Rocketman

Right enough of this nonsense. Time to return to blogging.

(Warning: contains spoilers for Rocketman and Bohemian Rhapsody)

I'll be honest, it hasn't been a crackingly good year for cinematic film releases as yet. There's been a few that have been good that I simply haven't had a lot to say about ("Hurrah!" says you, dear reader.) But the past few weeks have thrown up a couple of gems, and two in particular have got my inner film critic pondering. One is Rocketman.

Not the recommended way to play a piano...

I've been looking forward to this film with some trepidation. It's been promoted and trailed since about this time last year (which is usually a cause for disappointment, in my experience). I really looked forward to Bohemian Rhapsody and was frustrated by how good it could have been (but wasn't, in my opinion). But I also reasoned that Rocketman hasn't been dogged by the same production and creative difficulties as Bohemian Rhapsody. Plus the trailers seemed to suggest a strong fantasy element to storytelling, which looked interesting. Off to the cinema I traipsed.

I was not disappointed. The film charts the progression of a precocious but shy Reginald Dwight (Matthew Illesley) - living at home with his mum (Bryce Dallas Howard), dad (Steven Mackintosh) and grandmother (Gemma Jones), and his metamorphosis into Elton John (Taron Egerton) - exploring his limits with increasingly flamboyant performances and lifestyles, making and breaking relationships along the way. Tantrums and tiaras ensue.

The story is peppered with familiar Elton John hits, some performed as a logical part of the story (Elton musingly working out how to turn Bernie Taupin's lyrics into songs), others performed as fantasy sequences that wouldn't be out of place in a musical (I Want Love, for example, being used as a remarkably efficient device to explain the relationship difficulties each of young Reggie's family members has, but will never verbalise). All the songs are performed by Egerton, and the orchestration and remaking of familiar tunes is particularly successful - the scoring of the title track with a full orchestra is beautiful and worth listening out for.

The fantasy sequences themselves work well as a way of chronicling Elton's drug use - for example, Rocketman partially takes place at the bottom of a swimming pool, with Elton so fascinated by the underwater antics that it takes other people to haul him out before he drowns. At a point where he literally visualises himself as a rocket man, we see him crash on to a plane and come to in the middle of a conversation with no idea what's going on around him or where he is. It's a disorienting effect - providing a contrast between real life and hallucination, and giving some sense of the drug-addled mindset in which Elton finds himself. Occasionally it's a little on the nose - Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting didn't have to be literally set to a weekend punch up, but was pleasing nonetheless. It also frees the story from a strict chronology - an unreliable narrator with multiple substance issues can be forgiven for not quite having a tight grasp on the world around him.

The supporting cast provide a varied background for Egerton to project on to. In particular, Jamie Bell (as Bernie Taupin) and Richard Maddern (as John Reid) give noteworthy performances. Although the story of two friends who want different things from life is a well trodden film path, Bell portrays a realistic bewilderment of not quite understanding how he's managed to get from talking about cowboy songs in a greasy spoon café, to being in LA while his friend dons more and more elaborate outfits and makes more and more outrageous demands. However, he also manages to present a steady influence throughout, and it is unsurprising to find that he's pretty much the only one still standing when Elton hits rock bottom. The film is clearly a love letter to Taupin and John's relationship, two men who clearly understand each other completely on a level that neither really can explain. Richard Maddern offers the exact opposite as John Reid - almost sociopathic, but utterly charming. It's easy to see why people would love him, and be devastated to discover that it's not as much as he loves himself.

Can You Feel the (Plantonic) Love Tonight...?

The artifice of the film is a group therapy session, which Elton stomps into in full rhinestone Devil outfit. This set up had mixed success, in my opinion. That we see the character slowly stripped of his glitter and extravagance as he tried to better understand himself is a good visual aid. However, the therapy setting and his quest for sobriety seemed incredibly easy (in direct contrast to the films concluding remarks that he had managed 28 years sober but continued to struggle with some of his other addictions). I was distracted by the thought that I would hate to be in Elton John's group therapy because no one else got a chance to get a word in edgewise.

Standard dress code for the average therapy session...

Although they're two entirely different films, it's difficult not to compare Rocketman and Bohemian Rhapsody, two films directed by the same director (for the most part), charting the life of two crowd-pleasing male performers during the 70s and 80s, both of whom have an admirable back catalogue of instantly recognisable hits, both of whom change their name, both of whom struggle with their sexual identity and their hedonistic lifestyles, both of whom could be easily identified by their outfits. However, one glaringly obvious difference is that Freddie Mercury is dead, and Elton John isn't. And it's easy to wonder what sort of film Bohemian Rhapsody could have been if Mercury was still alive, because one of the interesting things about Elton John is that he's not afraid to make himself look ugly. He's not interested in glossing over the unpleasantness, he's content to show himself as both a villain and a victim, at points of great weakness and great strength. While Bohemian Rhapsody plays the story straight (so to speak), Rocketman veers wildly into daydreams and delusions, and as such presents with a more realistic person. And when it comes to the music, Rami Malek provides us with Freddie Mercury's swagger but the audience is aware that he's lip-synching all the way. Taron Egerton's voice may not always have the full range of Elton John's, but the performance is more authentic because of its flaws.

For my money, nearly halfway through the year, this is by far my favourite film of 2019. There's plenty of time for that to be changed, but at this moment this is the film that has stayed with me long after the credits have rolled. Yes, even more so than Avengers: Endgame. I'm already looking forward to watching it again.

Additional thoughts, questions and comments: 

• In terms of box office, Bohemian Rhapsody is making a lot more box office money than Rocketman. One reason for this is the 12A rating, compared to the 15 rating of this film (something hotly argued by the film studios). Why would anyone try to make this story a 12A? Who would that even be for? As Elton John put it "they wanted me to tone down the sex and drugs. But I haven't led a PG-13 life." Fair point.

