catholiclefty

Sunshine Cleaning is an excellent example of strong performances attempting to break out from a story that isn't entirely well-formed, and having a decent amount of success. The idea of a pair of sisters struggling to get by, one a single parent in the middle of an affair with a married man which clearly isn't going anywhere, and one who hasn't entirely discovered responsibility yet, going into business as crime-scene cleaners, is perfectly acceptable, and allows setup of a decent amount of humour and emotion. In this respect, the script mostly works, and should be commended for balancing well between the rather gross concept, and the humour extracted from such, and yet not actually being excessively grotesque in indulgent examination of unpleasant detail. Equally, the character interaction works well, and we are presented with quite well-formed characters who develop over the course of the film. It's difficult to pull out any single scene, or set of scenes, and point to glaring problems. But in the end, the narrative doesn't quite fit together into a complete film. Most egregiously, the film spends a great deal of time setting up relationships for both sisters, which have no pay-off whatever (one is ended before it begins, the other looks promising but hasn't quite got anywhere by the end of the film). Almost as bad is the inevitable 'irresponsible sister gets to like doing things with some responsibility, but then screws up in a predictable way, and the usual consequences' story, which is rather by-the-numbers stuff. In the end, the film feels like a lot of setup that never quite closes in a satisfying way.

Comparisons to Little Miss Sunshine are inevitable and, one suspects, are welcomed by the makers, given both the title and the casting. But while the plot of LMS was ramshackle, there was an underlying direction and a clear conclusion. Sunshine Cleaning just moves along and then stops, which may be like a slice of real life but isn't a very satisfying film. It's all the more irritating because there is an awful lot to like about this film, but when the story is lacking a large amount of narrative drive it makes the whole film a lot more difficult to enjoy.

Onto the good bits - the performances. In news that should surprise no-one, Amy Adams is outstanding in a role that allows her to show off a full emotional range. There can't be many emotions that aren't covered by her character in the 90 minutes of this film, and Amy nails every one. Her character feels real, sympathetic, far from perfect, but doing her best. She interacts with all the other characters in a nuanced and accomplished way. It's really hard to pick any standout scenes because her performance is uniformly excellent - so I'll pick something quiet and simple : the scene where she's trying to explain to her son that his grandad is big on promises but doesn't always follow through. This is small, quiet, and really quite beautiful. Rather more conventionally, the scene where she's trying to explain to the ladies at the baby shower that she actually likes what she's doing, and she's more or less actually convincing herself, finally, at the same time, that this is actually true, is a minor masterpiece. The fact that Amy can act her socks off shouldn't surprise anyone at all now, but this is definite proof, if it were needed, that given a wide-ranging role she can deliver a wide-ranging performance (this adamantly isn't the various, albeit highly distinct, takes on naive we've seen in Junebug (my review), Enchanted (my review) and Doubt (my review)).

But the film isn't just the Amy Adams show, however enchanting (sorry!) that idea is. The other performances on display give Amy a run for her money. Emily Blunt is, also unsurprisingly, very good indeed, and the chemistry between her and Amy (and the other characters) really works. She gets less range to show off than Amy, but she still gets some memorably strong scenes (in the scene with the train, she compresses all that range into a few seconds, and pulls it off, no mean feat). Alan Arkin is also very strong, once again not entirely surprisingly. He manages to mix gruff, loving, vaguely naive, and strong independence into the same character simultaneously. Jason Spevack is mostly decent as the son, and mostly manages to avoid being an annoying child, though not entirely. He works well with Amy. Mary Lynn Rajskub is good, if ill-served by a storyline that sees her abruptly excised from the film. Until then we're wanting to see more of her, and the glimpses into her character are intriguing if under-developed. Clifton Collins Jr. has the same problem, without the abrupt exit. His character deserves to go further than it does. Steve Zahn has a more standard role than most here, and achieves it in an acceptable manner, but he's upstaged by much of the rest of the cast.

The first viewing of this left me rather unsatisfied. I enjoyed the performances, but found the story sadly lacking. Subsequent viewings have caused it to grow on me quite a bit. I still have issues with the story and wish it were a lot tighter in at least some areas - there's too much here crammed into an economical running time, and as such side-plots should either be excised or resolved rather than left irritatingly dangling. The 'fire' twist being utterly predictable is also quite disappointing in a film that otherwise isn't trying for a neat narrative. Conversely, there is a lot of the untidiness of the real world about this portrayal, and given the multi-dimensional lead characters and outstanding acting on display, these are lesser problems than they would be in most comparable films. I wanted to love this film, but I can't honestly say it gets near to those heights. However, there's an awful lot to like about it, and is still a rewarding experience, if not entirely satisfying. If nothing else entices you about the film, it may be worth mentioning that there's a surprising number of shots of Amy Adams in various underwear :-) - I'd find it rather hard to say anything too negative about a film that is gracious enough to do that :-) Seriously though, this ends up sadly not being more than the sum of its parts, though lots of the constituent parts are very good indeed. 7.5 out of 10.

The summer sequel Night at the Museum : Battle of the Smithsonian has three distinct advantages over the first film, which aren't enough to make it a good film but do set it at a considerably higher standard. Firstly it has an actual plot - one with problems but still a definite plot - as opposed to the first film which felt like a single idea stretched out to movie length ('what if the exhibits in the museum come to life at night? Hey, that's so cool we don't need to bother with an actual plot or anything like that') with a few pointless themes awkwardly thrown in (success as a parent, most notably). The pointless themes are here too (you shouldn't leave behind what makes you happy - though as it never bothers to explain properly why he did in the first place, this isn't all that focused), but at least they are less irritating themes than in the first one. Secondly it has a proper villain in the shape of a delightfully over-the-top Hank Azaria. And thirdly it has Amy Adams (yay!), bringing life to the screen as an energetic sidekick.

There's too much plot and too many characters shoe-horned into the film and extraneous elements get jettisoned along the way (most obviously the idea that his son is going to guide him around the museum by telephone, which is discarded as soon as it becomes cumbersome). While it won't be too useful to dissect the myriad of plot holes, the distinction between the first film being a 'what if that actually happened?' - with admittedly some serious problems - is thrown out in favour of 'well, this is fantasy, let's do what we like', a change of tone that is far from successful as the movie is now too many steps away from reality to feel truly interesting. As such, we occupy a world where pretty much anything can happen at night without any consequences, and the centrepieces of Washington DC are entirely bereft of guards or even casual visitors. It's also a world where things happen just to further the plot - Lincoln (!) arrives as a deus ex machina, sorts out the immediate problem, and then pointlessly leaves without finishing the job. There is a prominent riddle that needs to be solved that, in my humble opinion as a mathematician, makes very little sense without being given more information. Pacing is problematic too - in the middle of a chaotic climatic battle, we take full minutes out to have a light-hearted scene involving monkey slapstick!

Ben Stiller is ok, but never really gets the time to do anything other than react to events as they unfold. The film would probably have been better if it didn't indulge in continual extended ad-lib sessions which wreck the pace (with the exception of the one with Hank Azaria, which is delightfully done). The one with Jonah Hill is especially tedious, but then I don't like Jonah Hill much anyway for some reason. Owen Wilson gets sidelined quite quickly, leaving some of the best comedy to Steve Coogan who does a decent enough job. Robin Williams bookends the film (though his appearance at the end is a plot hole - why is he alive that night?) Ricky Gervais is almost as pointless and unfunny as the first one - he should stick to comedy on this basis. Bill Hader is almost unrecognisable but pretty good as Custer, though the script doesn't allow him to show through his vulnerability early enough.

