|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Anthony Hopkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthony Hopkins. Show all posts
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Thor directed by Kenneth Branagh; written by Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne, J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich
On more than one occasion, in response to a negative review of a mainstream film I’ve read comments to dissenting critics along the line of “turn off your brain”. Sometimes I do wonder what the advantages of such an action would be. I can’t say, though, because my natural penchant for overanalyses prevents it. Less than halfway into Thor I found my mind wandering asking questions that I knew wouldn’t be answered and wondering how a film with five credited screenwriters could fail to address so many rudimentary issues. It’s a prelude to the imminent Avengers’ film, a picture which I’ve all but forgotten about, and in this instalment we’re introduced to Thor – the hero from another realm. After indiscretions at home in his home kingdom of Asgard he’s subjected to a life on earth.
The film is comprises two parts in one. The first is an Asgard a place that is Grecian legend inspired, but sounds and looks like Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale. Odin has two sons, the overwhelmingly blonde Thor and the Loki, who’s given enough penetrating close-ups for us to assume that this shall be our villain for the next two hours. Thor, unwisely, wages war against a land that Odin defeated some time ago and for his imprudence Odin banishes him to a life on earth. Earth is where scientist Jane Foster is conducting a research of obscure foundation and as Thor crashes into her, literally, it leads to the derailment of said research when a group of men in black begin investigating the meteorological madness that has followed Thor’s appearance on earth.
Next to the lavishness that comes with the Asgard portion of the story the New Mexico portions seems especially bland, which is unrotunate because there’s a whole number of more interesting scenarios. Chris Hemsworth is a lot of fun as the male lead and Natalie Portman, who’s relegated to playing more than “Girl” is much better than the role deserves. They work well together, in a kitschy way. I couldn’t help but let my brain run away with me, though. I immediately found myself asking why Thor, who’s legend has been recounted in stories of old (which a character observes) would happen to fall to earth in what is the conspicuous. It’s the least of the issues, though, because I’m not adept at the logics of time travel so I’m hardly the best candidate to discredit the filmmaker’s intent with. The oddest thing about Thor ends up being one of is most unintentionally hilarious – the adeptness with which Thor adapts to earth living. It’s such an odd state of affairs that I begin wondering whether or not Asgard’s inhabitants are cognisant about the other realms. Thor seems unfazed by concepts like cars and civilian clothing of the 21st century, but still has a predilection for cup smashing and 11th century mannerisms. It’s both frustrating and entertaining. In a scene that I cringe and smile at Thor walks into a pet store and audaciously demands a horse.
As such Asgard, by default, seems to come across as the better of the two halves even if it’s far from perfect. The storyline of the warring brothers seems especially rote even if Hemsworth is credible, and Tom Hiddleston the delivers the film’s finest performance as the tortured Loki. The worst thing about this portion of the film is that each time has the potential to develop as a significant character the story moves from him. His final scene (not counting that eye roll inducing epilogue) is excellently done and makes me wish that the film had been a character study of him. 
Anthony Hopkins and Stellan Skarsgård are two stalwarts who do much more than you’d expect with their roles. Taking into account all the terrible films Hopkins has been in lately, he’s quite good in this managing to induce his de facto regal Brit role with a whole lot more charm than I expected (shame that Rene Russo couldn’t have been given more to do, though). In the end the film manages to be (marginal) success because the actors, and Branagh at times, throw themselves into the insipid story. As far as the translation of legendary stories to screen goes, it’s no Clash of the Titans. Thor makes for a way more harmless venture. And that, I suppose, is a bit of the problem. It’s completely harmless and ineffectual.
C+
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
“There is something peaceful and quiet about Howards End, starting with Vanessa’s haunting walk and introduction. To me, it feels like the essence of the British countryside, of elegance and that high class feeling that Brits always put in their period films. Howards End is, to me, James Ivory’s greatest achievement, such a delicate film, but with such power of acting and fascinating plot.”