• Astonishingly, this is the first major studio film to depict gay male sex. 

• The credit sequence gives a series of images comparing the outfits in the film with the real life versions, possibly as an attempt at saying "no, it was really like this. We didn't make it up." 

• I like to this was Taron Egerton's audition for the film. 

Finding Your Feet

(Warning: contains spoilers for Finding Your Feet)

There's something very pleasing about the fact that Finding Your Feet actually exists.  Britain seems to have a wealth of actors in their 60s and above, who are fit and well and keen to continue acting in lead roles in films, thank you very much.  We've seen that there's a market for it since The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel came along in 2011, leading to sequels and television shows.  America has recognised that there is significant market in the Silver Pound (Dollar, over there, I guess) since Grace and Frankie proved popular and is currently on it's fourth series.  It makes sense - older age leads to unique circumstances which mean you need to leave familiar surroundings and do something different.  That is a sure fire recipe for stories.

No feet in this picture.

Finding Your Feet tells the story of posh socialite Sandra (Imelda Staunton) who discovers her husband (John Sessions) has been having an affair with a family friend (Josie Lawrence) and moves in with her estranged hippie sister Bif (Celia Imrie).  She is quickly introduced to a new way of life (dating and flash mobs in central London) far away from her tennis clubs and silverware lifestyle of Surrey.  Dancing ensues.

The cast is tremendous - Imelda Staunton really fleshes out the character of Sandra, who has let so much joy escape from her life in order to look after her husband and her children - a joy she currently seems to have in her grandson - but that comes back in abundance once she gets over some of her uptightedness with Bif.  Celia Imrie, meanwhile, is in standard top form as Bif.  Saucy, no nonsense, always with a bit of a twinkle in her eye but can quickly dial up the drama when it's called for.  Timothy Spall is just never anything less than great as Charlie, who is struggling to cope with his wife who is in a care home with dementia, and who is becoming more and more agitated by Charlie - a man she recognises less and less.  They all meet regularly at a local dance class.

It's worth highlighting the cast for a lot of praise, because they really lift what is a pretty poor script.  A lot of the scenes are surprisingly short, and seem more at home in a sitcom than a film which leads to some odd pacing.  The script is heavy-handed in laboured one liners ("I divorced my last husband because of religious reasons - he thought he was God, and I disagreed", snarks Joanna Lumley, who is particularly poorly served in lines), full of lines that really could have been left to subtext - particularly given the quality of the cast.  ("I can fix anything, but I can't fix my wife's mind", weeps Charlie, screwdriver in hand).  The group decide to stage a flash mob for Age UK - "1 in 7 old people die of the cold", notes Lumley in another rather clunky moment.  Except we never see any possibility of that being true - we see older people aplenty, but they all seem to be warm, well fed, looked after, and financially solvent (Charlie has sold his house to pay for his wife's care home, and is now living on a houseboat, but this doesn't seem to be a concern for him or anyone around him).         

T shirts in December seem an odd choice when we're told 1
in 7 will die of the cold...

The sweetness is found in the smaller, unspoken moments - and again, that is testament to the cast rather than the script.  When Charlie decides to say goodbye to his wife, and tells Bif of his decision, Imrie responds wordlessly in such a way that relays that he is not the first in the group to have made this decision.  Ted (David Hayman) unexpectedly finds a part of the dance class hard, because the song used was the first dance at his wedding to his now-deceased wife - his grief at the moment, and comfort offered by Charlie is one of few examples of small moments, well done.

The other difficulty with this film is that it's trying a bit too hard to have its cake and eat it too.  It is a film that is specifically about age, but doesn't credit any of the characters with having any age related issues (all are mobile, physically and mentally well - with the exception of Charlie's wife who is just a plot device - surrounded by loving family and friends, stalwarts of their communities).  The only "symptom" of age that is discussed is that any of them might die at any moment, which seems somewhat reductive.  It is obvious that there is a market and a thirst for films with leading older actors.  It is also obvious that there is a wealth of actors eligible for those films.  So let's see films that better reflect this.  This genre has life in it yet, but has still to find its feet.

Feet!  Found them!

Additional thoughts, questions and comments:

• It was positive to see a tech savvy older generation on Facebook, YouTube, Skype and dating sites while texting and on phones - so why did the final act revolve around an unexpected letter when it was clear that time was pressing?  

• Kudos to the set designer who created Bif's flat - a whole life and personality perfectly described in a couple of square feet.

Darkest Hour

(Warning: contains spoilers for Darkest Hour)

There seems to be a focus on World War 2 at the moment - 2017 alone brought Churchill, Their Finest, Dunkirk, to name three.  2018 begins with Oscar hopeful Darkest Hour, tracing the early days of Winston Churchill as Prime Minister for the United Kingdom in 1940.

Gary Oldman well on his way to nicotine poisoning...

