Trumbo (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 124 minutes
Director: Jay Roach
Writers: Bruce Cook (book), John McNamara (screenplay)
Cast: Bryan Cranston, Diane Lane, Helen Mirren, Michael Stuhlberg, Louise C.K., Elle Fanning, Dave Maldonado, John Goodman, David James Elliot, Alan Tudyk, Roger Bart, Dean O'Gorman, Christian Berkel

Trumbo will be released in Australia on February 18 and distributed by eOne.

Trumbo is a stunning and riveting portrait of old Hollywood which brings to light the extreme injustice inflicted upon important and talented members of the filmmaking community out of fear of their conflicting political beliefs.

Eccentric screenwriter Dalton Trumbo (portrayed by Bryan Cranston) was a favourite among Hollywood studios in the 1940's with such credits to his name as Kitty Foyle and Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. He was also well known for his vocal political beliefs which coincided with that of the Communist party and being a member of the Hollywood 10, a group of directors and screenwriters who were blacklisted after refusing to answer questions and name names in Congress. After being tried, convicted and sent to prison, the blacklist prevented Trumbo and fellow Hollywood 10 members from obtaining work in American cinema. As a result, Trumbo had to find a way to write and make money for his family without the Academy, Screenwriters Guild and the infamous gossip columnist, Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren) finding out.

Jay Roach's first turn at directing dramatic film is an intriguing piece of cinema that only becomes more so as the film progresses. It's sense of intrigue drives this fascinating story which is an imprint of Hollywood history that captures the political climate of the time in both the Southern Californian movie town and the United States as a whole. With the onset of the Cold War, the United States held an increased sense of paranoia. Hence the concern with those who were Communist sympathizers, especially in the film industry where filmmakers have a greater ability to influence by way of their large scale of reach. Hollywood during this time was generally daunted by anything that was considered different in terms of filmmaking and the film industry people, so those who were Communists were part of a minority and ostracised.

Trumbo is a fine piece of old Hollywood nostalgia as it captures the time period and it's players splendidly and will be a treat to anyone who is interested in the American film industry's earlier years. The costume design by Daniel Orlandi for both men and women is truly splendid and captures the fashion of the late 1940's and then the early 1950's wonderfully. The landscapes and location shots of North Hollywood and Highland Park are extreme contrasts to the way they are now, as they are far more tranquil and peaceful in the film as the Trumbo family's neighbourhoods than in this century.

One of the main features of Trumbo that fans of the golden era will appreciate is that it shows the power that Hedda Hopper really had in Hollywood. Hopper was absolutely ruthless in her approach to obtaining information and getting exactly the outcome she wanted in any situation. She had the power to make or break people's careers and many of the stars chose to share exclusives with Hopper for her column to be on her good side. In Trumbo, Helen Mirren portrays her perfectly as Hopper was known for being able to switch from trying to obtain information by being charming to being manipulative and scheming. The film shows how her accessibility to some of the biggest names in Hollywood including Louis B. Mayer and John Wayne made her so powerful and how in this case she not only used the information for her column, but also to mould Hollywood into the way she wanted it.

Bryan Cranston is superb in the title role as Dalton Trumbo as his transformation into the screenwriter with all his eccentricities is a wonderful example of brilliant character acting. Towards the beginning of the film, it almost feels as though John MacNamara's screenplay has created a glorified version of Trumbo with his frequent long, meaningful speeches. However, when Louis C.K.'s character of Arlen Hird questions Trumbo as to why he has to "say everything like it is chiselled into a rock", this is the end of these long passages by Trumbo and one realises that this was really the way Trumbo spoke until he was tried and convicted. Cranston's Trumbo develops throughout the film and it is evident how his character changed and evolved as a result of the tumultuous events.

Trumbo has a number of old Hollywood figures featured in the film that many will recognise. There is a great use of archival footage of actual events and old films in which footage shot for this film of actors portraying certain characters is inserted in. While some of the actors playing characters who are based on real life figures may not exactly physically resemble them, it is incredible how each of them have mastered the mannerisms and voices of their real life counterparts. Michael Stuhlberg is an absolute standout as Edward G. Robinson. He gives a fantastic emotional portrayal as the actor who commits a rather despicable act in the eyes of his friends, but one forgives him when his heartfelt explanation is heard. David James Elliot's portrayal of John Wayne makes him perhaps not as likable as he was perceived, while Dean O'Gorman's Kirk Douglas does quite the opposite. O'Gorman embodies the Spartacus actor perfectly and is incredibly likable leading those who weren't alive in the 1950's to understand Douglas' appeal.

