps forward six years and a lot has happened in the meantime. Che has married one of his troops, Aleida. He has also committed several murders for the cause in Cuba but this is skipped over. As is his part in the Cuba Missile Crisis and there is no further explanation of his appearances at the United Nations as featured in part one. What also isn't mentioned is his visits to many other countries and in particularly when her tries to help the guerrillas in Congo.



Instead the film restarts with him travelling to Bolivia to help the revolutionaries there. It then becomes similar to the first film, lots of build up to various battles and then the battles themselves. It is slightly better this time and also bleaker because it quickly becomes clear that this revolution is going to fail and his army is gradually decimated. When it came down to it Bolivia just wasn’t really bothered enough about having a revolution. Guevara was ultimately captured by the Bolivians and subsequently executed.



The films are undeniably good but I had hoped to come away better educated about Che Guevara but so much is left out that this is not the case.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' is very loosely adapted from a short story by F Scott Fitzgerald.

Benjamin Button tells us he was born 'under unusual circumstances'. To be precise he was born a rather ugly and wrinkled baby of eighty odd years old. In the book, he started as a full sized eighty year old, so it's no wonder his mother died in childbirth but the film is done a bit differently and he is baby sized.

In the film version, his father abandons him on the steps of an old folk's home, where he is taken and raised by Queenie, a carer there. At first they think he's going to die but the ravages of old age are gradually shed from his body and he progresses from wheelchair to walking stick and then beyond. As everyone continues to grow older, he grows younger. Brad Pitt plays Button pretty much all the way through with the help of heavy make-up, CGI and having his head electronically placed on other actors bodies.



We follow his life story, from his birth in New Orleans on the day that the First World War ended right through to his death. It is told in my 'favourite' form, that of flashback, and from the deathbed of his truelove, the now elderly Daisy (Cate Blanchett) as Hurricane Katrina rages outside. Daisy's grandmother was a resident at the same home, which is where she first met Benjamin. They remain in contact throughout their lives, seemingly destined to be together, despite the two of them ageing in different directions.

It is read from his diaries by her daughter, Caroline (Julia Ormond). It’s a method I'm not sure I like as it continually breaks up the storyline.

There are also other oddities. The addition of Mr Cake (Monsieur Gateau) and his train station clock that ran backwards in the hope that it would wind back time and undo the death of his Son and others from the battlefields of the Great War. I never grasped why this and its tenuous link to Benjamin's life running backwards was added.

Also, at times the film tries to do too much, like mapping out the sequence of bad luck that led to Daisy's dancing career being ended when she was struck by a Parisian taxi. Then there's the old man who was hit by lightning seven times... a slightly funny diversion but not much more.



Button is lucky he was born in 1918; had he been born in 2009 he would have been all over the papers and labelled as a freak. His life would have been 'I'm Celebrity Get Me Outta Here' hell. Instead, he leaves America working on a tugboat. He visits Russia, where he has an affair with Tilda Swinton, well someone has to I suppose, and he ends up involved in the Second World War.



When he returns, he rediscovers Daisy, now a successful dancer. Yet he turns her down, preferring to wait until he is 'young enough' for her.

After her accident, they eventually end up together and have a child. I think we all worked out long before Caroline did, what her relationship to Benjamin was. She won't remember him though because as he hurtles his way towards short trousers, he walks out of their lives. Knowing that when he becomes Kevin The Teenager, he'll be good for nothing but angst and sulks.



I thought it might end there and that they'd bottle his death as he faded back to zero, but they didn't. In fact, he came back, after a trip around the world, sowing his oats. Teenagers, they're so unreliable. Would Daisy be tempted to have one of the road and see if he was as good aged sixteen, of course she would.

It's all rather sad at the end as Daisy takes charge of the infant Benjamin and nurses him towards death.

The film has been given quite a bit of criticism in reviews but then has also gained a load of Oscar nominations. Realistically I don't see any great acting performances here, but that doesn't seem to matter, although at times the New Orleans accents grate a bit, as a whole it's a very clever film. It's also a long film but it never drags. I loved it.

Button went through much the same plusses and minuses in life as the rest of us, just in the opposite direction. The film tries to show you life from a different perspective. Like all of us, he spent a lifetime trying to figure out how this love thing works and still only just about got there. The message is that age is after all just a number and no matter what that number is, we can choose what we do with our lives but in the end, Button, like all of us, is unable to stop time.