Rev Stan's film blog

Black Swan or Swan Lake ballerina goes method

Kate is waiting for my thoughts on this one. We went to see it yesterday and when I came out of the cinema she asked me what I thought and I said: "I can't decide whether it's brilliant or just *shrugs and makes indifferent sound*.

I think part of the problem is that there has been so much hype around it and everyone I know who's seen it says it is brilliant. And coming off the back of three really, really good films: King's Speech, 127 Hours and Biutiful it had a lot to live up to.

Nina, played absolutely brilliantly by Natalie Portman who apparently trained for a year, wins the coveted role of playing White and Black Swans in Swan Lake. She's got the virginal innocence of the White Swan down pat but the Black Swan, she is told by artistic director Thomas (Vincent Cassel), requires her to let go completely, drawing on something less perfect within.

Thomas needs Nina to be a success as the fresh new face of the failing ballet company. Add to this an over-protective, overbearing mother who is hell-bent on living out the ballet career she never had through her daughter and the pressure is on. Performing the Black Swan Thomas wants seems to require a different Nina, something she fights to become.

Black Swan is an uncomfortable watch. Nina is prone to self harming and there was much for the squeamish inside me to squirm at. Black Swan is also very well made and it oozes tension - who'd have thought that of a ballet movie?

Back from Babel: Inarritu's Biutiful

Biutiful is the antithesis of Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu's last film Babel. In the BFI's production notes the director says:

"At the end of Babel, I was so exhausted I made it a point that my next film would be about just one character, with one point of view, one single city, with a straight narrative line and in my own native language."

If you add into that having film's protagonist played by native actor Javier Bardem then you have something which is far, far superior to the starry-casted and confusing Babel.

Biutiful is Uxbal's (Bardem) story. He's a single father of two, his ex-wife is bio-polar and for money he hustles on the grimy back streets of Barcelona, acting as a broker between illegal immigrants and those looking for cheap labour or an outlet for selling their counterfeit goods.

*Some spoilers* The film starts with a tension-filled scene in a snowy wood between a young man and Uxbal, the two walking into an unknown fate or so it seems. The significance of the opening scene only gradually becomes evident as the narrative switches back to the preceding weeks, following Uxbal going about his life.

He is a good man. He is raising his children as best as he can and kind and considerate to those around him. The cliche would be that he was manipulative and exploitative in earning his money but he isn't. He treats those for whom he finds work as his equals, finding them places to stay and even getting arrested when he steps in to stop the police beating one.

It is his kindness that ultimately leads to tragedy but that isn't the heart of the story or the true tragedy. The tragedy is that Uxbal is dying of cancer. He has ignored the signs and the pain and now it is too late and he has just a couple of months to put his life in order for all those dependent on his help and his young family.

Diego Luna's Abel

Little Gael Garcia Bernal's fellow actor, countryman and, I believe, good friend Diego Luno is forging a career as a director and Abel is his third time behind the lense.

As finished product Abel is very polished and shows that Luna is certainly beyond acting. And it is an interesting story (in part inspired by seeing Ben Whishaw play Hamlet no less).

Abel, a young boy, is returning home after a spell in a psychiatric hospital where he was admitted after have some sort of breakdown which resulted in his refusing to speak when his father left. Arriving home with his mother he is reunited with his older sister and younger brother but remains mute.

His doctor wants to send him to another hospital much further away but his mother is reluctant because of the distance. An incident in a playground in which Abel observes a father interacting with his son seems to awaken something inside him.

He starts to speak but he speaks as if he is a father. So surprised by this turnaround in his behaviour his mother convinces his siblings to play along.

The nerdy 'how are they going to do that in Harry Potter 7 Part 2?' post

The lure of re-reading Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows was too great after seeing Part 1 of the film for a second time over Christmas. I enjoyed the film immensely but there were a couple of plot points I couldn't quite remember that were driving me nuts...well that's my excuse anyway.