Alex (of Alex in Movieland and My Last Oscar Flick) always manages to make each of his words count and his summation of Howards End is fittingly perceptive.
The name Merchant Ivory was in the nineties (and remains, but with less alacrity) a name indicative of good literary adaptations. Howards End easily exists as my favourite. Screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala seems incredibly at ease adapting Forster to the screen, so that the machinations of these very “literary” characters never come across as unnatural. She does the same with A Room With A View, another Forster novel, but this is in a class of its own. It’s interesting to note how much of Forster’s book (and actual lines) make it into Jhabvala finished script. The lines are as precise as few period pieces and sets up the chance for the actors to floor us with their deliveries, and they do – they really do. When Jose from the wildly insightful (but yet oddly hip) Movies Kick Ass sent in his blurb I wondered “why review it?”…he essentially summed up what I loved about it….
“It’s impossible to watch this movie and avoid being haunted by the image of Vanessa Redgrave walking along a vast path of grass. The ethereal nature of this scene sets a strange mood over a film that so unsentimentally examines the clash of social classes and the creation of what was supposed to become modern England. Emma Thompson and Helena Bonham Carter (both subtly extraordinary) play sisters who come to represent different schools of thought at the beginning of the twentieth century. Anthony Hopkins and Samuel West are their male counterparts who also become symbols for the underlying themes E.M. Forster addressed in his brilliant novel. The miracle in the movie though is watching these symbols become human and witnessing how the film works as a wonderful political study and as an involving, intense emotional drama. Few movies master with such ease the dichotomy that exists between mind and heart; which can be fierce enemies or intimate friends.”
It’s the penultimate line above that jolts me in particular. In transferring a novel so rich in symbolism to the screen Ivory and company manage to avoid one of the unnerving possibilities – caricatures. Instead of the characters becoming symbols, the symbols turn into characters (it seems synonymous, but mull it over – it’s not)
Consider the words of Luke of Journalistic Skepticism (don’t let the name fool you, he’s much to opleasant to be a cynic):
“Battling through the myth that Merchant Ivory films are overlong and overwrought, Howards End combines the immense talents of its cast, particularly the always-lovely Emma Thompson and the startlingly beautiful Helena Bonham Carter, with an impossibly elegant backdrop. It’s a gorgeous costume drama that never looks down on its audience, and Thompson’s performance is mannered loveliness.”
It’s a period piece, but that doesn’t make it any less “real”. Howards End is intent to presenting as precisely normal a world as possible and Emma manages to find nuances in even those most rote of lines and adds a dash of personality in the places we’d least expect. For example, I love a slight moment where Redgrave’s Mrs. Wilcox instructs her to write her name on the top of the woman’s Christmas list – Emma’s gleeful obedience is amusing and completely in keeping with her character. This is the sort of woman who grows up before her time, but still retains a bit of the silliness – willing to be pleased at being at the top of someone’s Christmas list.
“Howards End is the second masterpiece from the Merchant-Ivory team (E/N masterpiece #1, masterpiece #3], working at the height of their creativity. Anyone expecting the dreamy romanticism of their first masterpiece, A Room With A View, may be surprised at the complexity, subtlety and maturity of this drama. The luminous Emma Thompson, passionate Helena Bonham-Carter, and powerhouse Anthony Hopkins headline this tale of a country house, its meaning in the lives of its inhabitants, and its role in a series of misunderstandings that bring belated contentment to some, and ruin to others.Gorgeous to look at, a dream to listen to, top-notch in all departments, this is intelligent film making at its best. Compelling and entertaining, it faithfully paints a tapestry of Forster's themes of love, class, family tradition, infidelity, and the yearning of artistic fulfillment. Vanessa Redgrave's supporting turn is but one of the film's many outstanding performances. I am also haunted by the symbolic image of a poor hanger-on literally crushed by his literary hopes and dreams. Howards End would sit proudly at the top of anyone's list of favorite films.”
So says Tom of the delightfully diverse Reinvention: The Journal of a Dog Lover...