Gary Oldman is already garnering much praise for his portrayal of the titular character.  At the time of writing, he's received the Golden Globe, Screen Actors Guild award, AACTA international award, Alliance of Women Film Journalists award, Critics Choice award, Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association award, Hollywood Film award, New York Film Critics award, Online Film Critics Society award, Palm Springs International Film Festival award, St Louis Film Critics Association award, Washington DC Area Film Critics Association award, and Women Film Critics Circle Award.  So by the time he receives the BAFTA and the Oscar (both of which seem inevitable), there will be nothing left to say in the acceptance speeches and nobody left to thank.  Oldman has ticked all the Oscars boxes - troubled, historical figure, overcoming adversity and deliberately disfiguring himself in order to look the part.  He's taken things to Daniel Day-Lewis lengths of Method by accidentally giving himself nicotine poisoning during the filming (due to a frankly ridiculous amount of cigars).  He has been a pub discussion favourite for while ("who is the best actor never to have won an Oscar?") and now it seems likely that the Academy will reward his depiction of the wartime PM.  Deservedly so.  Oldman (as well as being unrecognisable in makeup and prosthetics) portrays a figure who is derided for his past decisions, distrusted by his own party, given a job he doesn't necessarily want at a time when every decision matters, whilst also being simultaneously absolutely sure of his decisions and absolutely full of doubt and fear at the "what ifs..." of them.  His introduction is great - his reputation as cantankerous and difficult being spelled out to his new secretary - Miss Layton - on her first day as she is ushered into his bedroom/study.  Our first glimpse of Churchill is as he lights up his first cigar of the morning, and his familiar features are caught briefly by matchlight.  As the film progresses, we see many sides of Churchill and Oldman plays them with aplomb - the blustering, angry, difficult to please Churchill, the catatonically depressed Churchill, the trying-to-be-better Churchill, the family-man Churchill and the barnstorming public speaker Churchill.  To give you some idea of how good Gary Oldman is in this part - Daniel Day-Lewis is also up for the Best Actor Oscar this year.  Nobody is talking about Daniel Day-Lewis.

To be fair, he will really go out of his way to be the best at being sad now...

Whether it will win Best Picture though is up for debate.  Certainly, Anthony McCarten (The Theory of Everything) has written a compelling script - more political thriller than wartime biopic, and loudly trumpeting the belief that words do more than guns.  It takes careful steps to explain what is going on on both a global scale (the reticence of Roosevelt to help feels like a personal blow) and national scale (with the scenes of wartime everyday London).  As a result, events like the Dunkirk evacuation feel like they have actual meaning and consequence, in a way that Nolan's Dunkirk didn't quite master.  However, as with The Theory of Everything it presumes some knowledge of the main character and the people around him.  So without knowledge of, for example, Churchill's prolonged and recurrent episodes of depression, you may be forgiven for wondering why he's sitting on a bed in a state of undress, staring at the wall.  Some better explanation of what all the politicians are playing at wouldn't go amiss either (all very House of Cards, with backstabbing aplenty, but I wonder how much sense it makes to an uninformed audience).  It also seems that McCarten did some careful plotting to bring the action to Dunkirk, and knew that he wanted to get to the rousing "We shall fight on the beaches" speech to end the film, but wasn't quite sure how to couple the two together.  Thus, there is an entirely fictitious scene in which Churchill rides the Underground, meets the "common folk" who all tell him that everything he's doing is brilliant and they definitely want to keep fighting - a scene so oddly specific in its naming of the characters, that I assumed it must be a random true anecdote.  It's not, which means the film wanders needlessly into schmaltz.
There's some interesting suggestions peppered throughout the film, however.  For example, that Neville Chamberlain's (Ronald Pickup) decision to support Churchill rather than encourage party dissent (if Chamberlain agreed with Churchill's speech, he would wave his handkerchief so that everyone would follow his lead) was a symptom of his progressing terminal cancer, rather than a change of heart.  Or that Churchill offered counsel to King George VI about whether to move his family and govern from Canada.  McCarten's poetic licence feels a little less artificial here.

As with Martin McDonagh (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri), I am not sure why Joe Wright is not recognised for his work as director.  His direction provides a striking film - from tiny cramped bunkers to grand state rooms, the direction makes for a beautiful film, with well used shards of light, ascending and descending lift shafts, and exhilarating aerial shots of the suicide attack at Calais.  Wright's directorial choices make the film slow down and speed up at exactly the right plot points and as such, the 2 hour film zips by.

George VI hoped his mirror was broken...

There's not too much for the women of the film to do, and the success of whether or not it's a feminist friendly film rests on what you think the film is.  Both Clementine Churchill (Dame Kristen Scott Thomas) and Elizabeth Layton (Lily James) both exist to more fully flesh out the facets of Churchill, which is fine if you contend that Darkest Hour is a Churchill biopic, but less so if you don't.  That said, Scott Thomas and James do a lot to make their small character roles memorable and their actions help progress the plot.

As for whether Oldman's Churchill is accurate or not, Elizabeth Layton (who became Elizabeth Nel) was Churchill's personal secretary from 1941-1945.  In her memoires, she describes Churchill thus; "Sometimes [while dictating a letter] his voice would become thick with emotion, and occasionally a tear would run down his cheek. As inspiration came to him, he would gesture with his hands, just as one knew he would be doing when he delivered his speech, and the sentences would roll out with so much feeling that one died with the soldiers, toiled with the workers, hated the enemy, strained for victory ... [T]hat great man – who could at any time be impatient, kind, irritable, crushing, generous, inspiring, difficult, alarming, amusing, unpredictable, considerate, seemingly impossible to please, charming, demanding, inconsiderate, quick to anger and quick to forgive – was unforgettable. One loved him with a deep devotion. Difficult to work for – yes, mostly; loveable – always; amusing – without fail."

That is definitely the Churchill of this film. 

Additional comments, thoughts, questions:

Just this, really...

Paddington 2

(Warning: contains spoilers for Paddington 2)

I'll be honest, I didn't intend to go and see this.  A friend recommended it and I promised to go and see it before we next met up, so it was a sense of duty more than anything else that made me go.  I don't know why this was the case - Paddington (2014) was a great film and I really enjoyed it.  I guess I was excited to get on with the "Oscars films", and also keen not to be disappointed by a rubbish sequel trying to capitalise on the success of the first film.

Does marmalade count as one of your 5 a day?