While Trumbo is not a proud look back at this time period in Hollywood, it is an accurate and fascinating biopic with a strong screenplay and wonderful performances which make it incredibly entertaining and enjoyable in it's nostalgia.

8.5/10

Woman in Gold (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 109 minutes
Director: Simon Curtis
Writers: E. Randol Schoenberg and Maria Altmann (life stories), Alexi Kaye Campbell (screenplay)
Cast: Helen Mirren, Ryan Reynolds, Daniel Bruhl, Tatiana Maslany, Katie Holmes, Max Irons, Charles Dance

Woman in Gold is a biographical film that does a fine job of telling the story of Maria Altmann and her family, but it's dramatization struggles to remain immune from the curse of cliché. Based on the ground-breaking case of the Republic of Austria v. Altmann, Woman in Gold is the tale of Austrian born Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren) who's family were the owners of the incredible painting by Gustav Klimt of her aunt, Adele (Antje Traue) entitled "Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer" until their home was invaded by Nazis who took possession of the everything including the painting. Now living in Los Angeles in the 1990's, Maria seeks the assistance of young lawyer, Randol Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds) to help her seek justice for having her family's property stolen. Her journey takes her back to the country she vowed never to return to and to face the past she wanted to forget.

Maria Altmann's life story is told wonderfully on screen. From her life of hardships in war torn Vienna to her later years fighting for justice in the United States, her fight for her life and then for justice is well documented and very thorough. Altmann's earlier years in Vienna (as portrayed by Tatiana Maslany) are particularly well done, as great suspense is generated with her and her husband's (Max Irons) quest to leave the Nazi dominated city and her inevitable separation from her family is extremely emotional. However, the scenes set in the 1990's struggle for the same type of suspense. While the real life proceedings in the case were undoubtedly eventful and extremely important, it's dramatization in the film is somewhat cliché and feels almost overdone. There are several features of the film which were changed from the reality for dramatic effect (such as Randol working without pay for years), but these changes come across as extremely cliché due to the heroism that is attempted to be attached to the characters and their situations.

However, what is done well in the scenes set in Maria's later life are the internal struggles that she experiences in deciding whether to go ahead with her case. The portrait in question which is now on display in New York City's Neue Galerie, was much loved by the Austrian people when it was hung in their country. This is one of the ethical dilemmas that Maria is faced with in the film as she does not want to take something away that is so important to her homeland, yet she believes that justice must be served. The other dilemma she is faced with is whether she should just let the past be the past or if she should seek to reclaim something that belonged to her family half a century earlier. It is indeed a painful thing for her to revisit the past and to once again see the place she left because of the horrors that were occurring there. Maria's journey is an emotional one for her as it means going back to a place she vowed never to return to. She is also faced with the pressure of outsiders making their opinion that she should just let it all go very vocal. Yet her belief in doing what is right by her family who are now gone, but always a part of her is very admirable.

Woman in Gold is beautifully shot with some incredibly lovely images. The beauty of the city of Vienna is well captured on camera with glorious shots of it's sights including the Hofburg Palace. The Vienna occupied by Nazis and the Vienna Maria returns to have two completely different atmospheres. Of course this is created by the oppression felt by the Nazis which is not there upon returning, but the cinematography allows for the feeling of a dark cloud constantly following the characters during the war. The soundtrack by Hans Zimmer and Martin Phipps is absolutely exquisite.

Helen Mirren does a very good job in the lead as Maria Altmann. She gives a solid performance as a woman who is exhausted from her years of guilt over leaving her family and bitterness towards her home country. The one problematic thing about Mirren's Maria is that her past between when she first arrives in America and when she looks for a lawyer is a mystery. There is no word of when her husband died or whether they had any children (which she did indeed as she had three sons and one daughter). Ryan Reynolds also gives a very good performance and shows a great deal of emotion especially when he acknowledges his own Austrian heritage. Tatiana Maslany doe exceptionally well as the younger Maria and the pairing of her and Max Irons works extremely well.

Extremely well made and a fine tribute to both Maria Altmann and other families who suffered the hardships her and her family once did, Woman in Gold is entertaining but would be taken more seriously if it did not try to overdramatize itself. The story itself is incredible enough without inserting Hollywood clichés into it.

