bacooda Reviews

Notting Hill (1999)

A modern Cinderella tale with English charm and humour

[9/10 · 20 February 2007]

Can lightning strike twice? Well with writer Richard Curtis it has! I understand he wrote this screenplay and completed it before he realised just how similar it was to his previous hit, Four Weddings and a Funeral.

Let's examine this a second: Hugh Grant is the hero; There's an elusive and glamorous American that he falls for; He has a circle of friends, each in their own way a success AND a failure in life, and yet Hugh's character (William Thacker) is somehow trailing them all; there's the kooky yet endearing sister; the character with a tragic disability; a complete buffoon of a sidekick; and several near-misses.

Yet it's all so thoroughly entertaining, AGAIN. It's like a delicious dish, and its recipe for success is cooked up time and again by Curtis as Jamie Oliver's older and wiser brother.

As a single bloke in this day and age I AM William Thacker, and I AM Charles in Four Weddings. So on the one hand you'll have parts of the audience identifying with the hero, and parts of the audience wanting the hero to be their real-life partner. Yet character empathy alone is not enough to carry a film.

The path that the hero follows needs to be a roller-coaster ride. Sometimes it's up, sometimes it's down, but it's never boring. In fact, the pacing is assuredly steady just as, in one excellent scene, we see the indication of time passing in an extremely effective way. I feel that Curtis learnt from Four Weddings and tightened the strings on the time line in this movie. Where Four Weddings very occasionally crawls, Notting Hill paces along assuredly.

In addition, our hero's roller-coaster ride must be believable. Could this really happen? Why not? Do movie stars ALWAYS fall for other celebrities?

So what of the performances? Well Hugh Grant is really Hugh Grant (again) in this role. But isn't that why we go to see Hugh Grant movies? He's funny yet tragic, vulnerable yet assured, and I can't imagine anyone else playing William.

Julia Roberts is one of those stars who, love her or hate her, delivers in every role. She's very believable as Anna Scott, showing the resolute public charm of a movie star, whilst exposing the hidden human frailty behind Hollywood's finest. And this despite the undoubted (and wholly false) criticism that she's simply playing a movie star like she in fact is. She perhaps COULD have leaned back and simply ambled through the movie expecting it to be an easy role for her, but in a truly professional manner, she's sought to add depth and weight to her character.

The rest of the cast sparkle in their roles, most notably Rhys Ifans as Spike. But even without the requisite comedy set pieces that Rhys revels in, actors of class such as Tim McInnerny, James Dreyfus, Gina McKee, Emma Chambers and Hugh Bonneville expertly fill in the no-less important landscape of this joyous and warm piece of art.

Watch out, too, for memorable cameos by Alec Baldwin, Mischa Barton and Matthew Modine.

So who is Cinderella and who is the Prince? At first glance William is the hopeful nobody. But really, as the story develops, we'll see that there are two character's dreams unfolding in Notting Hill.

Why then not 10 out of 10? Well, full marks would have been ME starring as William Thacker... ;)

Unhitched (2005)

Cheeky English chappy steals the show, and he isn't English!

[7/10 · 12 February 2007]

I'm one of these people that loves to think that new romantic comedies can all be as good as Four Weddings and A Funeral, or Notting Hill, before I go to see them. But they can't, sadly.

However, they all have their place, and some of the better ones in recent memory (Just Like Heaven; So I Married an Axe Murderer; Addicted to Love) all have one thing in common: memorable characters put into memorable situations.

The Best Man/Unhitched does, but it isn't Stuart Townsend, who does a decent job of things as the leading man (and girls, he's just as cute but at least somewhat vulnerable unlike LeStat in Queen of the Damned). It isn't Amy Smart, who does a decent job of things as the leading lady (and fellas, she's every bit as cute as we remember her in Road Trip, and gets more screen time, thank the gods).

So who is it? Seth Green of course. And this little fella doesn't get my vote simply because I'm 5'5" like he is (give or take an inch or two). Instead it's because: his accent is really rather good; his character is fun and unpredictable; and we'd ALL be rooting for him or doing what he does in the movie, if our best mate needed our "help".

So is the script decent? Not bad. At times it doesn't flow, and the first half of the movie the dialogue and situations seem a little forced. But there IS an honesty in it, almost as though this or at least part of the premise has happened to the writers or someone they know. The second half of the movie is far better and moves along nicely.

The acting? Not bad. Everyone except Seth Green just does what is required of them and not much more. The Seth-meister (and I feel like I can call him that) is far more animated and approachable than his turns as Oz in Buffy, or in films like Rat Race and The Italian Job.