Well, what a surprise.  Paddington 2 is that rare gem - a sequel that is better than the original.  Written by Paul King and Simon Farnaby (whose previous works include The Mighty Boosh and Bunny and the Bull) it doesn't seem like a natural progression for either to be working in the family friendly genre.  Paul King directed and co-wrote the first film so there is some link, but Simon Farnaby's only film-writing credit (as far as I can tell) is Mindhorn.  But here we are.

The film opens with the story of how Paddington came to be in the care of Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) and Uncle Pastuzo (Michael Gambon), and cuts to his life with the Browns in London.  Paddington is now an integral part of the community, and is trying to save up enough money to get a pop-up book of London for Aunt Lucy's 100th birthday.  When the book is stolen, Paddington is wrongfully convicted and jailed for the theft.  Mar-maladies ensue.

Hardened criminal gang

Where Paddington had provided an allegory for the benefits that immigrants can provide to their communities, Paddington 2 expounds on this a little but also just goes all out to emphasise how one little person doing lots of little kind things can change and shape a community for the better.  From helping a friend study for a test, to cleaning someone's windows to let the sunshine in, Paddington throws positivity in the world with no ulterior motives other than helping people be happy.  On a slightly different bent, however, it also has a surprising amount to say about prison reform.  Who knew?

Ben Wishaw returns to voice the eponymous bear, and is rejoined by the cast from the original film.  As well as Imelda Staunton and Michael Gambon, there is also a plethora of British actors lining up for bit parts - Richard Ayeoade, Meera Syal, Peter Capaldi, Ben Miller, Jessica Hynes (amongst others) all pop up momentarily, but their cameos are warmly and richly written and a lot is quickly derived from very brief scenes.  Brendan Gleeson is also in surprisingly family friendly territory as Knuckles McGinty, the hardened criminal in charge of the kitchens who becomes Paddington's boss.  However, the absolute scene stealer is Hugh Grant as Phoenix Buchanan - a faded "luvvy" actor who is now famous for dog food adverts.  Grant chews up all the scenery possible as he talks to the mannequins wearing his old costumes (I'm sure I didn't catch all the film references - that's one for the film buffs), devises dastardly schemes, and dons disguises to achieve his goals (He makes a surprisingly good nun).

You see?

The film looks beautiful.  It's set in modern-day London, but there is a timelessness to that London.  There are an absence of mobile phones and computers.  The pop-up book that the plot hangs off is a nice nod to the artwork from the 1989 Paddington TV series.

This book is beautiful

But for me, one of the reasons that the film works so well is because it is so tightly plotted.  Every joke is well seeded in advance.  From Mr Brown's newfound interest in yoga, to Mrs Bird's fury that Phoenix never remembers her name, each payoff lands brilliantly because of its set up.  None of the jokes feel forced or laboured.  I can't remember the film I last laughed as much at.  It also means that the emotional beats pack more of a punch, because the audience knows exactly what is at stake.  This film is pretty much pawfect (groan).  Watch it, and then watch it again.

And remember that kindness is what makes the world a little more bear-able (last one, I'm done, I promise).

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

• I wasn't entirely convinced by Jonathan Brown's attempts to hide his love of steam trains in an attempt to be cool.  That seemed a little weak and too easily thrown away.
  
• Sadly, Michael Bond - creator of Paddington - died on the day that principal photography on the film finished.  Sharp eyes will have spotted him in the first Paddington film.  Paddington 2 is dedicated to him.
  
• Stay for the post-credit scenes.  It's worth it.

Love Actually

(Warning: contains spoilers for Love Actually in case you haven't already seen it a billion times anyways)

I am really very fond of Love Actually.  It came out in the winter of 2003 when I was in my last year at university and had a lecturer like Billy Mack.  I watch it at least once a year on purpose when wrapping my Christmas presents (and then I accidentally watch it again in lots of parts because it’s on television a billion times a year).  The soundtrack makes me happy.  There are still bits that make me laugh.  

Romantic comedy.  Remember that.

And yet I am also aware of this one truth.


It’s awful.

Really awful. 

I have no way to defend it.

But it keeps coming up on lists of “feel good Christmas films” and so we need to talk about Love Actually.

For those who have managed to avoid it, this is a Richard Curtis romantic comedy with an impressive cast who make up ten separate, but intersecting stories (apart from Billy Mack, who only seems to intersect by being on people’s TV screens and radios, but ok).  At the point when the film was released, there were a smattering of well-known British stars in it, but the majority of the cast have now gone on to international acclaim (this is Andrew Lincoln pre-The Walking Dead, January Jones pre-Mad Men, Thomas Brodie-Sangster pre-Game of Thrones, Olivia Olson pre-Adventure Time).  Like it or not, Love Actually is a great film if you’re playing 6 Degrees of Separation. 

There’s no issue with any of that, per se.  I quite like the concept although it’s better played out elsewhere (Pulp Fiction, or Crazy Stupid Love perhaps).  What I do struggle with are the following things:

• The timeline makes no sense

I’m generally happy to ignore timelines, if I’m honest.  But the good people at Love Actually seem to have gone out of their way to provoke me.  The film is really clear that the action starts 5 weeks before Christmas, and ends on Christmas Eve (with a one-month-later epilogue).  So who in their right minds decides that is the best time to create a Christmas single to get the Christmas number 1/give children their parts in the nativity play (given out in October, surely?)/book a venue for a work do in London at Christmas?  And who is the teacher who casts Sam (Thomas Brodie-Sangster) as a drummer two weeks before the carol concert when he hasn’t learned how to drum yet?