7/10

The Hundred-Foot Journey (2014)

Year: 2014
Running Time: 122 minutes
Director: Lasse Hallstrom
Writers: Richard C. Morais (book), Steven Knight (screenplay)
Cast: Manish Dayal, Helen Mirren, Om Puri, Charlotte Le Bon

The Hundred-Foot Journey opens in Australian cinemas on the 14th August and is distributed by Buena Vista. Now showing in the USA and opening in the United Kingdom on the 8th September.

The Hundred-Foot Journey is a charming film filled with culinary delight and glorious landscapes. In retrospect, a film featuring such a sweet and inspirational journey should actually be a lot bigger than what it actually is. The film takes it's audience on a incredible journey which should provoke awe and admiration, yet it feels a little too much has been hurriedly crammed into it's two hour running time to really grasp the power and emotion that it should. There is no denying that it is indeed a nice film with many delicious visuals, but it is a film which knows it is charming and doesn't want to be too adventurous.

After the Kadam family have a series of unfortunate events happen to them, they make a fresh start in a small town in the French countryside. The head of the family, Papa (Om Puri) decides to open an Indian restaurant in an abandoned house, which just happens to be across the road from the town's Michelin star restaurant run by Madame Mallory (Helen Mirren). A battle between the two restaurants follows , but things change when a terrible act of cruelty is performed against the Kadams. However, the biggest change comes when Hassan Kadam (Manish Dayal) makes the hundred-foot journey across the road to work for Madame Mallory.

While The Hundred-Foot Journey is a fine film with particularly memorable and attractive visuals, it is also a film which had so much more to give. The Hundred-Foot Journey is, as the name suggests, a journey film. Journey films in general tend to have a lot to cover and as a result, if they need a longer than average running time in order to achieve this, it is forgiven. This film does indeed have a lot to cover and while it does cover all it needs to, it is done in an extremely rushed fashion. This is most evident in the second half of the film where everything is done as quickly as possible so it is able to fit into the two hour theatrical run time. There are many things which could have been fleshed out more in order to create real emotion rather than just be spoken of in one sentence and then moved on to the next thing. It was an opportunity to make a real emotional impact with the film that was sadly missed. The characters are likable and the story is sweet and inspirational, but it is just a shame that there is not enough feeling evoked to make it a great film.

However, what The Hundred-Foot Journey lacks in depth and emotion it makes up for by what it does aesthetically. It is the food that is on show here and is absolutely glorious. There are a wide variety of edibles carefully displayed throughout the film in beautiful fashion and with these visuals, the viewer is also able to smell and even imagine exactly how everything would taste. This is turn does evoke hunger in the viewer. The shots of the French countryside and it's rivers, woodlands and small town are all exquisite, as are the night shots of the stars and fireworks in the sky. The Hundred-Foot Journey invests a great deal in it's musical score. A different piece of music is used for all the restaurants to symbolise the different atmosphere each venue holds. There is also music dubbed into the film when particular foods are on screen and when a character is trying an amazing meal for the first time to enhance the importance of this food, such as when Madame Mallory samples Hassan's omelette. However, there are moments such as these when the use of the music is a little too much. It does add a charm to the moment, but perhaps too much charm.

Helen Mirren is wonderful to watch in this film. Her character of Madame Mallory evidently has a number of layers (many which are unfortunately not explored in great detail) and does as much as possible with what has been given to her. Mirren is always thrilling to watching in a domineering role as she has the ability to be intimidating and frightening without even raising her voice, as she demonstrates when dismissing one of her staff. Manish Dayal is very likable in the lead as Hassan. However, he is the one who suffers the most from the rushed nature of the film, particularly in the last quarter. So much suddenly happens to him, but he is not given the chance to make all of this work for him and bring out the emotions of his changing situation. Charlotte Le Bon is also very good as Hassan's love interest, Marguerite. She is once again incredibly likable and works well with Dayal.

Coming away from The Hundred-Foot Journey you feel as though you have seen a great deal, but not felt a great deal. Just a pleasant way to spend two hours.

6.5/10

Red 2 (2013)

Year: 2013

Running Time: 116 minutes

Director: Dean Parisot

Writers: Jon and Erich Hoeber

Cast: Bruce Willis, Mary-Louise Parker, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Anthony Hopkins, Byung-hun Lee

Red 2 opens in Australian cinemas on August 29 and is distributed by Hopscotch Films. Now showing in the USA and UK.

