It's Just a Shot Away

Having re-ploughed through season 3 of The Sopranos and driving home listening to Gimme Shelter by The Rolling Stones I was suddenly inspired to examine Martin Scorsese's preoccupation with rock music and how he uses them to great effect.

For years of enjoyment of watching and rewatching Casino, Goodfellas, Mean Streets and The Departed,  I just associated the Rolling Stones and Scorsese as just cultural parallels of coolness. The swagger of Jagger and the gangster life of consumption, casual violence and 'ball busting' just seemed to fit. 

Some have argued that Scorsese has glamourised the life of organised crime but I find this a lazy generalisation. If we examine the films without soundtracks, we find that both Charlie (Harvey Keitel) and Johnny (Robert De Niro) end up shot, Henry descends from dizzy heights to drug addled and  paranoid and sells out to live the quiet life, Sam Rothstein ends up 'back where he started' and everyone plainly shoots each other dead in The Departed.

 The glamour of crime is very short lived, though highly appealing when contextualised with food, alcohol and partying. We happily reminisce about The Crystals, 'Then He Kissed Me' scene in Goodfellas which glamorized the sway and power in the gangster world combined with none of the violence attached. Compare this to the ending grey haired, bloodshot eyes of Henry when he is being tracked by the helicopter, being overplayed by Harry Nilsson 'Jump into the Fire' and we would still prefer the former. There are no redeeming features to Henry's character towards the end of Goodfellas.

We can examine these specific choice of music in several ways. One obvious example is that the Crystals track is 1963, released 8 years after the film was to have started and fits in culturally and chronologically. This goes the same for Nilsson's 1984 'Jump into the Fire', a drug infused jumpy track, spliced with The Who's Magicbus and Rolling Stones' Monkey Man. The song simply fits the times. Secondly, the Crystals track emphasises courtship, love and marriage which fits for Henry's and Karen's first date. Jump into the Fire is quite blatant drug inspired cataclysm of excitement and tripped up imagination. So there is the allegorical features of the music. Thirdly, and very Scorsese like, they are cool songs. I would argue that what Scorsese glamorises if anything, is not violence and consumption, but coolness. His protagonists in his film always seem happiest with minimal responsibility and just hanging out with their friends. All their character arcs peak at youthful exuberance, only when they grow up and face consequences do their fortunes plummet. Scorsese seems to suggest, yes, it would obviously be fun to have large amounts of cash and be able to eat in restaurants without paying. But could you pay the price on your soul? Do any of his protagonists win?

The Rolling Stones, spanning five decades of pop and rock music make it easy for Scorsese to segue them into his themes of contextualisation and allegorical storyboards. My favourite use is the entrance of De Niro's Johnny in Mean Streets. Strutting in with two girls on his arm with Jumpin Jack Flash overriding the audio. No its not subtle, docile or suggestive. It is hip gyrating, raw and visceral. And bloody amazing. What is enjoyable about Scorsese's gangster films is that despite the infrequent violence and bad language is that you feel the Scorsese is enjoying the film as much as we are. They aren't complex, they are signposted and narrated. You could leave the room for ten minutes, come back and rely that you will be brought up to speed imminently. This is why the Stones fit so well, they too are simplistic, heavy hitting and are plain good fun. Both Scorsese and The Stones are technically very proficient and appeal to mass audiences, they have spanned several decades and still enjoy their work. 

Scorsese's protagonists, like the Stones, are rebels and consumers. They dominate the screen and their brash uncompromising language echoes the spicy direct tones of Keith Richard's guitar. Arguably the signature track of both Scorsese and The Stones would be Gimme Shelter. The Song is derived from the impending doom of Vietnamese war and the collapse of the virtues of Woodstock, peace and love. 'Rape, Violence, its just a shot away' screams both Jagger and Clayton as Richards wails his guitar. Scorsese's frequent depictions of his characters fall from riches to rags echoes this song's sentiments. If I had to pick another 70's song to emulate these fears and concerns it would be The Doors 'The End' and we know which film snuck that in to great effect.