Can we believe the romance and the motivation behind Olly's (Townsend) actions? Somewhat. He's a bit of a wuss. "Come on Olly, catch a wakeup!" you'll be wanting to shout at the screen.

Will we feel like we enjoyed the past 90 minutes at the end of the movie? I sure did. I'm guessing if you go in with the same low-ish expectations as me then you will as well.

Verdict: 7 out of 10 - It's nothing special, but as a date movie, a cuddle-on-a-rainy-day-DVD or a pick-me-up after some bad news, it works...

Bonus Hollywood value: Seth Green should be teaching Don Cheadle (in Ocean's 11) how to do an English accent!

The Wedding Singer (1998)

Sandler takes us back to '85!

[25 September 2002]

Each of us has a decade which is most important to us. Usually, your favourite decade is the one in which you were a teenager: You had little in the way of responsibility; life was about hanging out with friends, partying and listening to pop music. For me, it could only be the 80's. Here at last is a movie that celebrates that time like no other.

Robbie Hart (Sandler) is the Wedding Singer. He's a happy-go-lucky guy doing the wedding scene to make extra cash while his songwriting career waits to take flight. It isn't until he's jilted at his own wedding by groovy but selfish rock chick Linda (Angela Featherstone) that he realises his life amounts to very little. He's living the dream, and he's just about to wake up and smell the Pop Tarts. Robbie gets to fall to earth with only a slight bump however, because he's unknowingly rescued by adorable waitress Julia (Drew Barrymore). Problem is, she's due to marry spoiled rich-kid Glenn Gulia (Matthew Glave). Will Robbie be able to stop the inevitable and finally have some true happiness in his life?

The story would be adequate as a vehicle for Adam Sandler, written as it is by his buddy Tim Herlihy. Yet, unlike other Sandler vehicles, it shines through with additional brightness: this film gets to poke fun and reminisce about a really cool ten years of our lives. Marvellous in-jokes abound: Miami Vice, the Back to the Future trilogy, and even Billy Idol get a look in! Attention to detail is high. Costume and hairstyles are spot on. The movie's soundtrack is second to none. In fact, there are so many memorable songs in it, the film's producers released two instalments of the soundtrack CD for sale. Songs like "Do you really want to hurt me", "Pass the Dutchie", and "Too Shy" will easily spark off fond memories in all who know Ronald Reagan as a president, not as an actor.

Sandler is, well, Adam Sandler in this film. I wonder whether he will ever be anyone else! However, in the supporting cast we notice warm and rich performances from Barrymore and Allen Covert (a Sandler movie stalwart), playing Robbie's best friend Sammy. Steve Buscemi occupies a scene-stealing cameo role with such vigour that it is unfortunate he does not appear throughout the film. The finest performance however, is by Matthew Glave. Glenn Gulia is truly a nasty piece of work. He's a womanising, self-centred, rich prat who deliberately preys upon Julia since he knows he can trust her, because she was with him before he made his money. He openly chases other women, and even denies Julia her one chance to have a window seat on an aeroplane, countering with "When we fly over Las Vegas, I'll let you lean over me!" You'll grow to hate the character, and this is the mark of fine writing translated into fine acting.

Aside from a hollywood ending, rich in schmaltz, we see an enjoyable hour and a half, reminding us just how puffy people's hairdos were back then, and how cool the music really was. And there'll be plenty of laughter too! If you're a child of the 80's, do yourself a favour, rent this in Betamax format if you have to, just watch it!

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A year is a long time to wait...

[3 January 2002]

For a film to arrive on a wave of hype is easy. For it to leave dashed upon the rocks of mediocrity is also, it would seem, easy. For most moviegoers, the ultimate thrill is to leave the cinema having witnessed a spectacle of modern movie-making magic. And for a select few others, theirs is to have done so whilst under no illusions of the grandeur of its potential, whispered across the waves by the marketing arm of a bloated Hollywood studio.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a movie which could not possibly arrive unnoticed and unheralded like an invisible hobbit. Instead it comes as if with the full force of an army of bloodthirsty orcs. Those who pay even scant attention to cinema news in the media cannot fail to have been aware of the coming of the Ring.

My own journey began over two years ago, alerted to the youthful potential of an ambitious project to bring the greatest fantasy story ever told to the silver screen. Director Peter Jackson, still relatively unknown despite distant Kate Winslet flick "Heavenly Creatures" and Michael J. Fox vehicle "The Frighteners", would steer the ship. Surely the murky and dangerous waters of the fantasy genre sailed and ultimately failed by lamentable "Dragonheart" and woeful "Dungeons and Dragons" would prove too much an obstacle for him. For today's PS2 generation, flashy effects are the norm and wizards and dragons carry less impact than improbably well-endowed female antique hunters.