Aside from noticing all the bits that had been left out (this post only really scratches the surface) it also got me thinking about how they will execute certain key scenes on the big screen.

*This post will contain spoilers if you haven't read the book*

One problem the film makers have had throughout the series is the cloak of invisibility. It is one element of the magical world that works brilliantly on the page but not on screen. It is a difficulty which I believe led to the Dumbledore death/astronomy tower debacle that ruined my enjoyment of the Half Blood Prince film.

The cloak of invisibility features heavily in the last book but has been largely ignored in the first film without too much deviation . But in Part 2 or the final third of the book* it is an essential aid for the trio:

1. Harry and Griphook hide under the cloak while Hermoine is polyjuiced into Bellatrix and Ron disguised in order to break into Gringotts

2. The trio also use the cloak to apparate into Hogsmeade and then is used by Harry and Luna to get into the Ravenclaw common room.

3. They also use it to get around the castle while the battle of Hogwarts is raging and then to the whomping willow when they attempt to kill Nagini at the Shrieking Shack.

4. Harry uses the cloak to leave the castle undetected after Voldemort calls a cease-fire in the battle and for Harry to be handed over and then again after his 'death' and the battle recommences.

Of those, the one I will be most disappointed to see go is when Harry leaves the castle because there is a lovely scene when he sees Ginny and really wants to go to her but can't. I think Gringotts will be difficult to engineer without it too.

Still standing for The King's Speech

I was blown away by The King's Speech when I saw it at the London Film Festival back in October, so much so I wanted to see it again.

Now my first attempt at a second viewing didn't go so well. I'd book to see a preview with a director's Q&A at the Curzon, only I went to the wrong cinema. It was an diary accident waiting to happen (my combined film and theatre viewing totalled more than 150 last year) but hopefully won't happen again for at least a year.

Anyway, my second attempt was more successful and even though I have already posted my thoughts it is technically a 2011 release, so I wanted to mark it as such with a few words and an official Rev Stan score.

So what can I say about it? Well, it more than lived up to my first review. It is a warm, moving and funny film that succeeds in showing the human side of royalty. As I was leaving the cinema I could have quite happily bought a ticket for the next screening and gone straight back in.

Colin Firth has already got 14 best actor awards for it and I hope the supporting cast gets the recognition it deserves too, particularly Geoffrey Rush.

The critics seem to love it too:

Rotten Tomatoes UK gives it 95% from 174 reviews and it has an average user rating of 8.6/10

Metacritic gives it 88% from 41 reviews with an average user rating of 8.7/10.

And Rev Stan gives it 95% - it loses 5% because of the odd choice of Guy Pearce playing Colin Firth's older brother or am I the only one who finds that odd?

First film of 2011: 127 Hours

When I came out of the cinema I tweeted how 127 Hours had made me feel sick. A friend responded:

It is a fair point. The film is based on a true story and few will sit down to watch without knowing that it's about adrenalin junkie Aron Ralston who falls into a canyon becoming trapped by the arm which he ends up amputating in a desperate attempt to free himself. Well if you didn't you do now.

But what made we want to see it, despite getting sweaty palms and feeling a bit squeamish just watching the trailer, was how he got to that point emotionally and physically. And that is what is interesting and engaging about the film.

Trapped and facing a slow, lonely and almost certain death gives Ralston time to reflect. Now that in itself might put some people off with visions of the film being series of flashbacks. It isn't. Ralston is an engineer and an experienced canyoner, albeit one who makes a near fatal mistake, so the story also follows his journey working through the 'problem' and potential solutions.

It is also a film about human physical and mental survival. He was in the canyon for five days having taken with him enough food and water for the weekend. (Yes, he drinks his own wee).

With Danny Boyle at the helm there are some imaginative devices used to move the story along, show the passing of time and his nutrition and fluid denied brain's inner workings. I'm not sure all of them work quite smoothly and delusion/fantasy scenes are always tricky to pull off without merely resorting to foggy edges.