 
Scorsese's back catalogue of music choices ranges from Cavalleria Rusticana-Intermezzo (1890) to 'I'm Shipping up to Boston (2005) and it would take an eternity to fully examine each choice. What we can rely on is deliberate subliminal thought provoking tracks that aren't just slipped in by a faceless producer but choices that echo and compliment Scorsese's direct directors style. To paraphrase my favourite fictional band, Scorsese turns the music up to 11. If the scene calls for an entrance, Scorsese will deliver it. If he wants to emulate the rock of roll lifestyle of one of his characters he will pick the rockiest track he can. The main difference between Scorsese and other directors who use rock music to good effect would be the collaborative relationship between the music and the shot. Both intertwine with each other to harmonise and compliment, not just to pay royalties to his favourite band.

Moses and his Technicolour Commandments

Epic see, epic do. Epic gets thrown around a lot in regards to film. The Dark Knight Rises was considered an epic,  Lord of the Rings, Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan. Sometimes any film that dares breach a 2 hour length gets considered epic. Perhaps epic is attributed to the endurance your bladder takes during a long film or an 'epic' amount of violence, love or drama. Personally I feel the title epic shouldn't be an enhancement or glorifier but an indication that the film will encompass drama, emotion, occasion and significance on their highest possible levels. Having real life extras helps further credibility. To describe Gladiator as an epic is misleading and irrelevant, the same applies to Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan and Kingdom of Heaven. In the last thirty years, I would say that only Dances With Wolves can receive my own definition. If I was asked to define an 'epic' as briefly as I could, I would say that if there is an interlude and no CGI armies then it is an epic.

On to The Ten Commandments. Interlude-check, real life extras-check, hammy acting-check, kidney infection inducing bladder busting-pending. I don't mean to suggest that the subtitle of epic ever elevates the film to a different level, but when considering this film I think that it is important. Cecil B DeMille's remake of his own 1923 amplifies the scale to 14,000 extras, 15,000 animals and over 70 speaking parts. If the story of Moses was to be retold, DeMille intended everyone to hear. 

Its clear that accuracy over content wasn't valued highly but I question as to how important a role accuracy needs to play in a fictional tale that was written thousands of years ago. The love triangle served to differentiate Moses' pre prophet days and add tension between Heston's Moses and the excellent Yul Brynner. But I don't think audiences were encouraged to believe this was in the Bible. With this in mind, any other inaccuracies found after delving deep into the film are irrelevant unless one really feels that they could have made a both a more engaging and accurate film. 

Indeed this is a very long film and the pace is very slow. However it is helpfully signposted with characters chipping in and reminding the audience where we are and what is driving the film. The plot isn't at all complicated but I feel with a film of this length, the helpful chapters per se drove it onwards. What was never lacking was the real sense of occasion and the size of the project. The ambitions of DeMille really translated in full technicolour glory. What struck me was the extent of old school film-making that has left me disillusioned me in recent 'epics'. The CGI'd battles in Kingdom of Heaven flattered to deceive and the effects over acting in Troy really let the legacy of The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur down. With the post millennial budget, the higher quality resources and benefit of 80 years of film making; results have tended to be exceptionally disappointing. With that in mind, I have admired Christopher Nolan's attempts to perform stunts as accurately and authentically as possible and his retention of highly credible actors driving his stories through.

Speaking of special effects, The Ten Commandments picked up the special effects Oscar and you can see why. Its easy to deride the effects on first glances but actually I found the authenticity was rarely lacking and easily better than Bohemian Rhapsody and I Am Legend for just two quick examples.  In fact, most of the incredible effects were achieved with a lot of ingenuity and innovation. The parting of the Rea Sea was achieved by 300,000 gallons of water into a tank and then played in reverse. No ability to rewind on a digital player in 1956. The rivers of blood were achieved with red dye and clever placements. Very little was actually used by animation, in the grand scheme of things. The ambition has to be applauded rather than nitpicked.

The Ten Commandments isn't half the film Ben Hur is if seeking a relevant comparison. It may have more grandiose scenes but the story of Ben Hur is more engaging, compelling and character driven. However, the scale and ambition of the project drives the film forward as a splendid spectacle. Hammy acting aside, The Ten Commandment's status as one of cinemas greatest ever epics is forever assured. We should also all be thankful that any lessons from The Ten Commandments were learnt in time for Ben Hur.