But the film belongs to Hank Azaria and Amy Adams, and if I dare say it, more so to Hank than Amy. Azaria's villain is wonderfully overacted with a preposterous lisp and a hilarious pomposity. A truly splendid villain and the highlight of the piece. Amy also brings a lot of life to the film, especially when it is rather lacking from Stiller, and as ever makes a potentially over-perky and irritating character rather adorable. Nevertheless, as befitting a character made of wax, there isn't a great deal of opportunity for depth here, and while she's clearly doing the best she can, she could play with a lot more and make something a lot better if so given. While it is hard to see she could have done any more with the material on the table, this isn't going to come even in the top half of the list of my favourite Amy performances. It's fine but just for once not quite hitting my ludicrously inflated expectations - it's probably telling that while her previous characters have been remembered for character traits, this seems to be going to be remembered for her ridiculously tight trousers. Am I complaining, well not about that (!), but it does show that the character isn't quite as memorable as some of the more memorable ones she's played - not that I'm seriously suggesting I can think of anyone who would have played it better, just that I mostly didn't find it all that enchanting (if you'l excuse the thoroughly intended pun). I rather preferred her character in the coda, however brief - which rather reminded me of Talladega Nights (my review). She does get a delightful line about looking like other people, which any veteran of IMDb's message boards would appreciate immensely.

In terms of effects it is fine - much better than the first. Some of the things that come to life in the museum are rather fun but remain in the background to be spotted by keen eyes. One gripe is that the director doesn't seem to like making images very sharp and there's often a blurred impression that I found off-putting, even in IMAX. The soundtrack is mainly average, the best bits being leveraged from the first film, with the exception of the dreaded Jonas Brothers, who we'll just try to forget about.

Opening with 15 minutes of saying goodbye to the museum in New York that feels like it belonged better at the end of the first movie, and closing over the credits with a scene that makes no sense at all given that the tablet isn't a time machine, this is quick-paced and has some fun and is better than the first, but I couldn't go so far as to say it is a good film, even counting Amy and Hank Azaria. Don't think about the problems and just sit back and try to enjoy it and you'll get something out of it, even if not a fully satisfying film-going experience. 5 out of 10.

One of the major issues of reviewing a large chunk of the Oscar nominees in one week (so I'm caught up before the Oscars themselves) is that I'm seriously at risk - more than usual - of running out of praiseworthy words, and lapsing into even more repetition than usual. Still, hopefully I've still got a few useful words left in me until I've reviewed the last of this batch of quality films, and then I can get back to the usual dross. Writing bad reviews is often rather more fun than writing good reviews, the opposite experience to actually sitting in the cinema. Well, anyway...

Doubt is a pretty straight adaptation of a (multiply acclaimed) play, and as such it lives or dies on the back of the plot and the acting. Fortunately, we have a very well-crafted plot which leaves bigger questions in the mind than pretty much any other film of the year, and a cast that on paper is probably the strongest-looking of the year, and doesn't disappoint. I have an extra iron in the fire here, being a Catholic and very interested in this most tumultuous of periods in the Church.

On the fact of it, this is a straightforward clash of cultures, as was common in the 1960s Catholic Church, with the influence of Vatican II becoming pervasive. A friendly, progressive priest who wishes to proclaim that 'It is a new time' is pitted against a hard-headed traditionalist nun, the school principal, who believes 'there is nothing new under the sun'. The twist is that the priest becomes suspected of sexually abusing one of the boys in the school - did he do it? Did he not? Whose side are we on? Whose side ought we to be on? The strength of the writing (and the acting) is that there is no clear answer to any of these questions, and as such we are forced to examine our own beliefs and question the role of doubt, certainty, and evidence in our own lives and experiences. It is perfectly possible to view this film and reach the conclusion that the priest is indeed an abuser, it is also possible to do exactly the same and reach the conclusion that he is a decent person looking out for a troubled child. Indeed, I've viewed the film on different occasions and reached different conclusions myself - this isn't troubled ambiguity, but an ambiguity that faces us all in real life. Equally, it is possible to view the film and think that the forces of conservatism are correct and the priest is wrong, and also to think that the priest is right and the school is being 'held back'. Again, both views are valid, and while most of us would come down on one side or the other instinctively, or politically, this is a highly effective manner of showing that there are no easy answers, no-one is necessarily entirely right, all situations have more than one possible side.

Along the way, the film takes in all manner of other issues - from working class racism, the difficulty of raising out-of-the-ordinary children, the role of the Church in the community, gender relations in the Church, equity, and the difficult connection between justice and faith. There's an awful lot of issues here, and the skill of the film is that they don't feel shoe-horned in. The potential disadvantage is that there are too many issues to effectively handle, and some can't honestly be answered anyway, so there is a strong possibility that things feel too open-ended at the end of the film. There's also quite a bit of humour in the film, and some people may well think that there's no place for humour in a film that deals with such an important (and still topical) issue. Personally, I have little stock in either criticism, but I can see coherent cases for either. In my book, this would be a significantly diminished film if we were presented with evidence that moved us from 'doubt' to 'certainty' - at any point, and I see no harm in the gentle humour that goes with the everyday life the film attempts to portray, even if (a big if!) something is going on behind the scenes.

And what a cast we have! First we have the 'finest actress alive' Meryl Streep, and she certainly does a decent enough job of living up to this label here. On a first viewing, there do seem to be occasional flaws in her performance, but subsequent viewings show them to be quite deliberate and actually appropriate. There is little question that this could well be an authentic nun/school principal of this time. This is an assured and memorable role to add to her rather long list of such. Then we have one of my favourite actors in Philip Seymour Hoffman, who takes a difficult role, makes it his own, and doesn't help us to decide either way about his actions, which is exactly what he should be doing. His behaviour is concerning enough to raise doubts, but can also be entirely innocent. When he gets angry, his scenes with Meryl are electric - there's the risk they could descend into pure shouting matches, but they don't - and his sermons are also well-crafted and well-delivered (certainly better than those of the average priest in real life!). Then we have the character who is closest to the audience's 'in' to the film, played by still-my-favourite-actress Amy Adams, in a completely well-measured and human way. She, like us, doesn't know what to believe or which way to jump. Her innocence is (unsurprisingly) beautifully portrayed but with the depth which we (well, I, at least!) have come to expect from her by now. Her attempts to convince herself of things at various parts of the film are nuanced and highly believable. This is a simultaneously restrained and powerful performance, and despite the ludicrously high standard I expect from her performances, she still manages to pleasantly surprise. Up against two heavyweights, she never seems out of place in the slightest and makes a good case for heavyweight status herself. The first new Amy film in nearly a year, it was worth the wait (I won't say *well* worth the wait, because I'd far rather have one every week or so, but I suppose I have to be vaguely realistic!). Finally we have Viola Davis, in a small but highly powerful role. Given this was portrayed for months in advance as the best piece of acting ever seen on the planet, it was inevitably going to be somewhat disappointing, and it is to the credit of Ms Davis that the disappointment was slight and fleeting. This is a strong performance that itself communicates a message that will remain in the mind long after seeing the film (and, due to both the writing and the performance, gets this complicated message over to the audience an awful lot quicker than much wordier scenes would normally have managed). This is a wonderful ensemble, and all 4 have fully deservedly received Oscar nominations.