It’s practically perfect in every way and so delicately made, it’s a pity many don’t even remember it. It’s #2 on my list of favourites, and really it’s interchangeable with the one to come since they’re both flawless, or thereabouts. (So, some of you would have discerned my obvious top choice.)
Do you care for Merchant Ivory? Do you care for Howards End? Speak up.
Monday, 19 July 2010
“What is truth in art? What is truth in cinema? If by truth you look for accuracy and period detail then The Lion in Winter will not be for you. If, on the other hand, you look for that deeper truth of the Human Condition then few films get closer to identifying it. Writer James Goldman takes a warring family with 20th century feelings and responses and places it firmly into the context 12th century royal politics. It’s an extraordinary achievement aided by a superb cast (Hepburn, O’Toole, Hopkins all at the top of their game), convincingly low key design and a terrific quasi-monastic score.”
Ben, of the irreverently named Runs Like A Gay wrote the above. He’s actually been lucky enough to take part in a production of the excellent play and I couldn’t agree more with his summation. As far as history dramas go The Lion in Winter may be little more than farce, but if it’s farce – it’s irresistible farce.
“What a desolation!”
Were one to line up the reasons – rationally as possible – as to the pros and cons of Anthony Harvey’s 1968 drama, the sound question one would be moved to ask is how the film managed to be a success. The fact is, The Lion in Winter has more going against it that for it. First off, it’s a historical drama. It’s nowhere near as expansive (thematically) as A Man For All Seasons and this Henry isn’t the one that most history buffs are interested in. Secondly, in the mere few days the film covers nothing particularly pertinent happens. In fact, were we moved to ask what any particular character has accomplished during the film’s runtime we may end up answering – nothing. And conversely, while the action is sparse the film is very “talk-y”, not exactly a prerequisite for a good (or enjoyable) film about the 12th century. Yet, The Lion in Winter defies these odds. The original stage production wasn’t much to shout about (or so I heard), but perhaps it’s the inclusion of our Lady Kate, Peter O’Toole and a newly discovered Anthony Hopkins that makes it such a success. Perhaps, the story was just more suited for the film. I don’t know. Whatever it is, I always marvel at it.
It’s some time during the 12th century and Henry is on the throne. His wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, is imprisoned in Salisbury Tower. Henry has three sons (on screen; historically there were more) and he’s uncertain whom should be his successor. There’s the lion hearted Richard, the duplicitous but sage Geoffrey and the petulant John. It’s Christmas, though, and thus the family reunites for a few days. Unfortunately, festivity is low as Prince Philip is coming to Chignon to demand that this sister be married to the heir of the throne (whomever that may be) or returned to France. Princess Alais has been in England for some time, now acting as a concubine to the King – but a marriage, to anyone, seems dubious. Thus lies the state of affairs as The Lion in Winter opens. It would be a thorny task to say what happens within the next 120 minutes, and I don’t think I’d care to explain either. Lies will be told, games will be played, knives will be drawn (as will curtains, too), persons will be duped and of course it ends with goodbyes (yet, curiously, no tears). From the inception, the atmosphere of it all is striking. Look at the earlier incarnation of Henry’s life (the 1964 Becket). This set is not the same. Unlike its predecessors the courts of this incarnation are not spotless, but soiled and unkempt – like we’d expect from the period. The Queen’s robes are majestic, but not unblemished and unlike the 1964 piece the court is pervaded by the presence of animals – domestic and otherwise. It’s not the typical period piece, and it shows.
Tom of the eclectic Reinvention: The Journal of a Dog Lover, Book Reader, Movie Goer and Writer shares his thoughts on the film.
“At the heart of this deliciously medieval drama is Katharine Hepburn as Eleanor of Aquitaine, imprisoned queen of tempestuous Henry II (the roaring Peter O'Toole). This is the consummate portrayal by one of cinema's most brilliant actresses. Hepburn demonstrates a stunning ability to speak volumes with a word, a look, a tremble of emotion. In a single scene, sometimes with a single line of dialog, she goes from beautiful and vulnerable to ironic and witty to cunning and calculating.