It also means that the Jamie/Aurelia storyline runs thus: Jamie finds out his girlfriend is cheating on him.  Jamie goes to France.  Hires Aurelia as his cleaner (why do you need a cleaner – you’re not even away for a month!).  He writes.  They misunderstand each other for a while.  He goes back to London, learns Portuguese, she learns English, he returns to propose (spontaneously), she accepts and they all live happily ever after.  IN FIVE WEEKS!!!!  Go to any school that teaches languages.  In five weeks, you’re learning vocabulary for food and animals, you’re not constructing impromptu romantic proposals. 

It means that Juliet/Peter get married, go on honeymoon, come back, while Mark splices together a creepy videotape that exorcises his best friend from his own wedding.  Mark confesses his undying love, but it’s ok because he’s essentially over it in a month.  Or he’s creepily still hanging round with his married friends.  IN FIVE WEEKS!!!

So there is an issue about how much you can get done in 5 weeks.  There’s also an issue about how those five weeks are constructed.  Tony (Abdul Salis) – Colin Frissell’s mate – is deriding him about his love life at a wedding in one scene, and in the very next one (which is happening on the same time and on the same day) is directing Jack to massage Judy’s breasts “for the lighting”.  Tony is constantly in two places at one time.  It’s weird.  I had a genuine concern for a while that I might be racist because I couldn’t tell two black actors apart.  It took me so long to realise it was the same guy because my poor brain couldn't conceive that someone would keep putting the same guy in consecutive scenes of two storylines happening concurrently. 

Jack and Judy in the meantime go out on a date on Christmas Eve, part company at her door, kissing happens and then they…meet up again at the school carol concert on the same night.

Let’s also talk about Joanna’s family.  Her parents, knowing that they are due to emigrate that night, allow their daughter to take part in the school carol concert, then jump in a car to make the last flight to New York.  This may be specific to my family (maybe your family is different!) but my parents would have moved us into the airport a fortnight before departure and forfeited the carol concert of their 9 year old.  No arguments.  Just get in the car.

It doesn’t make sense. 

• Poor representation of everyone who isn’t a white man. 

Stand-up comedian Junior Simpson got a part in Love Actually because he made a joke that Richard Curtis should have received the best editing Oscar for Notting Hill for removing all the non-white people out of one of the most ethnically diverse areas of London.  On the back of this, Curtis cast him as the awful wedding DJ (“Now here’s one for the lovers.  There’s quite a few of you so I shouldn’t be surprised and a half” is his main line.  Which makes no sense.)  So that’s one non-white person.  And so is Tony (Abdul Salis).  And so is Peter (Chiwetel Ejiofor).  And so is Annie (Nina Sosanya).  They are the most thinly drawn characters in the entire film.  We know nothing about them at all.  We know more about Colin Frissell, and he’s entirely there for comedy purposes.  It would seem that only the white people, with non-ethically sounding names get character and background.  Sorry Heike Makatsch (Mia) and Rodrigo Santoro (Karl).  No three-dimensional aspects for you.

There’s a tiny bit more diversity progress in terms of sexuality.  Sarah (Laura Linney) asks Peter (Andrew Lincoln) if he’s gay.  Daniel (Liam Neeson) is forward thinking enough to consider that Sam (Thomas Brodie-Sangster) might be developing feelings for another guy.  The implication in both examples is that it would be ok if they were.  But they’re not.  All of the relationships are solely heterosexual.

Now I’m not saying that you need to represent all backgrounds, and all possible groups of people.  But when you have so many different people and so many different stories, maybe have more than just the white, heterosexual people?  And this complaint gathers a little more force when you watch the deleted scenes – those stories were there and written, cast and performed.  Frances De La Tour and Anne Reid were an older gay couple.   There were scenes of Kenyan friends talking about their relationships.  But those were the stories that were cut.  Those were the stories that could be lifted out, wholesale, and not affect the rest of the plot.  That sits uncomfortably with me.  I’m not sure if Curtis believes that gay people can only be friends with gay people, and black people can’t really be friends with white people, but it would seem that way in his editing.  He explains that these were the stories that had to be cut for time, but conversely relays that Alan Rickman approached him for the confrontation scene between Karen (Emma Thompson) and Harry (Rickman) to be added.  This was granted.  Hmm...

• The men win in the end.  The women do not.

Here’s what happens the women:

• Karen – cheated on.  Her husband buys another woman a £200+ gold necklace (that looks like it’s made out of pasta, but whatever).  She gets a scarf and CD.  She is sad.
• Natalie – sexually harassed in the workplace by the Prime Minister of the UK and President of the US.  Body shamed by her family and her work colleagues.
• Sarah – pressured to have sex by a one night stand who seems to believe that his need for sex trumps her need to comfort her mentally ill brother.
• Juliet – finds a video entirely made up of footage of her, taken by her husband’s best friend, less than a fortnight after her wedding. Stalked.
• Aurelia – a crowd of people turn up to her work to, ostensibly, watch her be murdered by a stranger
• Aurelia’s sister – told her father will willingly sell her to any man prepared to marry her.  Body shamed.
• Nancy – told her work is worthless by a horny waiter (as he’s chatting her up)
• Carla – brought to the UK as some kind of duty free woman for Tony
• Britney Spears – we’re told she’s rubbish at sex, and she’s not even in the film
• Margaret Thatcher – called a “saucy minx”.  Based on…being a woman, I guess.

Find me footage of women being respected in this film for 10 seconds.  Or winning in any way.  You can’t.

I know, Emma.