In the end, the main drawback with this film is that there isn't necessarily much that requires it to be a film, as indeed it originally wasn't. This does betray its stage origins in long talky scenes - excellent and dramatic long talky scenes, but still long talky scenes nevertheless. Small touches to make it feel more like a film (some odd camera angles, for one) don't really achieve much, but admittedly don't really detract either. I'm not sure this is a strong criticism - there's no rule to say films have to have lots of things you couldn't do on a stage, but it is worth pointing out because it is more obvious than in most other equivalent cases. My only other real criticism is more personal - I'm not sure that this is an especially helpful way to depict the 'clash' between conservatism and progressivism, in the Catholic Church or otherwise. The traditionalist arguments seem often petty and dogmatic, whereas the progressive arguments are probably not best summed up by a priest who certainly has something suspicious about him, whether he is a molester or not. I wanted perhaps a stronger emphasis on this argument rather than the narrower issue of the potential molestation - and while acknowledging that the argument is a proxy for the other argument, I'm not at all sure it is a sufficient proxy.

Nevertheless, this is a downright excellent film which dares to ask questions and leave the general public to consider what the answers may be, sets up a reasonably narrow plot that can be interpreted in diametrically opposite directions with surprising ease, and boasts superlative acting performances from all 4 main characters. This lived up to its promise as one of the films I was most looking forward to this year. 9 out of 10.

Way back in January (actually, it doesn't feel far back at all. Is it REALLY the last day of July today? Wow...) I decided to dig into Amy Adams' back catalogue - partly motivated because of the sheer quality of her acting, and partly because she's far from unpleasant to watch :-) Now, with finally seeing Psycho Beach Party, I seem to have completed the vast bulk of her movie history, just excepting those things hard to track down and strictly for completists (Pumpkin, The Slaughter Rule), easy to track down but very strictly only for completists (Tenacious D), just completely unavailable (Moonlight Serenade, The Chromium Hook), or a voice-only role (Underdog). Yes, I'd like to get around to them all sooner or later, but I think the project as originally envisaged is now complete.

And it only took me 6 months longer than the month I originally envisaged! Oh well. That's actually a lot better than I realistically expected, given in the last few years I've only managed to watch about 3 or 4 films *a year* at home.

Along the way I found a film I'm surprised passed me by entirely (Catch Me If You Can), a film I'm amazed I'd never seen and would have been a very sad omission to have stayed that way (Drop Dead Gorgeous), a film I'm amazed I'd never seen and was pretty amusing if far from great (Cruel Intentions 2), a film that I kept on nearly going to see but never quite saw at the cinema (Talladega Nights), a film I'd probably never have seen (or certainly not stuck with) if not for Amy - which would have been quite a shame (Junebug), a decent enough film I'd never heard of despite having quite a few people in it that I knew (Psycho Beach Party), a film I'd really rather not have seen, the worst English film I've seen in a long while (The Last Run), and some more-or-less mediocre films (The Wedding Date, The Ex, Serving Sara, Standing Still). Which is a decent and varied enough collection, and Amy was well worth seeing, to a greater or lesser degree, in all of them.

Of these, Junebug is the best performance, which may be something to do with it also being the best part. The bar scene is Talladega Nights is a particular highlight too. And Cruel Intentions 2 and Serving Sara probably share the 'nicest looking' award - though that's a hard one to award, not least because of the way Amy usually looks quite significantly different from role to role. And all of which are only valid for the terms of this 'past' project, of course, as I've no intention of excluding Enchanted from any consideration for 'best performance', or any of Enchanted, Miss Pettigrew or Charlie Wilson's War from 'nicest looking' :-)

Anyway. I have a combination of Amy and Enchanted to thank/blame for being the main catalyst behind my current film resurgence and for both going to the cinema far too often (even more than in 1996/7, when I last had a film obsession) and buying too many DVDs. Not that I'm complaining much, for the most part this has been really rather good fun.

Still, given that in the last week I've basically finished this 'project', and I've seen Enchanted a reasonably-round and essentially unassailable number of times at the cinema (trivially the film I've seen at the cinema the most times ever, and I don't see this record being beaten any time soon, or most likely, ever) - and also with the announcement of Ms Adams' engagement (not entirely sure what that has to do with it, but I thought I'd mention it anyway) - perhaps I'll move on to another project now (Nicole Kidman and Naomi Watts are both highly tempting, for example). Then again, Miss Pettigrew is released in a fortnight in the UK, so perhaps I won't be moving on too far in the near future :-) Plus there are still quite a few past TV appearances to take a look at......

I wasn't too sure what to expect from Psycho Beach Party, but I did expect it to be interesting. Any film starring Amy Adams, Nicholas Brendon from Buffy and Kimberley Davies from Neighbours certainly warrants the description 'interesting' in my book!

This was more than interesting though - this was mostly good fun, and even clever on occasion. While I have little specific familiarity of the type of 60s 'beach' film this was spoofing, the basic idea is clear enough and it seemed to my reasonably uninformed eye that this was a pretty good satire. The story moves along nicely enough - this isn't a long film, probably just about right - and while I felt the double (triple?) twist at the end was a bit of a cheat to the viewer (and done before. And since, not least in Buffy's controversial 'Normal Again'), it wasn't enough to make a big dent in the general enjoyment of what preceded. There's lots of really excellent dialog - most of it is sharp and witty, and very little falls flat.

Lauren Ambrose, who I've not encountered before, is quite the find here, with an excellent piece of acting. This role allows her to show off her acting skills, and she pulls it off in spades. A most impressive performance. Decent-looking too (I seem to be developing rather a liking for ladies with red hair, surprisingly enough...) Kimberley Davies was better here than I recall her being in Neighbours (I think I wasn't paying attention to her acting all that much in Neighbours :-) though having said that I don't think she was ever the most attractive lady at any time during her tenure on the show. A question that demands contemplation :-) Nicholas Brendon was alright, though not all that removed from his Xander. All these people, and all the other roles, managed pretty well to get the balance between outright cheese and an informed spoof.

Amy Adams is good fun here, and may not be in a great number of scenes but is used well when she is on-screen. She's not exactly unpleasant to look at here, either :-) - rather more herself than in Drop Dead Gorgeous, imo, even though there's not much of a (chronological) gap between the two. It's hard to complain about bikini scenes - though her dancing scene is her best bit in the film.

A good, fun film, that's (deliberately) much closer to a B-movie than the rather risque film the title may suggest. Silly and enjoyable. 7 out of 10.

Finally, I get around to this (very belated) review - though not so belated that I've missed the proper UK release next month (though the premiere was last week, in Edinburgh). I'd thought 5-month-plus gaps between the US and the UK were mostly a thing of the past - but I guess that only applies to blockbusters.