Director Anthony Harvey and Screenwriter James Goldman provide Hepburn with the right environment and the beautiful language for Hepburn to play at her most wonderful. The Lion in Winter is at once a mystical and haunting historical epic, domestic comedy/drama, and pageant. Harvey lights his sets and moves his camera and creates a picture unique even among historical epics. Goldman's playful script switches moods and allegiances on a dime, and often winks at us with the comparisons between this royal family and modern soap opera. (Favorite line: Oh well, what family doesn't have its ups and downs?) This film is rich in dialog and intrigue, and is worth a fortnight of viewings.
One need not be familiar with the historical origins of this story. Details are deftly filled in, so that we may enjoy the battles between king and queen and their three power-hungry sons, as well as the rich detail of the design, and the soaring and beautiful musical score.”
In the same way that the 1968 Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf is a tug-of-war where one cannot choose between Burton’s quiet sadism or Liz’s loud fury one should not choose between Hepburn and O’Toole (although, naturally, I do). The two are evenly matched in this battle, in words and in talent and it’s no surprise that The Lion in Winter reaches its peak in these moment. Yet, what makes The Lion in Winter stand apart of any other film with two leads is that it’s backed up by an excellent excellent cast, each intent on having his day in the sun (or at least destroying a family member). The first words on screen? …come for me. It’s too easy for me to consider it incidental, for The Lion in Winter is really all about everyone intent on outmanoeuvring their peers. I’ll get it out of the way now, Jane Merrow’s Alais presents the film’s only clunker, the less said about her – the better. It’s more than her obvious inadequacy when measured against our Lady Kate but her foppishness makes the film just a little sluggish when she takes centre stage. But she’s surrounded by masters (or at least novices doing a good job of pretending – and isn’t that the same?), so it doesn’t hurt us much. I continue to marvel at the wondrous thing that was John Castle’s performance at the middle – Geoffrey. I still remain confused as to why this performance is so forgotten, and even more flummoxed as to Castle’s inability to make a large mark on film hereafter. Nigel Terry and a young Anthony Hopkins round out the trinity, with Hopkins being particularly moving opposite his Ms. Hepburn. His steely elegance reminds me of Russell Crow circa Gladiator.
Yojimbo, of Let’s Not Talk About Movies opines:
“This is red meat material, chewy and sinewy and full of juice and played by a cast of gourmands who relish the consuming—even Katherine Hepburn, who knew the value of stillness, knew when to tuck in and tear away at a juicy part. The cast, including a debuting Timothy Dalton whose entrance always evokes a smile (with his first ebullient shot not only does he show he deserves to play a King, but also play against Peter O’Toole!) makes the most of rich, if maybe a shade too contemporary, material by James Goldman-his personal best. That the film is so rich is due to the delicious script, and actors, as the other films of director Anthony Harvey are relatively bloodless. It’s an event film, with both Peter O’Toole and Hepburn at the top of their roaring games, and Anthony Hopkins, young bull that he was, giving a glimpse of the glowering powers he would bring to the screen.”
Like him, I too appreciate the script as one of the film’s highlight. If I had to single out a script as the best of all time – I’d single out The Lion in Winter in a heartbeat. The lines roll off the tongue like syrup, anachronistic at times but striking nonetheless. As we continue on the journey through the top ten we reach films where the faults are less and less, and ultimately I forgive Jane Merrow’s poor showing in the film because she sells her final pieces with O’Toole so sincerely I wonder if it took time for her to find her talent (or perhaps convection of talent from O’Toole and Hepburn),. But then, when I remember I return to the man and his wife. O’Toole and Hepburn give my two favourite performances of the decade and the film is a masterpiece. When it ends he turns to his queen and says “I hope we never die.” She answers without sentiment, “So do I.” With these performances I warrant that they won’t. It falls at #6 on my list of favourites.
What are your thoughts on Kate and Peter here? Are you a fan of the script? ...of the movie?