Here’s what happens the men:

• Peter – happy (though doesn’t know his best friend fancies his wife)
• Mark – his best mate’s wife finds a video he made of her.  She is oddly flattered.  He turns up to his mates house to confess his undying love to his wife.  She kisses him.  No other consequences.
• Billy Mack – gets Christmas number one.  String of sexual encounters.  Is happy.
• Jamie – proposes to the woman he’s never had a conversation with.  She joyfully accepts.  The entire town celebrates.
• Daniel – meets the woman of his dreams who looks a lot like Claudia Schiffer.
• Sam – his childhood crush comes  back from America.
• David – is declared a national hero for nearly starting a war with America because the President sexually harassed the object of his affection.  Makes grand gesture at the expense of the taxpayer.  Everyone mightily impressed.
• Harry – has affair.  Wife takes him back (according to interviews with Curtis).  No other consequences.
• Colin – has sex with at least four women he meets as soon as he lands in Wisconsin
• Tony – is brought Carla.  She’s real friendly.

And Kevin.  Remember Kevin?  (in order to have a good workplace Christmas party)..."...bulk buy the guacamole and tell the women to avoid Kevin if they want their breasts unfondled."  Not "let's maybe discipline Kevin in some way."  Nope.  I am aware of this sexual predator, and choose to ignore his behaviour.  Instead it's your job, ladies, to make sure you aren't sexually assaulted in the workplace.  Ugh.

Find me footage of men winning in any way.  That’s the entirety of the film.

Whoo!  Stalking works!

• No love

This is a particularly weird thing.  Just take a moment and think about this.  Hugh Grant tells us that “love, actually, is all around”.  Now, I will concede that there are many different types of love and that friends come across quite well (Karen and Daniel, Tony and Colin, Billy and Joe).  There are some examples of close family relationships (Karen and David, Sarah and-her-nameless-brother-in-the-worst-psychiatric-facility-ever).  But…

Love Actually is touted as the ultimate romantic comedy. 

Where?

What relationship shows actual, romantic love?

There’s lust aplenty.  There’s crushes, yes.  But romantic love?  Lacking, actually.

I don’t know why I like this film.  But maybe, as with all Christmas traditions, it’s now just part of Christmas and I should accept it.  Like chocolate for breakfast and deciding to see as many people as I know before the arbitrary deadline of December 25^th, and falling asleep during Doctor Who because I had too many roasties.  The big clue is Billy Mack pausing in what he’s doing to say “this is shit, isn’t it?” and smiling and carrying on anyway.

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

• Spelling of Christmas

Natalie’s card to David the Prime Minister.  Where she’s spelled “Christmas” incorrectly.

Oh Natalie. 

• Airport security

For a film which starts off by alerting us to the fact that this is very definitely a post 9/11 film, airport security sucks.  Sam vaults security clearance, is chased by at least 3 security staff (more if you watch the deleted scenes), gets through the entirety of Heathrow airport and has a quick chat with Joanna before he is marched back to his stepdad and left without even so much as a mild ticking off.

The fact that the Prime Minister of the UK comes through airport security and someone bursts through the crowd and leaps on him and isn’t immediately wrestled to the ground and/or shot is nothing short of a Christmas miracle.

• Electric Bills

The Wisconsin Women have no money, and have to share a bed and can’t even afford pyjamas.  Small suggestions: stop drinking so much in bars, and cut your leccy bill by having fewer Christmas lights.

• Gift wrapping 

A present that is wrapped with rose petals, lavender and a cinnamon stick is going to smell rank.  End of.

• This phrase...

Cock-bloctopus

Merry Christmas. 

The Limehouse Golem

(Warning: contains spoilers for The Limehouse Golem)

In pre-Ripper London, Inspector John Kildare (Bill Nighy) is tasked with the dubious fortune of investigating and uncovering the identity of the eponymous Limehouse Golem, a serial killer with no apparent modus operandi.  Kildare knows that his appointment is tainted - Scotland Yard have come to a dead end, and - not wanting to risk the reputation of their best people - Kildare is appointed, with Sergeant Flood (Daniel Mays).
There are four potential suspects - Karl Marx (Henry Goodman), George Gissing (Morgan Watkins), Dan Leno (Douglas Booth) and John Cree (Sam Reid), but Cree is found dead - killed on the same night as the last Golem murder.  His wife - music hall star Lizzie Cree (Olivia Cooke) - is believed to have poisoned him.  Kildare finds links between Cree and the Golem, theorises that John Cree has in fact killed himself to assuage his guilt of being a murderer, and must solve both cases before Lizzie's trial ends and she is sentenced to hang.  The game is afoot!

More posters with Bill Nighy, please.

Based on the 1994 Peter Ackroyd novel (Dan Leno and the Limehouse Golem), this film has been adapted for the screen by Jane Goldman (Kick-Ass, Stardust, Kingsman, The Woman In Black).  A lot of Goldman's past works have been dark, but usually there is humour to alleviate it (although in this case, colour is found in the music hall scenes) .  Similarly, Bill Nighy's previous works would suggest that there would be some levity in proceedings, but he doesn't crack a smile.  It's not that kind of film.
That said, it's a bit difficult to describe what kind of film this is - it's part whodunnit, a bit horror, some period drama with a dollop of Penny Dreadful noir, and fright-lite (not dissimilar to The Woman in Black, come to think of it).

There's a lot to unpack from this two hour duration, and my main criticism is that there's not a lot of time and space to let the characters, their stories, and the themes breathe and develop.  In that two hours, there's multiple points at which you could stop the story and just explore the avenue that we find ourselves at the junction of (feminism, LGBT representation, poverty, real-life vs role play, trial by public, media intrusion to name a few).  But the carriage doesn't stop, and instead the audience hurtles on to solve its mystery.  I wonder if this might have made for a better television show (it didn't do The Night Manager any harm) - it feels made for a Sunday night.

I enjoyed the story-telling a great deal - told in flashback from the end to the beginning and back again, the pace and momentum build steadily to a slightly hysterical conclusion before slowing down again to a more leisurely pace.  The ending is somewhat Se7en-esque in its conclusion, though less memorable.

Not Bill Nighy at the end of this film.