Anyway, way way back at the end of April, I went to see Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day at an obscure cinema in Renton, near Seattle, which I'd not actually been to before. I wasn't exactly sure what to expect - on the positive side, a new film, starring Amy Adams, can hardly be a bad thing! And what I knew of the rest of the cast was very promising too. On the other hand, this kind of period piece isn't usually really my kind of thing - certainly not a 1930s period piece, in any event. (To be fair of course, I'd have said that about Enchanted this time last year, which proves just how useful statements like this can be!) And I was also still rather jetlagged, having flown 5000 miles the previous day (not solely to see this film, but somewhere along the line it became one of the five or six major objectives of my holiday. Amazingly I think I fulfilled all of them - most successful! But I digress...)

I needn't have been concerned - I loved the film, indeed enough to catch it in a couple more places, the first real 'dollar theatre' I've ever been to (in almost literally the middle of nowhere, somewhere in North Seattle - though actually it cost $3, very cheap but rather more than $1!) and then in an obscure theatre somewhere in Queens in New York. I think I'm rather likely to catch it a few more times when it finally does open over here, too :-)

The true strength of the film is in the excellent casting, and the excellent performance by those cast. Seeing a cast largely made up of people from my favourite films or TV shows of the last year is pretty nice in and of itself, and unlike say in Prince Caspian, that improved the experience of this film, rather than just making me want to watch something else with them in!

As the title character Miss Pettigrew, Frances McDormand is, rather as you'd expect from such a good actress, basically flawless, and seems surprisingly real for someone we are given little information about for the majority of the film. She creates a character who is sympathetic and this helps pull the story along very nicely indeed.

Amy Adams, playing Miss Pettigrew's unlikely 'saviour' Delysia, is downright excellent here too. She does nothing here to change my opinion of her as the finest actress of her generation, with a delightful and energetic performance, another display of honed comic timing and a consistent (and, while not being at all the same kind of accent, rather like Junebug's Ashley it is rather surprisingly not at all irritating) accent. As with Giselle in Enchanted, she takes a character who by all rights should actually be rather annoying and off-putting and makes something truly adorable out of it. Unlike Giselle, however, this is a character who starts with real depth, which eventually gets revealed, but it is strongly hinted at pretty much all the way through by Amy's performance. Giselle is what she appears to be. Delysia is someone who very much isn't what she appears to be. So while there are superficial similarities with Giselle, this is definitely a vastly different character and pretty clearly (but subtly) shown to be so by Amy's characterisation of the roles. I thought I really could only be sadly disappointed by Amy from now on, because my opinion of her acting is so unfeasibly high to start with. But, I was wrong - I was still pleasantly surprised by the quality of her performance here.

Lee Pace (Pushing Daisies!) puts in a good showing in a part pretty different from his Piemaker, and he convinces well in it. Ciaran Hinds (There Will Be Blood!) does a great turn as a suave but also human and sympathetic gentleman. Mark Strong (Stardust!) is good fun too, and a surprise (I didn't realise Prince Septimus was going to be in this!). Shirley Henderson rounds out the main cast with the 'nasty' performance of the bunch, and this is suitably understated. There's a few other people too, and they're fine, even if they haven't been in any other of my favourite films for the last year!

The plot isn't going to win any awards for originality, but in this case it really doesn't matter all that much - the journey can often be a lot more fun than the destination, and here the journey is certainly good fun. The backdrop of 'looming war' threatened to be rather heavy-handed, but in the end it probably had about the right amount of emphasis in the context of the film. The script as a whole rattles along nicely, with just a couple of small sags. On the whole the film feels a lot shorter than the 90 minutes that it is, and that's because it's fast-paced and enjoyable (not because of an absence of plot). It could sustain an extra 20 minutes or so very easily - but I'm not sure where you'd put them, as the film is rather well-balanced as it is.

The sets, costumes, etc. look really gorgeous, and evoke the period really well (well, I think so. I wasn't actually around then! But it looks like it should be about right).

The high point of the film is Amy and Lee's duet 'If I Didn't Care' and, for me, this took what was already a very enjoyable film and made it something really special. Again, the idea isn't slightly original, but everything about this works. Amy's singing is plain lovely, right down to the heart-breaking way her voice (quite deliberately) stumbles at a couple of places, and Lee's is decent enough too. There's something really striking about the way this is filmed too - there's one shot, where Amy is turning her head and the camera is turning with her, which doesn't sound anything incredible on paper but works just so well. This is such a well-realised piece of cinema that I'm just going to say I loved it, and move on, lest I run out of superlatives yet again (a constant problem I seem to have when discussing recent Amy Adams films! Long may it continue...)

On a rather more superficial note, Amy looks especially gorgeous all through this - and on more than one occasion, is rather less dressed than perhaps one would expect (not that I'm complaining!). She also does the cutest rabbit impressions :-)

Overall, this is a really enjoyable film, far more enjoyable than I expected. It proves you can completely get away with not being especially original as long as what you do is done to a high enough quality with the kind of love that seems to have gone into this. Even discounting my inherent Amy Adams bias as far as I can, this is an excellent film all round. 9 out of 10.

Ok, I'm just about out of films with decent amounts of Amy Adams in them, so I'm definitely at the stage of watching the ones I've not exactly been excited about seeing (though I've still got Psycho Beach Party left to see, I've left that till the end as I expect to have good fun with it). The Ex (or 'Fast Track' - different names for a film is rarely a good sign)... really doesn't have a great amount of Amy in it either, though as ever her couple of brief appearances lift the film considerably (though not substantive enough to help in the way she helped Talladega Nights, for example).

This is a pretty pointless and, sadly, mostly tedious film that follows a new family as they try to settle into a new community, the mother to looking after a new baby and the father to trying to succeed at his new job. The problem is that we're given very little reason to care. The father, Zach Braff, is playing more-or-less the part he always plays, which was entirely suitable for Garden State (which I really rather enjoyed) and far less suitable for this film. The job he finds himself in is just a little too zany, a little too silly, and far too mean-spirited to function as a decent narrative. Jason Bateman's character has exactly the same traits as the job, and it makes for a character that doesn't work. I don't think this would have worked with anyone doing it, so I'm not blaming Bateman, but almost nothing about it works.

The denouement renders the entire film pointless, which doesn't exactly help when the whole thing has felt more or less pointless anyway. Very disappointing. This is supposedly a comedy, but I don't recall laughing once. The film is, sadly, even more bland than this review is.

Maybe worth seeing just the once for Amy's brief appearance - at least not playing a bride, for once! - but there's nothing else to recommend this. Not awful, just very boring. 3.5 out of 10.

Well, this should be good, right? Uniting people from two of my favourite films ever, The Princess Bride (Fred Savage) and Enchanted (Amy Adams, of course). But, then, Princess Bride was good despite Fred Savage - who isn't really in it all that much - and Amy isn't exactly in this film much at all, despite getting second-billing which bears no relation to her screentime.

The other, rather more serious problem is that The Last Run is a pile of garbage, and an unpleasant, misogynistic, dismal, pointless pile of garbage at that. There is nothing appealing about any of the characters, the plot meanders hopelessly between being a vague rom-com and an excessive playboy style of film, and then veers into a depressing and aimless riff on sex addiction. There's no real resolution whatsoever, despite the fact the movie is crying out for one. The characters have no morals to start with, and no other appealing traits, so who cares? There's oodles of gratuitous nudity, but frankly for that you're better off watching say Showgirls, as at least that's (inadvertently) funny. Or if you want a movie vaguely in the style of this, but done well, go see Forgetting Sarah Marshall, which works in almost every way that this doesn't.