While Red 2 tries to promise a great film experience by tempting you with an amazingly ensembled cast, the film is rarely better than plain bland.

The last 25 minutes of the film are perhaps the best, but it takes a lot of patience to get to this point and not have given up on the film. However, the sequel to 2010's Red is saved by thoroughly entertaining performances by Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and Anthony Hopkins and some pretty exciting action sequences....no matter how unlikely and unrealistic those sequences may be.

Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is back with his girlfriend, Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) and once partner in crime and best friend, Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich). Frank and Marvin have been linked incorrectly to a secret operation called Nightshade and are on the run from the authorities as a result. As well as having the authorities on their tails, Victoria (Helen Mirren) has been hired to kill Frank, as has Han (Byung-hun Lee). Together they try to find out exactly what is this top secret operation is that they have been linked to and when they finally find Nightshade creator, Dr Edward Bailey (Anthony Hopkins), everyone realises that there is more than meets the eye to Nightshade.

Although it has it's entertaining moments thanks largely to it's wonderful cast, Red 2 is quite lack lustre and borders on the ridiculous on more than one occasion. It is in the first 20 minutes when watching Bruce Willis' Frank take on 15 armed men and come out victorious that you can't help but scoff at how unlikely this seems. Of course in the majority of action films there is usually the presence of less than realistic action sequences, but here in Red 2 we just have no belief that Frank Moses is all he claims to be even though he has so many near death moments throughout the film that he lives through.

Although the script can be just as ridiculous at times. Some of the dialogue (especially that said by Mary-Louise Parker) can be particularly silly and annoying. The story itself has some good moments, such as the uncovering of the Nightshade mystery. Yet it also has it's bad and unnecessary moments, such as the inclusion of the side story of Frank and Katya (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and inclusion of the character of Katya at all. The ending of the film doesn't gather any suspense at all with a conclusion as predictable as the end of day.

On the positive side of things, there are some very entertaining moments in Red 2. Perhaps the best scene in the film is when Victoria and Han are in the car together and the shoot out that takes place. Visually, it was an interesting decision Dean Parisot made to link scenes together by having an outline of the last character seen on screen, and then a red screen leading to a shot of the location for the next scene with the name of the city included. It doesn't really add anything to the film, but there is no real reason to dislike it. It is just an interesting inclusion which makes it a bit more like the traditional comic book to film adaptation.

While there are some ordinary performances by some actors in Red 2, there are some other very entertaining performances. Bruce Willis. who is the main character of the film, seems to be playing the same role he has played in countless films before. His performance doesn't contain any points for discussion, other than it was just mediocre and flat. Mary-Louise Parker plays a character who is just plain irritating, far more irritating than in the first film. Her naivety for the situations she finds herself in is more stupid than endearing. She is not a particularly strong nor inspiring female figure.

Helen Mirren is the best part of the film with her brilliant delivery of her colourful dialogue. She is an amazing female action star and is cooler than many in the younger generation of butt-kicking females in action at the moment. Those who are followers of Mirren's career will have a good giggle at her scene in the asylum where she mimics a character she has played in the past.

Catherine Zeta-Jones' character is not overly useful in the grand scheme of things and her inclusion really isn't necessary. It isn't a particularly interesting performance by her, but it would be hard to give a great performance of a character who really isn't that great. Anthony Hopkins gives a very good performance as Dr Edward Bailey and shows that he can just as likable as he can subtly terrifying. John Malkovich provides great comic relief to the film with some cracking lines and very funny antics.

Red 2 is just a little too mediocre to make it a successful sequel. As a stand alone film, it not a success by any means. However, the presence of Helen Mirren, Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich make the film bearable enough.

4.5/10


You may have also seen Bruce Willis in....
Looper as Joe

You may have also seen Helen Mirren in....
The Last Station as Countess Sofya
Hitchcock as Alma Reville

You may have also seen Anthony Hopkins in....
Hitchcock as Alfred Hitchcock

Monsters University (2013)

Year: 2013
Director: Dan Scanlon
Cast: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Helen Mirren, Charlie Day, Steve Buscemi
Monsters University is now showing in cinemas everywhere

Twelve years on from when we first met Mike and Sully in Monsters Inc., we take a step back in time to when these two lovable monsters first became best friends at university.