The casting is great.  I believe this is Bill Nighy's first time leading in a film (replacing Alan Rickman following his death in 2016 - the film itself is dedicated to Rickman), and he holds proceedings together well.  He conveys much in a glance or a twitch which contrasts nicely, because there is a lot of info-dumping by other characters throughout.  Daniel Mays is a great sidekick and his subtle coming out scene with Nighy was beautifully done (believing Kildare to be the laughing stock of Scotland Yard because of his sexual orientation, he chooses a quiet moment to say "I'm...on your side, sir").  I would happily watch a lot more of the adventures of Kildare and Flood.  On the civilian side of proceedings, Olivia Cooke was great as Lizzie Cree - victim, survivor, darling.  There were a lot of facets to Lizzie Cree, and Cooke made each of them believable and sympathetic.  The supporting cast was good, though I'm not sure of the significance of three real-life personalities (Gissing, Marx and Leno) as murder suspects.  It is worth singling Douglas Booth's Dan Leno out - he stole every scene he was in, I don't think I've seen him in anything else before, and I was convinced for a while that he was Russell Brand.

Rickman's Limehouse Golem would have been very different.
The murderer would have been revealed to a much more sardonic Kildare.

The feminist theme in the film is particularly noteworthy.  The main male characters - for self-serving, or well-meaning reasons - all attempt to save the women.  None of whom are damsels in distress, and none of whom want saving (nor need help).  The term "white knight" is bandied around a fair bit.  Whether or not it can be deemed a "feminist film" is a subject for later debate.  I think this film may achieve cult status over the coming years - there's a lot to unpick. 

One worth watching, though maybe wait for it to leave the cinema.

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:
1.  Juan Carlos Medina's London is mainly filmed in West Yorkshire - I didn't notice.  The next time I watch this will be to see if there's anywhere I recognise.

2.  I wonder how different Love, Actually would be if Rickman and Nighy swapped roles.

3.  Warning:  there is a lot of blood.  And some ocular trauma.

4.  Lizzie Cree has the biggest prison cell, possibly ever.

T2: Trainspotting

(warning: contains spoilers for T2: Trainspotting and Trainspotting)

"So what have you been up to for the past 20 years?"

What have any of us been up to?  Surely Trainspotting wasn't 20 years ago?  Curse you, linear progression of time.  In 1996, John Major was the prime minister, it was the age of Britpop, Dolly the Sheep had just been cloned, the Spice Girls were starting out, and Trainspotting became the highest grossing British film of the year.

When I was younger...

The original followed a group of heroin addicts in a deprived area of present-day Edinburgh and ended with a major drug deal which landed main characters Renton (Ewan McGregor), Sick Boy (Johnny Lee Miller), Begbie (Robert Carlyle) and Spud (Ewan Bremmer) with £16,000.  Renton steals the money, leaves some for Spud, and flees.  T2 pretty much checks in with these characters 20 years later.

What results is that most unusual of things - a great sequel, aware of its roots, and keen to continue the story it started and add a bit.  Everything is the same but different, from the characters to the city itself.  You can see it's 1996 self, but it's not quite that anymore.  Renton, Sick Boy, Begbie and Spud are now Mark, Simon, Francis and Murphy.  They're pretty much where we expect them to be.  Mark is now clean, still running, but its a more sedate pace on a treadmill rather than the run-for-your-life of the original.  He moved to Amsterdam, and has been there since 1996, coming back only because life has demanded it.  Francis is in prison, denied parole, planning an escape by self injury and banking on the incompetence of G4S the service in charge of the fictitious HMP Edinburgh.  Simon is pimping out his girlfriend to high end clients, and then extorting money from them in exchange for secrecy about their sordid sex acts while snorting a lot of cocaine.  Spud is still a heroin addict, sad and alone because he doesn't quite understand a world without drugs ("but I gave you £4000" says Mark in disbelief, "Aye, but I'm a fucking heroin addict so what did you think I was going to spend it on" spits Murphy).  

So much younger than today...

Their lives are all clearly marked by the theft of the £16,000, but those marks appear differently.  Francis' explosive reaction at the end of Trainspotting brought him to prison, and his intention is to enact revenge upon Mark.  Simon is convinced that his life would have been so different if he hadn't been betrayed - to the extent that when Mark is able to give him £4000 he doesn't know what to do with it ("what am I supposed to do with that?  Buy a fucking time machine?").  Simon cannot give up his victim-hood, unwilling to admit that his life may have been exactly the same if Mark had not betrayed him ("or maybe you're angry because you'd have done exactly the same if you'd thought of it first").  Spud (for he is still Spud) clearly feels the loss of Mark's influence on his life, and if he perceives the betrayal he's not actively defined by it in the way Simon and Francis are.  For Mark's part, there is guilt and attempts at reparation - money for Simon, attention for Spud as he tries to help him channel his energies away from heroin ("you're an addict.  So be addicted.  Just be addicted to something else.")  Hijinks ensue, friendships are rekindled, and someone gets water boarded with Irn Bru.  The characters examine their memories of 1996 and try to reconcile then and now as honestly as they can (with nods to Tommy and baby Dawn, and their parts in their demises).  Memories are funny, are sad, are bitter, are sweet.

Like it or not, age has changed them all, and when they try to recapture the people they once were, it doesn't quite work.  They can't quite run as fast or for as long.  Their bodies are letting them down.  The next generation are unfathomable.  The city doesn't quite feel like the one they knew.  The worst toilet in Scotland is no longer acceptable to them (although there still "gross out moments" with explosive vomiting from the outset).

And from this, quietly, our allegiances change and we find ourselves rooting for Spud.  He changes the least but changes the most.  In being the ultimate loser, he becomes the ultimate winner.  He accepts himself, he accepts his life, and he finds peace in it where the others do not.  And he gets the ultimate Danny Boyle trope - the offer of all the money, which he rejects it because it means nothing to him.