Fred Savage isn't appalling, but his character is, so who cares? Amy has almost nothing to do, though what she does is fine (she looks good, as ever, too) but really, if there's one thing she should want to have off her resume for just being an appalling and unwatchable film, it should be this (yes, Cruel Intentions 2 looks like Citizen Kane compared to this).

Ugh. I just want to forget all about this. Easily the worst film I'd seen this year to that point (I saw this about two weeks ago, but only just got around to writing something about it), although incredibly it has already been trumped to the post of 'worst film of the year', as will be seen when I write my next review. A miserable 2 out of 10, and most of that 2 is due to me being generous because Amy is in it.

Somebody kindly decided to bring Standing Still out on DVD in the UK last month, which was most convenient given I had no luck picking up a copy while in the US (though I did find a second-hand copy of Psycho Beach Party, which felt like more of an achievement anyway...) And it got into the charts briefly, so I guess I wasn't literally the only person to buy it.

The idea here is quite a neat one - we see the evening before a wedding, so we're introduced to lots of characters, given almost no backstory, and so it is as if we're a guest at the evening too, and mostly required to work things out as we go along. Which is closer to real life than the average film - but as a film, this needs to work cleverly, and it doesn't really come off in anything approximating to a smooth manner. There are too many characters with little or nothing to do, and too many characters we don't really care about. A couple of the threads almost work, but the film as a whole also suffers badly from the 'big revelation' supposedly being tragic but actually just sounding silly.

The cast is more than large enough to encompass a wide range of acting abilities, but the very structure of the film doesn't give us a great deal of insight into any of them, so it all becomes a bit much-of-a-muchness.

Amy Adams has a reasonably-sized role here, and at least has something to do, even if nothing spectacular. There's another wedding dress for her (!), another lesbian scene (!) (yes, another. I forgot about Cruel Intentions 2 for a while, but that had one - well, at least one, sort-a-lesbian scene - too), and she's heroic enough to look really sympathetic when her fiance is telling his near-hilarious 'tragic' story. She plays one of the few characters with any depth at all, and does about as well as you could expect her to do. To me, more than once, she looked rather similar to how she looked in Charlie Wilson's War - which is a very rare occurrence of her looking very similar in two different roles (whoever it was called her a 'chameleon' - I can't actually find the quote now, though I'm not looking very hard - was certainly correct).

Anyway - nice try, doesn't really work. 5.5 out of 10.

Well, it took me rather a while to get back to my old-Amy-Adams-films 'January' project - and goodness knows why it has taken me so long, its not as if I'm lacking in enthusiasm for watching films with Amy in - but, anyway, back to it......

Serving Sara has been sitting on my 'to watch' pile for four months (hardly a record - Mulholland Drive was waiting prominently on it for about five years, but I'm pleased to have got through that now, too) and, apart from Amy Adams, I'm not at all sure I was keen to watch it. It's a film-starring-one-of-the-ones-from-Friends, and in general that hardly bodes well.

Still, this wasn't quite as appalling as I was expecting, one terribly unnecessary and out-of-place long scene involving a cow apart. Throwing that 10 minutes or so in the bin, the rest is almost watchable in a mindless way. A few bits are even marginally funny, and there are a few slightly surprising twists (even if they don't make a great deal of sense from a legal perspective).

Matthew Perry is...err...ok, but nothing special. I've never really been a fan, but he isn't horrible here, and I'm not convinced the film would have worked any better with someone else. Elizabeth Hurley is decent enough too - I'm not one of her (apparently many) bashers just for the sake of it, and she may not be stunningly good at comedy, but she's certainly passable. She's always been reasonably decent looking too. Bruce Campbell is wasted in a minor role. Cedric the Entertainer plays a character just about as annoying as his name. Jerry Stiller is wasted too in a role that only involves sitting behind a desk. And... there are other people in it, and they're not memorable.

But, then, we have the only reason I watched this in the first place, and Amy Adams isn't exactly in the film much, but what she does is memorable enough. Wearing some suitably (for her character) minimal clothes (very nice tummy!) and looking as gorgeous as ever - if not more so - she also, as you'd expect, gets her teeth into a reasonably (though not entirely) insubstantial role and makes something pretty impressive out of it. And I'm not sure if what she can do with her cleavage is unique, or especially impressive, but I don't recall seeing it done before :-) Fun to see another scary 'wink' from her too, as in Junebug.

My main gripe is that the director Reginald Hudlin in his mostly tedious commentary says that Amy's first scene was much longer and 'naughtier' (!) but was cut to keep the film PG-13. But, very irritatingly, there is no sign of this in the deleted/extended scenes on the DVD. Grr. What have you done with this, Mr Director?

I can't really recommend this film, but with the exception of the cow scene, you can certainly watch it without too much irritation. Though only if you either have nothing better to do, or you're an Amy Adams completist (like, err, me). 4.5 out of 10.

Given it was my *January* project, I really ought to try to bring some closure to my 'Amy Adams back catalogue' project before the remainder of the year runs away with me. Perhaps. Anyway, I've seen Junebug a second time now, thanks to BBC2 being kind enough to premiere it a couple of weekends ago, and my actually catching a Saturday night film for once rather than missing it. I enjoyed it more the second time, especially as I wasn't planning to watch it. While I've been putting off writing a review for a while now, I'm going to attempt to give it a fair go. And here it is.

This is a film in which not much happens, little is explained, less still is resolved, and almost no conclusions can be reached from it. The characters are ambiguous in many ways, but their motivations have a strong ring of authenticity and this gives them a reality that is seen in few other films. As do the events portrayed. Life is usually pretty ambiguous. Somehow it all comes together to make up a film which is really rather satisfying, even though on paper it seems it really shouldn't be.

The film centers on George (Alessandro Nivola) taking his new wife Madeleine (Embeth Davitz) to visit his family in North Carolina for the first time. But this is no stereotypical 'meet my dysfunctional family and see how we all get along' film - George's family are treated with respect and affection by the film, and in a bold move George is actually the least important, and in many respects more cynical and even unpleasant, character in the film. He really isn't present most of the time. Indeed, he is almost unfairly redeemed by the fact his rare appearances largely coincide with the most memorable scenes of the film, of which more in a moment. I see a little of me not so long ago in George, which isn't really all that pleasant a revelation. Madeleine, conversely, seems to be really trying to get along with George's family, although I seriously doubt it is a coincidence that she is the daughter of a diplomat, and she seems to be using her diplomatic skills to some degree here. She is treated pretty miserably by George, who is happy to let her do all the work with his family, to complain at her in a very unjustified way (at least coming from him), and seemingly do very little else other than have sex with her, a lot. However, it is hard to see how sincere Madeleine is - more than once her diplomacy seems to be replaced by something that is either affection or condescension (probably depending on how you see the character) and her attitude to an unexpected outbreak of anti-Semitism is rather less moral than one would hope.