If you are expecting Monsters University to be the same sort of film as Monsters Inc., it isn't that. As a sequel, it isn't as good as the first film, which is what one would have been expecting anyway. However, it is a very different film with not as much feeling and heart, but still has the focus on friendship and will make anyone reminiscent of their college days.

Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has been dreaming of attending Monsters University to study to be a scarer all his life and finally his time has arrived. When he arrives, he is faced with the same doubt he has been receiving all his life about how scary he actually is by his classmates and superiors including natural scarer, James "Sully" Sullivan (John Goodman). Mike is an outcast in his school of monsters, but when he and Sully are kicked out of the Scarers program by Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren), the two join take part in the Scarers Games in order to win a wager to get back into the program. They join forces with a group of misfits to make sure their dreams stay alive.

Monsters University is an entertaining film for the most part. It takes awhile to get going, but finds it's momentum in the latter half of the Scarer Games. The world of the Monsters University is well created and a lot of fun. Disney Pixar films are always a joy to watch and this film is no exception. It is visually perfect and the use of colour is brilliant.

While Monsters Inc. was suited for all ages including little children, Monsters University is not quite as suitable for this age bracket. Children may not be able to relate as much to seeing Mike and Sully go to university as they are not familiar with college days as of yet, but they will still enjoy seeing the children later in the film. Those who have been to college will enjoy all the clever parallels that the university in the film has with the actual college experience. There is college football, Welcome Week fair's, frat parties and, of course, lectures and exams.

While the actual content may not be relatable for children, the characters are always relatable. There is every type of person you would find in not just college, but in every year of school itself. There are the jocks, the sorority girls, the arty types and the outcasts who are all on the outer of the cool kids for different reasons.

One thing that Monsters University is not is cliché. This is almost a refreshing change to many Disney animated films, yet it is at the same time confusing and a tad unsettling. The lesson you feel you are supposed to be learning is a harsh one regarding dreams that come true and dreams that don't. Some people will enjoy something different from a Disney film, but other people would much rather feel the Disney magic the way they feel it should be. There isn't a great deal of emotion to be felt throughout the film, which is something that is greatly missed. Monsters University is nowhere near as heartfelt as what Monsters Inc. was. Even as a stand alone film, it feels like you should be feeling the same disappointment as the characters and feeling sympathy for them, but it just isn't there.

The screenplay is still well written, but has the obstacle that being a prequel, it was always going to be slightly predictable as to where the best friends end up. However, this is dealt with well and has a few little surprises along the way.

Billy Crystal and John Goodman bring back to life Mike and Sully extremely well. They are both fine voice actors as they allow their voices to morph into their characters. Helen Mirren is also great and quite chilling as Dean Hardscrabble. Steve Buscemi's Randy doesn't have as big a role as in Monsters Inc., but still puts in a great vocal performance in his time.

Monsters University seems to be slightly confused about what it is. It's college related content suggests that older children and adults may be able to relate to the film better than small children, yet the film itself can be a little too slow to be thoroughly engrossing for older audiences. Still entertaining, but not overwhelming.

6/10


You may have also seen John Goodman in....
The Artist as Al Zimmer
Argo as John Chambers

You may have also seen Helen Mirren in.....
The Last Station as Sofya Tolstoy
Hitchcock as Alma Reville

Hitchcock (2012)

Year: 2012

Director: Sacha Gervasi

Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, James D’Arcy, Jessica Biel, Toni Collette

Before I begin my review…

Let me have a selfish moment, I was so, so excited about Hitchcock considering I am a HUGE Alfred Hitchcock fan.

HUGE as in the man is my all-time favourite director. In a time where something a little too different in a film was considered not risky but just plain wrong, Hitchcock was the only director who could try something different in his films and be considered an absolute genius. He embraced film as the art form that it is as well as wanting to completely enthral his audience.

Like all old Hollywood films, actors and directors, it upsets me how so many people these days are ignorant to his genius. They only know bits and pieces about the great man. As much as I love Psycho, there are a lot of people out there who have just heard about the movie and haven’t even seen it. Then they assume that Hitchcock was primarily a horror film maker as they just think of the Psycho shower scene. He was the master of suspense and yes, Psycho and The Birds are considered horror films, but the large majority of his film catalogue are categorised as mystery and thriller.