I'll be honest, I don't love Trainspotting.  I can appreciate it, but it didn't quite hit at quite the right point in my life.  But I very much enjoyed T2.  It's an ode to friendship, age, reconciliation and nostalgia.  And there are a lot more trains than in the first film.

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

• Francis has been in prison for 20 years, but has an 18 year old son.  Has he just not added up those numbers?  He seems too volatile not to have thrown the fact in his wife's face if she had an affair.

• The two instances of defiance to Francis are interesting to me.  He rejects his son's lifestyle, and actively taunts him to become violent, but turns to grudging respect when his son faces him down.  Likewise, Francis openly mocks the idea that Spud has turned to writing, but becomes actively involved - almost happy - when Spud offers to read his stories out to him. 

• The women in this film are secondary characters, but they very much shape and influence the protagonists, and the plot.  They support the characters where possible, but are careful not to get sucked into the chaos (such is the life of those affected by the habitual drug user).  Gail removes herself (and little Fergus) from Spud's life, but remains on hand at a distance to offer support, read his manuscripts and house his belongings.  Mark's mum is notable by her absence, an actual shadow which Mark and his father are acutely aware of and brought together by.  She has kept Mark's room as it once was, but didn't make contact over the years.  Diane is not where Mark left her, but she does offer her professional advice at a "very reasonable" hourly rate, asks after him cordially but nothing more.  Veronicka constantly shapes her own future, and nudges Simon to do likewise but recognises him (and Mark.  And Spud for that matter) for what they are and exits.  June knows better than to attempt to argue or reason with Francis, so waits for him to burn off all his angry energy and slope off.  They initially seem like the passive characters of the film, but it quickly becomes apparent that they are just not reacting to the chaos anymore, and as such keeps themselves (and those around them) sane and safe. 
  

• As always, Danny Boyle's films are instantly recognisable by their style and soundtrack.  And in keeping with the theme of the film, both are current with a heavy dose of nostalgia.  I particularly liked the slow, instrumental version of Perfect Day, Mark starting (and then stopping) Lust for Life, and Silk (Wolf Alice).

• Life mimics art:

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

(Warning: contains spoilers for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them)

Not to state the obvious, but the Harry Potter franchise is massive.  To the point that people who have never read the books, and never seen the films (and I'm sure there must be one or two.  Possibly waking up from comas or something) will have heard the first 8 notes of Hedwig's Theme and thought "Oh, that's Harry Potter" without necessarily knowing how they know.  May have heard and understood some of the following words: Hogwarts.  Muggles.  Quidditch.  They're all in common parlance now, in the same way I know "heeeeeere's Johnny" is from The Shining despite the fact I've never seen it.

Pauses for a moment at the inevitable outrage of that last sentence

I'll get round to it.

I have read the Harry Potter books.  I have watched the Harry Potter films.  I have been to Harry Potter studios.  So it was with great delight that I skipped off to see Fantastic Beasts.  And, if I'm perfectly honest, the biggest surprise was that I wasn't that bothered by it. 

Skinny book from which this enormous film was made

That is not to say that it's not enjoyable, and that there aren't good bits.  I'm not even sure why I wasn't taken with it.  The only concern that I can articulate is that it doesn't feel like a film in its own right.  Now, I get that this will become part of a series.  And I understand that there is a world to build, and characters to introduce and themes to explain before we get to the apex of this spin-off.  But it feels like there's a little too much of "oh-we'll-explain-this-in-the-next-film".  I want to understand what I'm looking at in this film.  Now.  And then the next films should build on those foundations.

Take the first Star Wars film (and this works for A New Hope, The Phantom Menace, or The Force Awakens).  They stand alone and their stories work (tenuous with Phantom Menace, but stick with me).  If none of the rest of the Episodes were made, those initial three would be fine.  The sequels build upon what's there and push the story on.  The same is true for the first Harry Potter films.  But for some reason, Fantastic Beasts seem to have gone for the "tune in next time, folks" approach, which works for television, but doesn't work for film.

On to the positives.  This film looks fantastic, and may well be enhanced by 3D (not something I say lightly) as critters skitter across the screen and sparks literally fly.  The Prohibition-Era feel works well to provide a sense of paranoia and subterfuge, where no one is quite sure whose side anybody is on.

For people new to Potter, it provides an "in".  You can see this film having never looked at Potter and have a perfectly good time.  But for the fans, there are tantalising glimpses into recognisable names and characters.  We see young Dumbledore, and there are musings about the Lestrange families - hints at the back stories to the older generations that feature in Harry's life at the end of the century.  In some ways, this is very comparable to Star Wars - we know what the future holds for some of these characters, but we don't yet know how they get there.

The Fantastic Beasts are, indeed, fantastic but my highest praise goes to Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander.  There's all sorts of influences present in his portrayal - the most obvious (to me) being Matt Smith's incarnation of the Doctor; all flailing limbs, and social awkwardness, hand rubbing and hunchedness, but can switch on incredible empathy and understanding in any given moment.  There's also hints of David Attenborough in there too, as he explains the creatures in his care and how best to treat them and understand their behaviour.  Flecks of Doctor Dolittle are peppered about too.
 

These two definitely do not influence each other.  Nope.

The budding relationship between Queenie (Alison Sudol) and Kowalski (Dan Fogler) has warmth and sweetness (perhaps fitting for a character who wants to run his own bakery), and Tina (Katherine Waterston) is a strong, independent female lead, who is getting on with her own storyline which just happens to intersect with Scamander's.  And with all that going on, I'm sorry I didn't love it more. 

But sometimes the magic just isn't there.