George's brother Johnny (Benjamin McKensie) is a sullen, vaguely unpleasant, edgy character who is clearly feeling totally trapped both by living with his parents and by his marriage to his very pregnant wife Ashley (Amy Adams). There are flashes of his non-trapped, pleasant self which make the contrast effectively and allow sympathy for the character. Ashley is almost the opposite - a completely outgoing, optimistic, chatty, never-stopping force of nature - but one who is wiser and deeper than you may at first think. There is real depth and affection to this wonderful character who, in the hands of a lesser screenwriter or a lesser actress, would have been a stereotype, and an irritating one at that.

George's mum Peg (Celia Weston) and dad Eugene (Scott Wilson) do pretty much what you'd expect in a film of this type. They still care for each other, but their love has withered away somewhere over the course of their lives.

This is a very well-crafted film. There are a few puzzling directorial affectations, such as the hollering men at the start, or the shots of the woods that look too much like Glastonbury Grove in Twin Peaks, but other things (the shots of empty rooms, even the putting up of the airbed) work well. The set-piece scenes - George's hymn in the Church, and the final scene with Ashley in the hospital - fit the structure perfectly, and are very memorable. The hymn is gorgeous, too, and the whole scene surrounding it says so many different things, all at once. It should also be noted that this is probably the only film I've ever seen that has a masturbation scene that not only isn't gratuitous, but is actually an effective and important device in constructing character.

All of the acting is very professional and very watchable. Amy Adams fully deserved her Oscar nomination here, her Ashley is an outstanding performance. While the character is designed to stand out, it also has the same potential problem as Giselle in Enchanted - an inch one way and the character is an ironic and irritating stereotype, an inch the other and she would be too sweet, too cloying. Fortunately Amy is talented enough to walk this tightrope perfectly, just as she does in Enchanted. All the other acting is good too though, from Embeth Davitz's level of ambiguity, Benjamin McKensie's nuanced frustration, Celia Weston's matriarchal attempt to control her family, Scott Wilson's gentle resignation to his life, or Alessandro Nivola's general facade.

I'm not entirely sure why this film works, yet somehow it does, and I'm even less sure why I find it enjoyable, but I find it most enjoyable. Amy Adams makes the film, as pretty much every critic has pointed out, but there's a lot of other good things to be said about it too. Not perfect, but very good indeed. Well worth a look, and then a second look. 9 out of 10.


Edit : I've just realised I've written this whole review without really mentioning the artist, who advances the plot in various ways and sets the whole thing in motion. Well, I'm not sure I view him as much more than someone who is convenient to the story. A MacGuffin if you will, though I'm not sure I'm allowed to use that term to refer to a character as opposed to a thing. Maybe I need to think about him some more. End of edit!


I think I may draw a line under my Amy Adams back-catalogue project now, formally at least. It isn't exactly finished, but I've got through Amy's most important roles to date. When I do the rest (Serving Sara, The Ex, The Last Run, Psycho Beach Party (if I ever get a copy), Standing Still (ditto), and whatever else I haven't got to yet), I'll review them, but I'm not going to try to do those in any particular timescale. Still, it was a very worthwhile project, a far more enjoyable idea than I'd usually manage to come up for the start of the year.

Firstly, I realise this is now February so my 'Amy Adams back catalogue' project isn't exactly just a January project anymore, but I've actually done rather well (given how long it takes me to usually get around to watching DVDs) so I may as well press on with it. So, The Wedding Date:

A so-called 'girly' flick - this isn't exactly the kind of film I'll watch unless for a specific reason. That doesn't mean I can't be pleasantly surprised by such a thing - for example, In Her Shoes was probably one of the most random and, on paper, most unsuitable for a bloke-in-his-late-20s-to-see-by-himself films I've ever been to see, which I took in solely because Cameron Diaz was in it (and, yes, also because I was very bored indeed that day), and yet I found it an enjoyable and entertaining couple of hours.

Unfortunately, however, that doesn't apply to The Wedding Date. This film is a bit of a shambles, really. The morality is all over the place, the central love story is unmotivated and unbelievable, and the plot is driven forward in a confusing and irrelevant way, with subplots that go absolutely nowhere. The dialog is just plain odd, the characters just caricatures, and the England setting both predictable and pointless. The film is really short, which I suppose is a good thing, though the DVD contains 10 minutes or so of cut scenes which you have to wonder why they were cut out of an already very short film, especially as they fill in a few (though by no means all!) of the plot holes.

That's not to say there isn't anything positive to say about the film. Debra Messing is actually surprisingly good and watchable given what she has to work with here. I've not seen her in anything before, having never watched Will and Grace in my life, but she actually had quite a bit of potential here. Jack Davenport again effectively plays his Coupling role, which is far less interesting without Steven Moffat's pin-sharp comedy writing behind it - I'm not sure I'm much of a fan of Mr Davenport outside of Coupling, actually. Sarah Parish should probably be in Coronation Street, though that's not necessarily a criticism, and she doesn't have a great deal to do here. Dermot Mulroney is problematic, at best. I found it very difficult to work out if he can't act, or if he was acting an odd and unsympathetic role quite well. Either way though, if there is no chemistry between the two leads of your film, you've got big problems - and here, one well-done scene apart, there isn't any real chemistry.

Like Debra Messing, Amy Adams does her best here with a character who not only is largely unsympathetic but is also unclearly motivated and stuck with clunky dialog. She's clearly doing as much as she can, but it's an uphill struggle. A couple of scenes are good examples of how an excessive amount of over-dramatic makeup can make someone look considerably less attractive than they actually are. Conversely she gets to look very nice in a wedding dress - a rather less excessive and more realistic one than in Enchanted, although also rather less, err, enchanting. She also gets to poke her head out of a car again - this time in Piccadilly Circus, which is almost the same thing as Times Square. There's some sort of really odd pattern emerging here... :-)

Sadly, the best efforts of at least some of the cast notwithstanding, this is not a good film. I can't really give this anything better than 4 out of 10.

In many respects, Talladega Nights is a similar film to Walk Hard, which I saw last week. Both are rather silly, both full of good one-liners, and both star John C. Reilly, though in this case the inevitable Will Ferrell is the actual star. Unfortunately, however, this is rather less good than Walk Hard, and that is probably mainly down to the fact that the story of a singer will have some decent songs to support the story when it is flagging, whereas a story about a NASCAR driver only has racing. And I'd much rather have the singing, especially if it is as decent as that in Walk Hard.

Some bits of this film work, but unfortunately far too much falls flat or, even worse, is introduced and then goes nowhere at all. The 'which Jesus do you prefer' dinner scene is probably the most amusingly memorable scene overall, and that is right near the start of the film. Indeed, for a 'life story' film, success and stardom come surprisingly early, and most of the film is taken up with dealing with what happens next - a bold choice, but one which throws off the timing of the film considerably, and it suffers for it. Much of this drags, never more so than when Sacha Baron Cohen's surprisingly dull character is on-screen. A one-joke character can't sustain this much screen time, and he should have either been given much more to do, or had his part severely trimmed.

Gary Cole is the second-best thing in this film, and you wish he could have more time on-screen, though his narrative purpose precludes his having a much bigger part. I'd almost forgotten how much fun Gary Cole is to watch when he's in the right type of part.