Take for example someone I once served when working in retail.

My co-worker: Are you a Hitchcock fan?

Myself: Yes, I am a Hitchcock fan

Customer: What, you're a fan of being scared?

Myself: I'm just a fan of good film making

(Customer gives blank look)

This conversation just proves to me that some people, who aren’t film crazy like myself, do not understand the true genius of Hitchcock, nor do they understand that he was one of the greatest film makers of all time and not just a horror film director.

And just because we are on the subject of Hitchcock, my top five Hitchcock films are Vertigo (James Stewart, Kim Novak), Rebecca (Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine), North By Northwest (Cary Grant, Eve Marie Saint), Rear Window(James Stewart, Grace Kelly) and Psycho (Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh), with Shadow Of A Doubt and Marnie.

Everybody is welcome to share their top five Hitchcock films in the comments section!

Review

Hitchcock allows the great man to be seen as never before behind the scenes of one of his greatest movies, Psycho.

For movie lovers, Hitchcock is extremely interesting as it gives you a behind the scenes look at Psycho, but also what happened when the cameras stopped rolling and Alfred Hitchock went home to his wife, Alma Reville. However, people who are not as enthralled with film and its history may find the film slow and lacking in the suspense department…maybe even a tad predictable. However, predictability is something that was always going to be hard to avoid with such a film about a film which is perhaps one of the most popular horror films ever made.

Alfred Hitchcock’s (Anthony Hopkins) latest film, North by Northwest has just opened and is a huge success, but Hitchcock knows that you are only as successful as your last film. He takes a chance on Psycho, the film Hollywood is afraid to touch and goes on his emotional journey of dealing with the censors and with his leading ladies. While when he leaves the set, he enters another emotional battlefield with his wife and uncredited business partner, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren).

Perhaps the biggest problem with Hitchcock, which may not even really be a problem, is that you always know where the movie is going. It is no secret that Psycho was a success when it was released in 1960 and still continues to be to this day, so this is really not a film of suspense about the master of suspense. Even Hitchcock’s relationship with his wife is fairly predictable.

 However, is this really a problem? The film does what it is supposed to be as it informs and entertains whether you know what is going to happen or not. It is great fun to watch and really is very interesting. Hitchcock fans in general will love the film and those who don’t know too much about him will find out plenty about him and about the production of Psycho.

The film is quite well made, although there are some interesting choices made by director, Sacha Gervasi. Gervasi has designed Hitchcock as though we are actually watching an Alfred Hitchcock film. He implies that Hitchcock’s mind actually did work like one of his films, as is shown in some of his scenes with Alma, especially with the scene in the kitchen. It does work well for the film and makes it a tad quirky, much like Hitchcock’s films. However, at times it does seem as though he is trying to do a little too much and trying to make it abstract in ways it doesn’t need to be. Once again, nobody can do Hitchcock like Hitchcock.

Yet, some of Gervasi’s choices of scenes in the film are a bit odd in that they seem out of place in the film and don’t seem to add to the film as a whole. For example, the scenes of Alma with the red bathing suit. You can see what Gervasi is trying to say, but it is already a point that has been made without needing to be pointed out once again.

The script, as written by John J. McLaughlin, is great. It covers every aspect of Hitchcock’s relationships and puts beautifully into words his fascination with his leading ladies. The banter between Hitchcock and Alma is also very entertaining.

There are some wonderful performances in Hitchcock. What can you say about Anthony Hopkins? With Hopkins you know you are never going to see a bad performance and this role proves his consistency. Hopkins has studied all of Hitchcock’s facial expressions, body language and speech and has it all perfected. He gives a wonderful performance and truly brings the man back to life.

Helen Mirren gives an absolute knockout performance. However, like Hopkins, Mirren is an actor who you just expect brilliance from. She gives an absolutely amazing monologue in the film when Hitchcock asks her for support which sends shivers down your spine.

What both Hopkins and Mirren have in this film, is the ability to tell so much about the way they are feeling without having to use words.

Scarlett Johansson gives an above average performance as Janet Leigh and again brings the actress back to life. Her recreation of the infamous shower scene is her absolute shining moment of the film. James D’Arcy is also a very convincing Anthony Perkins.

Hitchcock is a wonderfully informative and entertaining biopic with some brilliant performances. A must see for any old Hollywood and Hitchcock fanatics. Hopkins does the Alfred Hitchcock complete and utter justice.

