Movie review - "Passion" (2012) ***

 You get the money where you can, so Brian De Palma is making this Euro-pudding that is a remake of a French movie but makes it De Palma-y.

The French original had an older actress and a younger actress but here Rachel McAdams and Noomi Rapace seem the same age so it doesn't have that intriguing underside. McAdams seemed to suit the world of De Palma but Rapace didn't - but then I like McAdams more than Rapace so maybe it's just me.

I liked Karoline Herfuth as well and enjoyed the second half more than the first. There's a fantastic murder sequence and the delirious melodrama of key moments is entertaining.

Movie review - "Asterix: Mansions of the Gods" (2014) ****

A rather odd choice for an Asterix adaptation - instead of one of his journeys to a colourful location it's a satire of property development. But the filmmakers have completely captured the spirit of the best of the books - this is a fast paced, lively, funny, even exciting adventure.

It improves on the books because the magic potion is removed for the bulk of the climax - most of the villagers turn into Romans, Getafix gets captured, the Roman family forced to take an apartment are under threat.

Maybe I'm over praising it with four stars. There is a wonky subplot involving slaves - blacks with big lips, which is true to the book. It just felt yuck especially as these are the only coloured characters in the film.

But the tone of the rest of it is right. The gags are funny. The animation and acting is excellent. (I'm going off the French language version). Asterix is actually brave here instead of being a cheater. The depiction of village life (markets, boar hunting, banquets) is spot on. Some genuinely rousing moments like little potion free Asterix up against it and the boy saying goodbye.

Movie review - "Mr Turner" (2014) **1/2

Like a lot of Mike Leigh's films: overlong, not a terribly gripping story, superb character study, some brilliant acting mixed in with over the top scenes, delightful period detail. A researcher got her own credit up the front and she deserved it. Timothy Spall was very good as was everyone, really - I'm always delighted by discovering unfamiliar faces in British films (eg Paul Jesson who plays Spall's father). There were some clunky Leigh acting scenes such as the two women bitchily commenting on the paintings, plus Victoria and Albert.

There's a lot of coughing and grunting - I can't recall a movie with more phlegm. Or sex scenes involving old people. My favourite scene was when Turner was finding himself praised by an idiot, who was showering Turner with compliments and bagging out an old time artist. There are plenty of moments like these - a look at the artist as a man: not a horrible person but he neglects his wife and daughters, carries on a second life in a different town, grumpy, touchy, bad diet, few close friends; deals with even touchier rivals.

Fans of painting from this era will love it, as will Leigh/Spall fans. I admired it but was glad when it ended.

Movie review - "Two Days in New York" (2012) **

Two Days in Paris got away with it but this struggles. For one thing it's stuck in a locale - New York City - so there's less of a fish out of water, and less movement. The idea of annoying family coming to visit is okay if old but all the scenes seem strained and forced. Maybe Julie Delpy's family really is like that but none of it seemed real.

There are too many "bits" - Vincent Gallo's cameo, Chris Rock talking to a cut out of Barak Obama (NB this was funny though) - and gags repeated (eg selling soul), and too many moments are overly broad and silly. Delpy and Chris Rock don't have much charisma, there is precious little look at New York and it's just annoying.

Movie review - "Hugo" (2011) **1/2

Beautiful to look at and made with a lot of love but Martin Scorsese is clearly awkward with a story set in Paris, which is probably why everyone acts in English accents. He's also not that skilled telling stuff through the eyes of a child, which is presumably why this gets off to such an awkward start - it shouldn't because the set up is simple (orphan lives in train station repairing clock) but it proceeds in fits and starts, awkward visual gags, and too many scenes where the characters say the word "notebook". I think they miscast the kid who plays Hugo, too - he's got piercing eyes (was this why he got the gig?) but he just feels all wrong - whereas his puppy love interest is spot on.

For a while I really struggled with this - I tuned out and started to nod off. Two terrific moments - a train smash and Hugo discovering he's a robot - just turn out to be dreams, which is cheating. It picked up once we found out that Kingsley was George Melies and we saw some flashbacks - at least he did interesting stuff with his life, and we get into the magic of it all. (Only if films are the most important thing in Melies life... then why is the automaton so important? That doesn't really have anything to do with cinema.)

I can see why the elderly Academy voters liked it - it's about a man who is old and forgotten, yet still has a wife and god-daughter who love him, an academic who rediscovers him and gives him a retrospective, a little kid who thinks he's really cool. It's also full of loving recreations of 1920s Paris and early silent cinema.

Movie review - "Carnage" (2012) ***

Roman Polanski loves a film set in a cramped room - it'll mean he's never out of work since they're cheap to make. Judging by the credits though they still found a way to make this cost a bit - every man and his dog is credited as a producer or financier. 

The casting is very UN - it's set in New York and is about New Yorkers but was shot in Paris and the cast includes two foreigners in accents. The acting is fine - everyone is a good actor, although I felt Jodie Foster pitched her performance a bit too highly. It's skillfully written although there are two scenes with a couple about to leave then invited back for a snack (they could have gotten them to come back by talking about why one kid hit the other - which isn't really explored). Also there isn't really an ending. Still, for the most part this held.