Amy Adams is, in my ever-so-humble opinion, somewhat inevitably, the best thing in this film, and you really do wish she had more to do - ok, so I'm biased, and I only really watched this film because she was in it, and she clearly wasn't in it anywhere near enough, but it is a straightforward fact nevertheless :-) While she is present but basically doing and saying nothing throughout much of the film, it is only about 75 minutes in, just when you're tempted to give up on the whole thing entirely, that she gets a barnstormer of a scene that almost makes the whole film worthwhile. Very, very enjoyable. And then she gets a couple more scattered scenes which are pleasant enough to watch, but once she has gone and stolen the film, it is even more difficult to care about the half-hour or so left when she's not on-screen, especially when Sacha Baron Cohen's tedious character returns. This is a smaller part in terms of screen-time than she had in Charlie Wilson's War, but in many ways a better role because she actually has something to do. Which she does very well indeed. She looks very pleasant here too, about which I shall not complain.

I doubt I'll have the patience to sit through this all again in order to sift out the flashes of inspiration from the doldrums - if I put this in my DVD player again, I'll be watching the 'Jesus' scene, and the scenes with Gary Cole and Amy Adams, and then moving on to something else. 6 out of 10, and at least 1 of that 6 is for Amy's all-too-brief brilliance.

As with Cruel Intentions 2, I'm also rather surprised I'd not seen this film before - in fact, until I looked into it, I think I assumed I already had. I thought I'd seen all of the significant films Kirsten Dunst had done around this point (bar Dick, which I've had on DVD for years and never got around to watching). But, no. Perhaps I was confusing this with Bring It On, which I have indeed seen?

But I'm glad I did work out I hadn't seen this already, as, unlike Cruel Intentions 2, Drop Dead Gorgeous is a very good find - this movie is a very sick puppy indeed, and hilarious for it. It's been a long time indeed since I've seen a film this laugh-out-loud funny. On the face of it, a film about a high-school beauty pageant in Minnesota is a pretty unattractive concept for an hour-and-a-half of your life, but this all fits together expertly with a clever script, good visual gags and a high-class and high-performing cast. It does run out of steam towards the end, and the last 15 minutes could be trimmed without any great loss, but up until the 'natural' stopping-point of the film at that 15-minutes-from-the-end mark, this is consistently very enjoyable indeed.

Kirsten Dunst is really very watchable - and very gorgeous - in this (she's even good at some of the more physical humour scenes), and indeed most of the cast put on a very good show. Brittany Murphy does another good job here, as in Clueless (now that I think about it, what has happened to her career? She definitely had promise, but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere). The only exception is Denise Richards, who once again proves she's not a very good actress. But, in terms of the part she is playing here, that's not the handicap it is elsewhere.

And Amy Adams does a fine job here, especially considering this is her first film, and pretty much everyone else in the film is a pretty established star already. Her part has too much of the demeanour of an American-style-cheerleader for me to find her especially attractive here - but her role, like the film itself, is very watchable.

A very entertaining film indeed, assuming you're in the mood for something a little silly. Well worth a look.

((31 December 2008) : I rated this 8 on IMDb so I should do the same here.)

I'm rather surprised I haven't looked this up before. The first Cruel Intentions was one of my favourite films back in the day (admittedly mainly because I used to rather like Sarah Michelle Gellar - before she got far too thin in later Buffy seasons - but also because it was a reasonably satisfying and well-written film). Indeed, if I'm remembering correctly, this was the first ever DVD I bought (I've bought one or two more since then!). So how this has passed me by entirely until now is anyone's guess.

Cruel Intentions 2 started as a TV series based on the original film, but never actually made it as far as the small screen, and instead was cut up, with extra scenes added, and made into some odd hybrid of prequel to and remake of the original. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. The narrative economy of the original is entirely missing, and instead things are all over the place - as you'd expect in the first couple of episodes of a continuing TV series, but not a supposedly self-contained film. If you feel so inclined, you can try to reconstruct the actual intent to some degree from the trailer on the DVD, which bears very little relationship to the final product. But only try if you're really, really bored.

There's a lot of people in this film that I've not seen in anything else since - which in a way is a shame, as much of the acting isn't appalling, but this really isn't going to be much of a career-booster. Even Amy Adams can't save this from the mire it gets itself into. She's fine here in acting terms, though not outstanding the way she is in more recent films. She looks very nice though :-)

What else can I say? Rather than the satisfying end to the original film, this goes for the non-sensical twist ending, which is rather amusing on one level, but if it had been any more competent a film to start with would have been a plot disaster. But you've probably given up caring by this point in the film, so the stupid twist is probably a more enjoyable end than actually trying to make sense.

Also, there's a memorable horseriding scene :-) There's also a twins/sisters/cousins/whatever (I can't remember which and I don't care - I really wasn't paying much attention when Amy Adams wasn't on the screen) naked-in-the-shower scene, which should win awards for most gratuitous and least sexy shower scene in any motion picture ever in the history of film.

Err, and that's it. If you want to see an early Amy Adams performance, and see her wear some far-from-unpleasant lingerie and/or a school uniform while playing a 'nasty bitch' character, then this is worth a look (put it this way : I won't be throwing this out of my DVD collection, though if I watch it again, it won't exactly be for the gripping plot or nuances of characterisation!). But if you're actually looking for a watchable and satisfying film, you're infinitely better off with the original. If IMDb's rumours about why the series was cancelled was true, it seems we may have to thank Rupert Murdoch for doing the world a favour by throwing this series in the bin (and allowing Amy Adams to go on to better things). And I don't thank Rupert Murdoch very often for much, I assure you!

Addendum : I neglected to mention the scene where Amy is poking her head up out of a car, out into Times Square. Ok, so it isn't a manhole, but the completely accidental foreshadowing of Enchanted is pretty amusing. Well, I thought so, in any event :-)

((31 December 2008) : I rated this 4 on IMDb so I should do the same here.)

So, Enchanted. This is, quite simply, a very fun, highly enjoyable film, with an outstanding performance by Amy Adams, and I defy anyone not to be 'enchanted' by it (thought I'd get that obvious 'pun' out of the way as soon as possible!). Indeed, I'm not convinced it is physically possible to watch 'That's How You Know' - the big show-stopping song set in Central Park - without grinning. I certainly can't.

Let's get my trivial gripes out of the way with first. There are some minor plot problems and character motivation problems, once you move beyond the central story of Giselle - although far fewer than you may at first think. There's a set of things that aren't explicitly explained that could have perfectly reasonable explanations, most notably the mechanics of the portal and when it can be used and in what direction and by whom. Marginally more bafflingly, why is no-one bothered about a chipmunk on the table in a canteen when they are very bothered indeed in a pizza restaurant? (ok, the restaurant is nicer than the canteen, but even so!). Some of the disguises Nathaniel takes on seem far from trivial to execute (where did he get a popcorn stand from? How did he get away with posing as a chef in the pizza place? And so forth). Most notably, almost nothing about the Queen's plans make sense, although she is literally a cartoon villain, so can probably be excused - and it wouldn't be much of a film if she didn't make plots with little sense behind them, so we have to forgive her!