As for the choice of location, the land of one's birth never leaves the heart, and New Zealand suited both canvas and wallet for Mr Jackson and his studio backers.

With time we began to form a picture of the cast who would play the adventurers. Sean Connery was wrongly rumoured to be cast as the wizard Gandalf the Grey, though fans of the Ring began to salivate at the potential for the films, and could breathe a sigh of relief that other screen heavyweights would be in contention. Cynics tore away at the thin gossamer fabric of positive outlooks from those involved in production, but were soon silenced when the first trailer became available to download via the internet a full year and a half before the film would be released.

There we saw very little, but one cannot easily forget the tingle of excitement as we see each member of the Fellowship broach a hill on their track to Moria. Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir are all lovingly brought to life before our very eyes. Perspective and camera trickery ensure the little people, Gimli the dwarf, Merry, Sam and Pippin the hobbits, and of course Frodo appear perfectly sized in comparison to their taller compatriots.

A stirring theme and the dark threat of the ominous Nazgul (Ringwraiths) round out the teaser. And there we are left to wait, scanning the Internet on a daily basis, hoping for mere scraps to be thrown to us. In time our ravenous appetite for all things Tolkien is staved off by the appearance of larger, more substantial trailers, which include dialogue. In addition, whole interviews with the production team and cast help to light our way through the darker, twistier periods during which we struggle to find our way. The principal cast melds together before our eyes: Elijah Wood (Deep Impact) as our hero Frodo, a hobbit troubled by the weight of the Ring's evil power upon his little shoulders; Sir Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters) as Gandalf; Viggo Mortensen (Crimson Tide) as Aragorn.

But it is in the supporting character castings that we gain even greater heart: Cate Blanchett as Galadriel; Christopher Lee as Saruman the White; and surely the finest villain in recent Scifi history, Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in the Matrix), as Elrond, leader of the elves at Rivendell.

The final three months of waiting is accelerated by a modern-day parallel. A real-life Sauron for the year 2001 is identified on September the 11th, and all eyes turn to those difficult days following the tragic events, and ensuing weeks dedicated to a siege war fought in the Middle East.

Ultimately though, December 19th 2001 is a date which takes on new meaning other than simply being the last Wednesday before Christmas. For many fans, this date comes and goes without their quest for the Ring bearing fruit. Packed cinema houses bear witness to the gulf crossed by the Ring. Even those who have not read the book now realise that they are about to bear witness to a tremendous literary epic.

My journey culminates at a cinema theatre in South London. After what seems an interminably long advertisement prelude, the opening sequence begins, and we are plunged into the world of Middle-Earth and the history surrounding the One Ring.

So what of this ship and its valiant crew? To understand the complexities surrounding its success or failure, one must compare it to its brethren: other films based upon books which blur the gap between page and celluloid: Gone with the Wind; Schindler's List; The Silence of the Lambs. One thing strikes the reader with these: The films perhaps went on to be greater than the books, and in doing so can be considered successful screen adaptations. Can The Fellowship of the Ring be considered a successful screen adaptation? In terms of leaving a fan of the book happy with what must undoubtedly have been sacrificed in order to bring the work to screen, I venture that it has succeeded. Has it surpassed the book in any way? In truth, yes, but only in two spheres: conveying to the viewer the hidden and rising menace in both Saruman's mine, and Sauron's fortress; and in the portrayal of the female characters, who it must be said were marginalised in the first book to some great distance. Has it fallen short of the book? Of course, for despite our reliance on mere scenes to dictate our love of characters, the book will always garner greater fondness for its characters through a far larger time spent with them.

This is in no way a criticism of the acting in the film. Without doubt, each actor has taken their lot seriously, and made great attempts to fulfil the expectation and responsibility of their roles. Particular mention must go to Sir Ian McKellen who seems to have been born simply to play this role. Die-hard fans of Tolkien cannot deny that the great Wizard has come to life at last.

Memorable throw-away lines punctuate the dialogue, which is at once familiar and at times compelling. Our stars are not over-awed or out-shone by the special effects. CGI characters and scenery complement, and enhance the spectacle for us. A rousing musical score by Howard Shore adds mood and power to the key battle scenes, and atmosphere to all others.

So how did I feel once I left the theatre? Elated! And yet troubled. If only as to how I will pass the time until the next instalment.