Big Things Have Small Beginnings

'Big things have small beginnings'

2012 has been arguably one of the best years for blockbuster cinema, certainly in my lifetime. Heavyweights such as The Dark Knight Rises, Avengers Assemble, The Amazing Spiderman and Prometheus were the clear favourites for grossing the highest amount this year, and of all time.  With Titanic being the exception, all of the top ten are post millennial, six are in the last two years and The Dark Knight Rises and Avengers are still earning. Of course money does not make the film and there by no means am I suggesting that the highest earning film is the best.  Though purists might want to hear that adjusted for inflation, Gone With the Wind is highest earner ever and Jaws, the original summer blockbuster, comes 9^th. It is strange however that Avengers Assemble made a staggering 5.5 times the amount than Prometheus. I am going to examine perhaps where Prometheus fell short in audience captivation and engagement where in my opinion it is by far the best of the summer bunch.

In terms of interpretation, I will look at several areas as to why Prometheus didn’t deliver as highly in a summer where, despite economic decline, money was clearly still being trafficked towards the multiplexes. First of all I do acknowledge the fact that that Prometheus was rated 15 as opposed to the 12a ratings given to The Dark Knight and Avengers Assemble.  I will examine whether a drastic preconception over the film may have hampered results, the controversial role concerning religion and finally an examination of the film itself in terms of accessibility. The reason is that I strongly feel that Prometheus was by far the best, most developed and most entertaining out of all the blockbusters this summer.

First of all, I feel that the preconceptions going into the film were always going to affect the reviews going out. The impressive viral campaigns, a really elevating new trend, were designed to heighten expectation and experience. This experiential marketing campaign dramatically enhanced the mood before The Dark Knight in 2008, and I don’t think it is insensitive to declare that Heath Ledgers untimely sad death would have added further intrigue into an already fanatic frenetic fan base. Prometheus took this to a new level with several videos, TVC’s and, in my opinion, an overly spoilerific trailer. Furthermore, this is Scott’s first foray into the Alien ‘universe’ since his 1979 original. Note that Cameron and David Fincher directed the sequels and the less said about any of the others the better. So coupled with a very strong and elevated viral campaign and the highly anticipated return of Ridley Scott in what is effectively his most natural genre, audiences are in huge expectation over a direct prequel of Alien with added bonus of much more sophisticated special effects and a redemption for Alien vs. Disappointment.

With massive expectation comes a likely result of disappointment. Though this is not always the case, Avengers Assemble had all the ingredients and swagger to fail as did The Dark Knight Rises. However, the differences were that Avengers did not take itself seriously at all and flourished on the campness and spectacle as Pirates of Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl taught. The Dark Knight managed to launch its viral campaign with enough snap and credibility to carry it through to a very comfortable landing, despite the horrific and sickening events of the premiere shooting. What Prometheus had at its disadvantage were fewer steady fans behind it, only compared to Marvel and DC, and that it took itself very seriously.

This is probably where the film falls hardest; austerity. My opinions are that is perfectly ok for a film to take itself seriously and to have fun with the audiences. A lot of people and critics complained that The Curse of the Black Pearl was weak and foolish, failing to see that it was homage to all swashbucklers and carefree fans. Furthermore, Inception took itself very seriously and demanded a lot from its audiences which was duly given. I feel as long as the film is enjoyable, then any amount of sobriety is fine, arguably irrelevant. Only when it undermines a films integrity is it worth discussing, see Tree of Life and Die Another Day.

However I feel the ambiguity of Prometheus’s premise is where audiences got most upset. This concerns its mythological and religious structure that in my opinion further stimulates the films longevity and enjoyment.  It is a good thing that a film has the power to galvanize audiences and offer several different strains of interpretation. 

If we begin with the opening scene and how crucial this is to immediately shaping opinions as to whether this is a religious examination, mythological allegory or a sci-fi plain and simple. The scene shows, what we later learn is an Engineer on a precipice, seen to be drinking from something that makes him fall off the waterfall and his body disintegrate into what appears to be DNA strands.