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Little by little I’m doing my bit to exorcise the past from my regular posts. I’m on the verge of wrapping up those “decade in review” posts I began ages ago. You though I’d already finished, didn’t you? Well, not quite. I’ve already given you the fifteen male performances I’ve admired most this decade, so I’ll unveil the entire fifty. Before I do, though, if you're wondering about the picture of Anthony...he's the actor of the 90s in my book and I just love him in The Remains of the Day.Click on the links for performance reviews of the top 15.
*Albert Finney in Big Fish
*Alfred Molina in An Education
*Ben Foster in The Messenger
Benicio Del Toro in 21 Grams
Benicio Del Toro in Traffic
Casey Afleck in The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford
Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can
Clive Owen in Closer
*Collin Farrell in In Bruges
Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York
Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood
Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood
Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda
Ed Harris in Pollock
Ethan Hawke in Training Day
*Ewan McGregor in Big Fish
*Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge!
Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon
Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain
Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children
Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain
*Jim Broadbent in Moulin Rouge!
*Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line
Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean
*Mark Ruffalo in You Can Count On Me
*Paul Dano in Little Miss Sunshine
Paul Giamati in Cinderella Man
*Paul Schneider in Bright Star
Russell Crow in Gladiator
Tom Wilkinson in In the Bedroom
*Viggo Mortenson in The Road
Willem Dafoe in Shadow of a Vampire
Musings on the list:
- As noted by the asterisk, 22 of these performances were not recognised by Oscar, it’s a shame on the Oscars part. But then again, it’s not really that surprising.
- I've got waaaaaaaaaay to few supporting performances here, don't I?
- I love all the performances above, but the bolded ones are the top half. So they're my twenty-five favourites...Fifty is so much, and I still feel like I left out some exceptional ones.
- Unsurprisingly Leo features the most on the list with his three performances. I did say before he was favourite actor of the last decade. Greats like Day Lewis and Seymour Hoffman among others are there twice.
- I find it so weird that Viggo Mortenson came out of nowhere to give two (perhaps even three, or four) great performances in this last decade. I wonder if we can expect more great things to come from his this decade.
- Ewan McGregor and Mark Ruffalo both impressed in the first half of the decade, but they’ve faltered since. Is a comeback imminent for either?
What do you think of the list? Which performances do you feel I’ve egregiously snubbed here? Which inclusions surprised you most?
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Martin Scorsese is my favourite director so it’s no surprise that he makes quite a number of appearances on my list of 100 favourite films. People love Scorsese...even his films that don’t get all the love [King of Comedy, Mean Streets, Casino] are still widely loved...expect for this. I could be wrong. Maybe there are people out there who love this...but I’ve never met them. I think this is Scorsese’s most underrated film. It is not ostensibly about deception, anguish or war as Good Fellas, The Departed or Raging Bull. But The Age of Innocence is as profound as Scorsese’s other works. The story is adapted from Edith Wharton's novel of the same name. It tells the story of a Newland Archer, a wealthy New York Bachelor. He is engaged to May Whitfield – a pretty, rich and dim young lady who seems infatuated with Newland. Newland is ready to set down and all seems to be going well until the appearance of May’s cousin – Countess Olenska. Olenska is European and divorcing her husband – scandalous in New York. May encourages Newland to befriend Olenska – she a social pariah...and their friendship becomes something more...
I wasn’t around in the days when the phrase Merchant Ivory signified brilliance but I’m still appreciative of the great work they’ve done in adapting classic literature to classic film. Few have done it as excellently as they have. The Remains of the Day was their final juggernaut that triumphed with Oscar – and yet the film won none of the eight Oscars it was nominated – a pity really. Something The Remains of the Days shares The Age of Innocence is a relationship between two protagonists that doesn’t go too far; in some ways I suppose it’s even going far to call the relationship between Stevens and Miss Kenton a romantic one. But it is. Isn’t it? And like Scorsese’s flick The Remains of the Day is concerned with changing social norms.Stevens has a definitive connection to his home and it’s a bit tragic to watch as it’s auctioned off, bit by bit.