7.5/10

References
The Internet Movie Database
She Knows

Arthur

Year: 2011
Director: Jason Winer
Cast: Russell Brand, Helen Mirren, Jennifer Garner, Greta Gerwig

In My Own Words
It always takes a bad day followed by a visit to the cinema to remind me why I love movies so much. It doesn't matter what it is going on in your life, while you are in a cinema, you forget everything which is going on outside and lose yourself in the film. The world of film provides ua all with an escape and with all the crazy things that are happenning in our lives and in the world at this point in time, an escape is something we all need at times. When you need that escape, I really love the movies which are out in the cinemas at school holiday time. There is always a comedy or an animation or two to watch which will always put you in a better mood once you make the trip to the movies. It doesn't even matter whether the film is half decent or not, just as long as it isn't is light and fluffy and fun.  Last night when I got home I found myself in a bit lower a mood than usual and I put on "The Country Girl" with Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly. Now forgive me, but this was the first time I had seen "The Country Girl" and it was a lot sadder than what I thought it would be. My mother rang me while I was in the middle of watching it and got mad at me for watching a depressing movie which would only enhance my bad mood! Quite clearly I should have made the trip to the cinemas last night to see "Arthur"! However, even after seeing it today, I feel like a new person! It really is amazing the power a film can hold over you by way of escapism.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Once again, we approach another remake with caution. "Arthur" was originally made back in 1981 with Dudley Moore as Arthur, Liza Minnelli as his love interest and John Gielgud in his Oscar winning role as Hobson, Arthur's servant. 30 years later, Arthur is now Russell Brand, who resembles Moore only in his haircut for the film and Hobson is now Arthur's nanny and played by Helen Mirren. While the 1981 "Arthur" was worthy of 4 Academy Award nominations and 2 wins, the 2011 version can be described as just good enough. It's fun, but just a bit too silly to be completely hilarious. Sure, there are definitely some laughs but it is a case of seeing the funniest parts in the trailer. Arthur is a child trapped in a 30 year old's body. He loves his toys and spends the money he has inherited from his parents on such extravagences as parties with numerous women and booze. In order to get him to calm down and act like an adult, his distant mother decides to give him an ultimatum, marry Susan Johnson (Jennifer Garner) or say goodbye to the millions. This happens at the same time that Arthur meets free-spirited Naomi (Greta Gerwig) who he immediately falls for. Arthur is faced with the biggest decision he has ever had to make, marry a woman he feels nothing for and keep his millions, or keep the girl of his dreams and lose all the money.

"Arthur" is a case of Russell Brand playing Russell Brand. He mixes up the roles which he plays in the movies he partakes in, but they are not a great stretch from each other. In all honestly, Brand will probably never be an accomplished dramatic actor, but he still doesn't do too badly in the dramatic scenes. The chemistry between him and Helen Mirren on screen strengthens throughout the film, as it should be. Unfortunately, the strength of the chemistry between Brand and Great Gerwig on screen is extremely weak and they physically do not look right together. On her own, Gerwig actually does do a very good job as Naomi and she is just delightful with a great amount of character.  In this film, it does feel that Brand has had to tone down his sense of humour to fit in with the film's PG rating. At the beginning of the film, after about 5 minutes it almost feels as though you are going to start to find Brand's Arthur extremely annoying, but by halfway through the film he has actually became quite likable. His character does seem to be extremely overdone in proving that he has a childlike mind. You can see why the director, Jason Winer has made Arthur this way as to make a point, but it is so overdone that Arthur just seems creepy.

However, the script does allow for Arthur to have some very funny dialogue, even though a lot of it is in the trailer so it doesn't seem as funny the second time you have seen it. The script does tend to miss out on some pivotal moments of Arthur's development, particularly towards the end. "Arthur" does tend to get really qute silly at times, but there really is something in this film for everyone.  The best thing is, Winer has made "Arthur" his own and it really is different from the original. Yes, it is not as good as the original, but it is a different film. Gone is the massive Arthur laugh from Dudley Moore and it is replaced by Brand and his own Arthur. The decision to make Hobson into a nanny rather than a servant does work as well as it adds to the immaturity of Arthur's character. The decision also to make Naomi into a tour guide who is running from the police because she doesn't have a license makes her more endearing and perfect for Arthur'sa love interest, rather than Linda (who was played by Liza Minelli) who was running from the police as she was trying to steal a tie for her father.  A remake that isn't trying to be the original is always worthy of praise.