A religious interoperation is that the Engineer has sacrificed himself to start life; a form of Creationism. No big bang but one higher species deliberately designing life as we know it. The Engineer is effectively terraforming planet earth and forming life in their own image. Mythological interpretation would be that the titan Prometheus creates mankind out of clay and taught them science and logic. Judging by the film’s title this seems a reasonable assertion at this stage. On a Sci-Fi level, what some hyper critical fans and misguided critics forget is the ‘Fi’ part. It is fiction, there to be enjoyed at a superficial level and not to be taken as fact.

If we consider the rest of the film as a religious examination there are several other points and events that can reinforce this. If we put the ‘Engineers’ as gods tools or even as collective for a creator then we can examine their actions as a reaction of mankind’s rejection of their religion. We see the awoken Engineer enraged with the humans and after a swift attack immediately sets off to earth to destroy it. If we consider that Prometheus was set in 2089, and Shaw’s carbon dating from the ship indicates over 2000 years ago we could imply that that the Engineers are furious with something that happened on earth 30-40 years AD.  Logically we could presume that the Engineers are enraged with their emissary, son of creator, being killed or forced into self sacrifice. Alternatively, the Engineer is enraged with being awoken and alarmed at the progress humans have made and seeks to wipe out the Earth in its stead. First impressions seem over reactionary but Deuteronomy suggests that there is a track record of such genocide and fury. Not to mention the story of Noah.

"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place." (Deuteronomy 12:2-3)

Other religious symbols and parallels could be that the attack was stopped by the most human-centric character there is, Janek the captain. Portraying a worldly, sage and down to earth man, he typifies the instincts of man to follow rather than question. Yet it is his self sacrifice that brings down the ship and note his crucifiction pose as he achieves it. Shaw’s character represents the conflict between religion and science. Christianity is represented in her necklace, yet she has given her life towards science. Her conception of the zeno despite being sterile echoes Mary’s pregnancy.

In my opinion, I think there are deliberate ambiguous references to Christianity and religion as the film does revolve around searching for answers and mankind’s need for symbolism.  The early drawings in the film’s opening reflect mankind’s search for meaning. These were inspired by stars, weather and, to a degree, paganism. This evolved into religious beliefs and faith in a higher being. This modernises into a belief in science and nature and the film reflects this transition.  Paganism is reflected in the deification in the cave of the zenomorphs or ‘facehuggers’, which evolves into a belief that the Engineers are the creators, and climaxes in the trust in science and further exploration for more answers. Shaw doesn’t stop after finding one answer, she searches for more.  The film could be interpreted as a mirroring of humanity’s search for answers and improved methods of uncovering them. Mankind will always insatiably be questioning and probing for validation and Prometheus could be seen as reflecting that.

On the premise that US audiences are generally much more sensitive over religious material, we could look at the dwindling figures and appeal of Prometheus as regulative.  Though I argue that these observations can be freely made with one viewing, I certainly had to watch, research and contemplate.

If we consider the mythological interpretation we can examine the story of Prometheus further. After creating man, he angered Zeus by fraternizing with and educating humans to where their sacrifices to Zeus were falsified and manipulated. Zeus took away fire from the humans whom Prometheus then stole back, Zeus punished men again with the gift of Pandora, the world’s first woman, and he ties Prometheus to a rock to have eagles eat out his liver every day for the rest of days. His immortality enables this torture to be infinite. Pandora came with her renowned box, containing evil, pain and suffering if opened.