The Age of Innocence is a beautiful period piece...but above all else, it is an actors’ flick. Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day Lewis and Winona Ryder give outstanding performances as the three leads. If I ruled the world Daniel Day Lewis would have won a second Oscar for either this or In the Name of the Father and Michelle Pfeiffer would have also been on the receiving end of a nomination and battling it out with Emma Thompson for the win. I always marvel at how these performances were ignored. Winona Ryder was the lone cast member to make it to the Oscar race. On first viewing I was smitten with the performance. It does not hold up as well, but it is still a good performance. It’s a difficult character. Is May really that bland or is it Winona’s characterisation? It’s a tough call...but I think that May is just an unremarkable young lady. But the ending of the film makes you reassess everything that you thought earlier. Is May in fact the least honest character in The Age of Innocence? It doesn’t seem outlandish to assume that perhaps May knew of Newland’s attraction to Ellen throughout, and that one assumption makes her character so much fuller. May just may be the most artful wife. It’s a typically Scorsese turn – even if the inclination is provided by Wharton.
And speaking of endings, who can forget the lovely departure Emma Thompson makes in The Remains of the Day. My allegiances do lie with that other Thompson/Hopkins/Merchant Ivory flick. But even I won’t deny that Emma and Anthony are quite excellent here. The Remains of the Day is Anthony’s story completely and nothing he has done before or since feels as profound, real and iconic as his Stevens. It’s a wondrous thing to watch him as he shields his emotion. In some ways his Stevens seems to be the perfect companion to Helen Mirren’s Mrs. Wilson. The two would have existed in perfect cohesion. The film is all Anthony’s, but this never prevents Emma from making her mark – and with so little time. Pragmatic and yet attractive Emma is excellent throughout, but it’s here tears at the end of the film that always get to me. Such skill.
I know everybody was going crazy in 1993 about Schindler’s List and The Piano – two great films. But my three favourites of that year were The Remains of the Day, In the Name of the Father, The Age of Innocence. Their ranking changes from year to year but these three films had the most profound impact on me – for different reasons. I already spoke of In the Name of the Father; The Age of Innocence appears at #47 on my list of favourites and The Remains of the Day at #33. Which do you prefer?
Saturday, 2 January 2010
Right now we’re entering into that time of year when everyone starts going wild with the lists. Some are fun, and some are not so much fun. And they all come so close together, it’s almost apocalyptic. I'm always interested in good performances as well as good films, so these two lists were delightful, and inspired me somewhat. The decade has come to end and we’ve been privy to lists’ galore – best of the decade, best of the year and on and on. I won’t be revealing my lists of either until the end of the month, but I thought I’d like to revisit the decade before that – the nineties. I’m a child of the nineties, and though I don’t think the aughts [as they’ve been proclaimed] were bad, the nineties were way better. So I’d like to take a look at my favourites of the nineties: year after year. No explanations. Certainly, I’ve not seen all the important films of that decade. But it’s the best of what I’ve seen obviously. So let me unveil my twenty five favourite men of the nineties.
Al Pacino in Donnie Brasco
Anthony Hopkins in The Remains of the Day
Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs
Brad Pitt in Fight Club
Daniel Day Lewis in In the Name of the Father
Ed Norton in Fight Club
Ian McKellen in Gods & Monsters
Jeff Bridges in The Fisher King
Joe Pesci in GoodFellas
Jude Law in The Talented Mr. Ripley
Kenneth Branagh in Hamlet
Kevin Spacey in American Beauty
Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects
Matt Damon in The Talented Mr. Ripley
Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption
Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List
Ralph Fiennes in The English Patient
Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption
Warren Beatty in Bugsy
Warren Beatty in Dick Tracy
Wes Bentley in American Beauty
In case you're hungering for lists of the 2000s: check out
The Mad Hatter
Univarn
RC
Nick
Blake
Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