"Arthur" is a good film for the holidays. It is entertaining enough, doesn't require the use of too many brain cells and is a bit of fun. It does border on the funny/silly border, but has something for everyone no matter how frustrating it can be at times.
5.5/10

The Last Station

The Last Station
Year: 2009
Director: Michael Hoffman
Cast: Helen Mirren, Christopher Plummer, James McAvoy, Paul Giamatti

In My Own Words
Today I am sure I was the youngest person in the cinema to watch “The Last Station”. I’m not entirely sure why that was, but don’t get me wrong, it didn’t bother me at all. I don’t particularly see why “The Last Station” has been particularly stereotyped as being just for the older audience. Maybe it’s because in Sydney it was advertised as closing the Seniors Film Festival at Dendy Cinemas 2 weeks ago, or maybe it’s because Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer are headlining it. Or maybe it is because the combination of Leo Tolstoy, romance and the early 20th century time period just do not seem even remotely interesting to the youth of today. I’m not quite sure that many of the young generation today would know who Leo Tolstoy is, unless they are avid readers like myself. I myself think that “Anna Karenina” is one of the beautifully written books, so I was overjoyed to know that there was going to be a movie about the great man and that Christopher Plummer was playing him. I really believe Plummer did the role complete justice, as did Helen Mirren in playing Countess Sofya.

I have always had a love hate relationship with films which are filmed in a non-English speaking country, but have English dialogue. “The Last Station” is another one of these films. Sometimes I think I would prefer to see a film set in a country and spoken in the same language as it would make it more realistic, but at the same time I understand why such films are done in English as it increases the audience scope. So many people get put off by the idea of going to see a film in a foreign language as they feel like it is work watching as well as having to read at the same time. Some films with the foreign country and English dialogue can really irk me, especially when the dialogue also has the wrong accent, but this film was not one of them.

By the way, does anyone else have the problem where anytime they see Christopher Plummer, all they can think is “The hills are alive with the sound of music…” No? Maybe it’s just me. Anyway, these are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“The Last Station” is one of those films which you watch, and forget that you are actually watching actors act. Although the film can seem a bit slow in parts, the acting is absolutely superb and is to be celebrated. The film may not suit all film goers, as period piece author biopics are not to everybody’s liking. “The Last Station” retells the last year of celebrated author, Leo Tolstoy’s (Christopher Plummer) life. In particular, it focuses on Tolstoy’s relationship with his wife, Countess Sofya (Helen Mirren). As a result of mixed political views, their marriage of 42 years was extremely turbulent, but could also be extremely passionate and loving. The film completely captures the raw emotion of their relationship, as well as the relationships of Tolstoy and the Countess with all the people closest to them.

Although the film is there to tell the story of Tolstoy’s last year, it is more about the characters. The direction by Michael Hoffman is spectacular in this way, as he brings out the best in all the actors who take part in the film and it is unbelievable how the audience feels as if they personally know and empathize with each of the characters. Unfortunately, being a character driven film, this does slow down the pace of the film which some audience members will find to be a disadvantage, while others will realize that every moment in the film adds to the realism of each of the characters. The visuals are also quite stunning of the Russian countryside in which Tolstoy and his family made their residence. The only downfall with the direction is that some of the landscape panning shots are a little too fast and do not allow for the audience to take in all of what they see on screen.

Both Plummer and Mirren earned themselves Academy Award nominations for their performances in “The Last Station” and this is not a surprise at all. Mirren is absolutely superb as Countess Sofya. She shows so many emotions within the film and does each perfectly. Mirren has said of this film that she did not look too much into how the Countess was in real life, but created her own interpretation of how she believed the wife of Tolstoy should have been. She excels at this and definitely brings the character to life. Plummer is also wonderful as Tolstoy, created a completely lovable characters whom the audience immediately falls in love with. James McAvoy is also brilliant as Valetin Belgakov. When he meets Tolstoy for the first time is particularly a stand out moment, showing the true emotion of a pupil meeting his hero for the first time.

“The Last Station” cannot be missed by anyone who is a Tolstoy fan, or a fan of great acting. There are many moments which linger once the film is finished and make this one of the finest biopics of the year.
8/10