Bearing that in mind, we can make comparisons with Pandora’s Box being the black liquid. Once it was curiously opened, through the same motivations as the myth, evil and panic spread throughout. In the myth it embodied a number of atrocities and in the film it affects different hosts in different ways.  It is surely no coincidence that Holloway is set on fire before he can contaminate the ship. Fire being the definitive technological advancement. The ‘abortion machine’ rips open Shaw’s body to eject the alien foetus and sews her back up again to live again resembles the torture Zeus bestows on Prometheus. Zeus was angry that mankind became curious and intellectual, perceiving themselves as akin to gods so he sent Pandora. We could parallel this to the Engineer, enraged with finding David speak his own language and ask questions and decide to take mankind down a peg or several. If we track the film to the myth we can see Prometheus represent the mobilization of men searching for answers and being so well evolved that they are thirsty for more validation.  Prometheus as a titan taught humans how to prosper, read and be well educated. Prometheus as a ship represents a tangible output of this too.  The Engineers represent Zeus who is vengeful of their integrity and invasion of their sanctity and empowerment. Pandora’s Box is represented by the black liquid that unleashes all manner of hell.

I feel that both religious and mythological interpretations hold up against each other as structure for the film but in my opinion it is deliberately designed to be a marriage of both intertwining with imagery, themes and innuendo. This film wasn’t rushed out the gates and the level of detail afforded to every scene, be it script or visual.  Furthermore Damon Lindelof of Lost was on the writing panel and Lost was certainly full of literary, religious and mythical references.

If we ignore any deeper level of the film to examine the lack of box office success, we can look at Prometheus through a simple Sci-Fi examination. I am not completely at home with sci-fi and wouldn’t dare encroach on such a popular and hyper sensitive genre. But Prometheus conducts itself with immense vivid and beautiful art and carries with it a real sense of occasion. The landscapes and foregrounds are immaculately detailed irrespective of any religious/mythical agendas. What I and the majority of the public can agree on is the fantastic performance of Michael Fassbender. His role of David is haunting and surely homage to 2001’s Hal in his emotionless but primal conduct.  His duality is complex in agenda but simple in execution. Some question his motivation for poisoning Holloway but if we consider this as a distant prequel to Alien(s) we see that Ian Holm’s ‘synthetic’ Ash turns against Ripley. What’s more in Aliens, Ripley’s dismay and prejudice at discovering another ‘synthetic’ Bishop is alleviated by the assertion that it is ‘impossible for [me] to harm,  or by omission of action, allow to be harmed, a human being’. We can consider that David predates Bishop by at least a century as Bishop is at least 57 years older than Ash. Therefore it is within David’s remit that he chooses to harm people or work on his own agenda. The chilling part is not that he does harm people, but that he actively chooses to and whilst under the guise of his role.

In my opinion, there are some key flaws that let the film down. I feel that Ridley had too much going on in his head and his ambitions were so great that this failed to fully translate into the actual cinematic experience.  Whereas Scott intended the film to be deeper than just a prequel to the Alien universe, confusing and involved sub plots translate the film into a less structured, overly complex philosophical discussion. Jurassic Park testifies that both action, fear, wonder and philosophy are interchangeable. However, I don’t feel that the disappointment from the lack of correlation between Alien(s) and Prometheus should be a caveat for enjoyment and that it is a good thing to be aspirational in cinema. If we’ve learnt anything from Aliens is that every adaptation just got worse and worse and if fans were expecting an updated Alien hunt film, then I suggest they rewatch all of the Alien quadrilogy and as themselves the same question afterwards. Justin Chang of Variety suggested that Ridley lazily deferred key plot points under the presumption that sequel will be made. Personally I am looking forward to it.

Predator With Less Humour

The trailer for The Grey leads us to think that having already saved his daughter, his identity and the Jews, Liam Neeson was ready to take on predatory animals. Indeed, the over comical punch to the wolf in the trailer, a scene actually removed in the final edit, hints at a ‘Jaws in Snow’ and nothing deeper. In fact, substitute the wolf for a zenomorph, Predator or Leatherface then we are comfortable in what return we are going to get on the ticket price. Think Michael Myers in wolf’s clothing.

Of course these types of movies are enjoyable to an extent but the only variables in these films are the attacker, hero and environment. We know that the people will die in extraneous ways and we wait until the end to see how the ‘baddy’ gets taken out and whether there will be a killer pun attributed. In fact, the film does dare to delve deeper. There are perhaps two main themes that pertain throughout. The problem is that the director fails to fully commit to one or chooses to focus on both thus diluting the point of making the film.