Movie review – “Midnight in Paris” (2011) ***1/2

Charming comedy from Woody Allen. It’s still a bit long, any lines about the corporate word clunks and he re-uses a lot of old ideas (the pompous brilliant love rival, sexually aggressive beautiful mistresses, young enchanting flowers, a generation gap romance), but Paris looks very pretty, Owen Wilson is a perfect Woody surrogate (the Texan um-ah drawl is just like the New York Jewish natter), the fact Owen is obsessed by the past makes the old references work, the cast is terrific (the guy who plays Hemingway is a real find) and it’s a lot of fun. Finding Marion Cotillard's diary I felt complicated things – wouldn’t he want to know what happened to her? (I did.) Also I’m surprised he missed the opportunity for an Anais Nin and Henry Miller joke. Personally I think you’d always pick Rachel McAdams over Marion Cotillard but that’s just personal taste.

Movie review – “17 Girls” (2011) ***

Americans have been remaking French stories for years so why shouldn’t the French do an American story – only not a film, but a real life incident: the famous teen pregnancy pact. This has been relocated to a grimy small town where most of the local kids are unemployed, in factories or the army. The hottest girl in school announces she’s pregnant; a girl who wants to be in her gang says she does too and pretty soon a whole bunch of them are. 

 

There’s some great stuff here – girls empowering themselves by being knocked up, bewildered parents and teachers (I loved the staff meeting), the collective mind set you get in schools amongst peers. I did feel the film lost some opportunities for drama – surely part of the reason to do it is to get back at boys, teachers and parents, yet there’s very little of either (maybe as a man I was looking for that more). 

 

Characters are frustratingly under-developed - the lead girl is an enigma, you think the tag-along girl is going to be an important player but she isn't, this little girl who desperately wants to be pregnant suddenly becomes important then fades away. 

Still, it's worth watching and I wouldn't be surprised if the Yanks remade it.

Movie review – “House of Tolerance” (2011) *1/2

I saw this at Cannes where it was selected for competition and earned an eight minute standing ovation but thought it was dreadful. Films about hookers at festivals make me go “uh oh” from the get-go and little of what followed made me change my mind. It's set in a brothel at the beginning of the 20th century. There's plenty of nudity and sex but little of it is erotic. There's plenty of intriguing set ups and characterisations too but little of it followed through. An example is there’s this good bit where there’s a sudden jolt of violence – a cut to a woman who’s been disfigured. But this is dropped for a great slab of time. Then the woman is brought in, walks in and out of the action. They occasionally flashback to the incident (as if to try and jolt some more excitement into the action). Then bring back the assailant at the end and there's this animal and... oh it's just dull.

They also set up this really interesting character- a 16 year old who wants to join the brothel – then do nothing with her. Ditto a Muslim girl, a lesbian. There’s a bit of period detail – doctors inspecting the girls, the money involved – but never enough. It goes on and on and on. And has a scene where a girl cries tears of semen. I did like the credit sequence and use of modern music.

Movie review – “The Artist” (2011) **1/2

Big budget French film, which is mostly silent. The plot is set during the coming of sound in Hollywood, with A Star is Born-type story about a top star (Jean Dujardin, very likeable) who seems like a nice chap despite an unhappy marriage (Penelope Ann Miller, looking old). He gets a crush on a young extra (Berenice Bejo), but doesn’t really do much about it, except encourage her to wear a mole. This helps her become a star while his career hits the skids – in part because he blows all his money on a silent film. A Star is Born had genuine emotional kick because the star was a self destructive alcoholic and the girl loved him from the beginning. The relationship here is more of a crush and the star doesn’t have any demons he’s just a bit of a simple idiot. There’s a brief moment where Dujardin can hear sounds but not voices and you think “oh this is where we’re going” – but then it’s over.

It looks terrific, the creation of old Hollywood is lovely, and I got a kick out of seeing Hollywood names in a French film – John Goodman, Miller, Malcolm McDowell, Ed Lauter. There’s a good performance from a dog. But it doesn’t quite work. A mostly full length silent film is heavy going these days (I loved the opening horror film within a film bit - more of this might have helped).

Movie review – “The Contender” (2011) ***1/2

You’ve got to give it to the French – they’ve got balls. To make a film like this about their sitting president – wow. Not that is says Sarkozy is a bad politician – just very ruthless and ambitious. I didn’t know much about him before seeing the film, just that he had a really hot wife, but you pick it up quick enough, for the story is universal. (Although I did get confused about the difference between the French President and Prime Minister). Sarkozy is pushy and wants the top job but is thwarted by Jacques Chirac and this other smooth talking politico. But he keeps banging away, using clever strategy and skills at oratory, to get the top job… although it costs him his marriage. It’s a bit long and you wish Carla Bruni was in it but I really enjoyed it – funny, gripping, with a terrific central character. The guy who plays Chirac is particularly good and I expect to see him turn up in Hollywood action films.