One theme could be an examination on whether in fact the ‘heroes’ are in fact already dead and we are instead subjected into their Dantesque struggle and absolution in purgatory. The concepts of death as a foregone conclusion are explored with Neeson’s calm and resigned flashbacks and visions of both his wife and his father.  Additional evidence is supported by the fact that the film is  based on an Ian MacKenzie Jeffers’ book ‘Ghost Walker’. The plots are more or less identical, but the novel title makes no bones about the role of Neeson's Ottway.

We could draw comparisons between NBC’s Lost and The Grey in that all characters seem to be resurrected after a horrific plane crash beyond comprehension. In one similarity, they are subjected to maniacal monsters that defy reason. Additionally they are affected by primal socio problems that further unsettle the group dynamic. Lost had the smoke monster and other implausible demons and The Grey has apparitional wolves intent on death. In fact, the poor CGI on the wolves make us only hope that they are designed to be more spectral than sincere.  Only in our wildest nightmares could such creatures exist. The group attempt to escape to freedom, to only find further death and despair and at the end futility. I am reminded of The Poseidon Adventure where the Poseidon is flipped upside down and the survivors have to climb, avoiding death at every turn, from a fiery pit to the surface and freedom.

Ottway admits that he does not believe in God and one could see this film as the context for those who reject God to remain in perpetual purgatory and only once faced with death do they accept God and slip away to rest in peace. The longer the renouncement, the more gruelling the trials and tribulations. As soon as Neeson asks for God’s help, he imminently meets his ambiguous end.  

Secondly, and much more likely or at least more prominent, is the theme of instinct and survival. The opening of the film has Liam Neeson with a gun in his mouth intending to commit suicide but an ominous wolf howl distracts him and the gun fails to fire.  Before he has to fight for survival he had already been preparing for death. After the plane crash, the human ‘pack’ is thrown deep into the den and unwillingly pit themselves against territorial wolves. Note that these aren't invasive adversaries like the zenomorph in Alien, Predator or the shark in Jaws. They are behaving as nature would intend, aggressively protecting their den against all foes.  We see the wolves attack the weak and operate as a team, reminiscent of the scariest characeristics of Jurassic Park’s velociraptors. It is nature versus nature in nature within its rawest form. While human aspects of fear, mistrust and logic threaten to tear apart the ever dwindeling survivors, the wolves endure on and continue to operate as a collective killing machine. Instincts begin to take over and Neeson descends into the basest form of human with the final denouement . Growling, spitting and effervescent he takes on the alpha with the resonance of his humanity distinguished and he operates on instinct. The repetition of the poem  associated with his father becomes more appropriate and compelling as the film wears on:

‘Once more into the fray..

Into the last good fight I’ll ever know.

Live and die on this day..

Live and die on this day..’

The Grey attempts to break convention in a conventional story line. We aren’t given time to relate to the characters but we aren’t intended to. We are subjected to super human wills to survive  amidst painful impending death and once more it is so far removed from reality it is that we can barely relate to their situation. What slightly spoils the film is the feeling that there was more intended to the film than what is delivered. The theme of Dante’s Divine Comedy holding the narrative together is too weak to be commended but too strong to be dismissed as speculation. There are two great ideas that could elevate The Grey but neither are fully committed to by the director to make us resolutely sign this off as something different to ‘Alien in Alaska’.

Our Week With Marilyn

What promises to be a unique insight into a troubled global star in fact devolves into a predictable, unsympathetic meaningless biopic. Anyone with basic understanding into Marilyn's traumatic, neurotic and relentless career would have found out nothing new from this film. We are led to believe that Eddie Redmayne has an exclusive view into Marilyn's psyche but in fact he exacerbates her. He personifies her wildest fears; sexual predation, disingenuity, obsession and relentless pursuit. From the start we see his obsession begin and his pursuit of the star embodies the media hype and infatuation with her. 'My Week with Marilyn'? Our Week with Marilyn moreover.

The performances in the film are brimming with talent and it is always rewarding to see Kenneth Branagh, Toby Jones, Judi Dench and Derek Jacobi. Michelle Williams is excellent, and we cant help but be curious as to whether she would be channelling her own neuroses and insecurities into her role.

I am certainly not a fan of Eddie Redmayne. He is smug, wooden and insincere and undeserving of titular roles {see Birdsong}. He is still a good fit to Colin Clark, a spoilt, ungrateful conniving brat who seems to feed on the opportunity to adorn Marilyn and feast upon her traumas to satisfy his obsession for a star and status within cinema. His arrogance perseveres, trying to convince us that his pursuit and 'rescue' of Marilyn is heroic and just, but ignoring others who have fallen for her charms.

Marilyn is drawn into his Cheshire cat complexion of innocence and sincerity and remains incapable to really grow or overcome her insecurities. We are left feeling sorry for Marilyn but certainly not enlightened by any revelations promised in the title. Overall we hope for a unique presentation of who Marilyn was really like, a representation never before seen and leave us feeling complete now that the last remaining chapter can be closed. Instead we see a young smug vapid character pursue Marilyn under the guise of innocence and we learn nothing deep or meaningful about Monroe.

The great performances cant quite redeem Redmayne's lack of charm and certainly the misleading title leaves an audience with yet another film telling us what we already know. There is not enough novelty or originality to sustain the effort put in and this film is as bereft of meaning as Redmayne is of talent.

Ground Control to Major Bomb

I went into this film very optimistic but left it feeling incredibly dissatisfied. As a huge Bowie fan and lover of nearly all 70's music I was expecting a Glee type film but with a British, moreover Welsh, hard vibe grounding it and some incredible tunes thrown in.
However, it was more a depiction of a disorganised scatty arts teacher who struggles to put together a musical in Swansea due to her lack of discipline and command of respect. Not an inspiring plot line so far, so we would expect gritty or at the least emotionally involving characters accelerating our pathos for her plight.
In fact we get thoroughly bored by the meanderings of over sexed up kids which is depicted by a 10 minute montage of every character gazing at another in a hormonal daisy chain of lust. 'oh why wont you love me' 'Oh I like someone else' -gripping!
Frankly, there were too many kids to truly allow the audience to find relevance or anything beyond ambivalence and Minnie Driver, although looking stunning, played a inept role deserving little empathy or attention.
Admittedly, I was disappointed by the lack of Bowie and charm I had mistakenly expected, but what was left behind was still not enough to keep me engaged or fulfilled

Let's Twist Again

Thoroughly enjoyed this. Despite there being an infamous twist, not to be revealed, I was in fact bewitched from the start rather than hanging on for the inevitable.

This film received huge amounts of attention due to the 'twist' but this film is much more than that. I saw it almost as a tale of two films.

The warmth of the opening dialogues more than redeemed Forest Whitaker's suspect accent. Furthermore, the Stockholm syndrome idea is tossed and turned around in a frenetic way that truly unsettles and simultaneously engrosses the viewer.

The scenes in London and the consequent relationships forged and unforged are well paced and certainly not predictable. Performances throughout were of a very high quality and we are drawn into a gritty almost comedic underworld but with associable relations and feelings

Did this film accidently inspire Cocktail?

My research for this film extended to knowing it was one of three films to ever win all five major Academy Awards (Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Director, and Screenplay) see also One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) and The Silence of the Lambs (1991). I didn't know however that both Gable and Colbert hating the filming, process and entire prospect of It Happened One Night.

This film was hilarious, comic timings delivered with epic control and several scenes still make me laugh thinking of them.{Hitch-hiking scene and the bed sheets}.

We have a plot we've seen hundreds of times, rich privileged girl clashes with gruff handsome drunk. Love ensues. {African Queen and Star Wars spring immediately to mind} Ashamedly so does Cocktail but we can ignore that.

However, we don't need to be reminded by the pre war cinematography and the abuse of fedora hats that this really sets an early trend in film romances. Though I wouldn't attribute the original plot line to Frank Capra.

What makes this film stand out for me is that despite the genre defining, incredible script and the leading stars is that the interplay between Gable and Colbert is so charming and sincere we simply don't mind that we can see the ending a mile away. What's more we look forward to it.