It should probably be noted that if you're determined to come away from this film with a forthright message or a moral, you'll probably be disappointed. The film simply points out that things happen one way here, a different way in Disney films, and the consequences of combining the two. I don't see that it is trying to beat you over the head with a message that life *should* be like this, or rather like that. There's no indication that either of the two couples at the end are going to be happier than the other (indeed, 'they all lived happily ever after', although I'm not at all sure we're meant to take that altogether seriously). I think pretty much the same about the complaints I've heard about the shopping scene too. Ok, for the first time ever, Giselle goes shopping, spends too much money, and acts fiscally irresponsibly. It's hardly frugal, and I'm not exactly delighted about wildly extolling the virtues of capitalism and a credit society, but it doesn't exactly go to the heart of the movie. Giselle has already proved, rather ingeniously, that she can survive perfectly well in this world by that point, and indeed as we see her at the end, she hardly seems to be descending into irresponsible financial decisions. So I don't think it is worth reading too much into these things in this particular case.

Small quibbles aside, for the most part though, the plot makes sense, as long as you're willing to suspend disbelief and take the logic of the world, as invaded by Disney characters, as represented. In fact it all fits together a lot better than I originally thought - things like 'how does Edward know Giselle is in that specific apartment when Morgan opens the door?' are actually pretty easy to work out, assuming you're paying attention (Robert and Morgan are with Giselle when she's interviewed on the TV, which Edward sees). Or 'how can Edward buy things just after he arrives in New York' (Nathaniel has a velvet-pouch-thing which no doubt contains money or gold or similar). Or 'how can Nathaniel operate so well in New York compared to Giselle or Edward' - well, he's clearly been there before. He knows already the wishing well can send you places (when Narissa pushes Giselle down, Nathaniel asks 'where did you send her?', as opposed to 'you'll have killed her pushing her down that deep well'). It isn't much of a stretch from here to assume he's been doing tasks for Narissa in other worlds for some time. There's a lot of fanfic possibilities here, along with 'where else could Giselle have been sent?' But I'll leave that for people who can actually write fanfic to attempt, because I sure can't. The script itself sparkles at all the right moments - there are a few tiny mis-fires, but 99% of it works very well indeed.

There is a very deep tapestry of links to previous Disney movies, and I have to admit, not being au fait with as much of Disney as many people, that I got almost none of them. But the cleverness of the script is that you can get them or not, and it really doesn't matter to the story one bit. It just adds another layer. This is exactly how you should do references to other things. The ones you do get then just add to the experience (I was so pleased when I worked out the old lady was telling Giselle to 'feed the birds', for example!) . The Simpsons used to be masters of this, but as with much else, their ability to do so seems to have fallen off a bit. All you need to know in approaching this film is that there is this general concept of an animated Disney world, where things are straightforward, innocent, and people live 'happily ever after for ever and ever'. And everyone knows that already.

Musically, this is fantastically scored. The songs are distressingly catchy - I still haven't got rid of them from my head. As I said in my rather shorter review, the last time I've had this problem for quite this long was after the Buffy Musical back in November 2001. The rest of the score is surprisingly rich too, and there's quite a bit of foreshadowing. Calling it leitmotiv may be taking it a little far, but there are certainly subtle elements to the score that reward repeated listening. And it is quite surprising just how versatile the nine notes of 'I've been dreaming of a true love's kiss' can actually be made. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if a Wagner or an Elgar could do so, but it's a few steps above what you expect from the average movie soundtrack. Very good job indeed - and good enough to persuade me to consider digging out some past Disney movies that I've somehow missed so far, if only for the music alone (notably The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, based on recommendations I've read). In any event, I've paid full price for the soundtrack, which is the first time I've done that in a few years.

The animation at the beginning is fine, and the later interaction between the animation and real-world New York is very well done indeed. The scene where Narissa is giving Nathaniel the poisoned apples stands out for me - it is deceptively simple, so simple I didn't notice it at first, that the apple switches from the real world to the animated world, and back. Beautifully done. All the animated animals, especially in the 'Happy Working Song', are done in a very high-quality way indeed. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is classy effect-work, as it is so good it's almost hard to notice. The direction is very good indeed, especially in the set-pieces (again, see 'That's How You Know' for example - choreographed and directed as well as anyone could hope).

All the actors being something enjoyable to the table. Julie Andrews (briefly) narrating is a nice touch. Susan Sarandon (Queen Narissa) is great fun as an evil queen, perhaps rather oddly for someone who I've only mainly seen in 'nice' parts. Timothy Spall (Nathaniel) is good value - his facial expressions at various points in the movie are hilarious. Patrick Dempsey (Robert) plays the cynical muddling-along-father with understated skill - if he didn't, the evolving relationship with Giselle would have difficulty ringing true. Rachel Covey (Morgan) isn't an especially annoying child, which is better than most film children. Idina Menzel (Nancy) really doesn't have an especially likable part (she may be the hard-done-by one here, but her character is so outshined by Giselle it's hard to care all that much, I'm sorry to say) but does a decent job with the little she gets. James Marsden (Edward) is very, very good indeed here. He captures 'Disney Prince' very well indeed, and has very good comic timing. And he's a decent singer, too. As he doesn't really mature and grow into the world the way Giselle does, there is less development for his character, but he fits the part expertly. Very impressed - especially as I don't find his role in Superman Returns all that memorable. Then again, I was too busy worrying about the plot holes in that one to pay as much attention as perhaps I ought to. At least now I should be able to avoid getting him mixed up with James Marsters (ok, very different people, but very similar names!)

Which brings me on, last but the complete opposite of least, to Amy Adams as Giselle. This review is already far too long, and I'm in serious danger of running out of superlatives here, so I'll be (relatively) brief. This is the widest-ranging, most stunning, absolutely perfect piece of acting I've seen in a very long time indeed, possibly ever. From Giselle's first appearance as a naive innocent Disney character shoe-horned into the real world, through to her having been part-assimilated by the real world at the ball, every nuance, every line, every movement, is delivered oh-so-naturally and oh-so-correctly. In any other hands, it is hard to see how Giselle's transformation can be believed. In two days, she learns how to operate in this world? Nah, can't believe it. But Amy Adams' portrayal makes it utterly real and believable, as at each step she becomes just a little less unreal and Disney-fied, her mannerisms less exaggerated, just at the right rate. Little things - such as the intonation and expression as she comments that she's heard dwarves are 'very hospitable', and the cartoony way she goes to sleep in Robert's apartment on the first night - make this character so utterly charming and so lovable. Amazingly, she also sings very well indeed, and dances very competently too. There is no finer scene, in acting terms, then her 'I'm angry!' scene with Robert - the range is extraordinary, and it makes something that just shouldn't work at all come off in spades. Outstanding. Truly outstanding. This isn't the kind of role that usually wins awards, but it certainly ought to. I suspect we'll be hearing rather a lot more from Ms Adams - at least, we will if Hollywood has the slightest modicum of good sense.

Ok, well, that was far too long and far too much typing. You may fairly take away the impression that I enjoyed this film immensely.

((31 December 2008) : I never actually gave this a rating, but it should be pretty obvious what that may be. 11 out of 10).

In a strange break from recent tradition, I went to see a film that I hadn't actually seen before last night, which after a month-and-a-bit of watching Stardust far too many times, and then a month-or-so of watching Enchanted even more times, could be considered quite a radical idea.

To a certain degree, this - Charlie Wilson's War, about a Congressman who funds covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s against the Soviets - was an interesting film. While it could have jumped one way or another in political opinion, it didn't really seem to have the kind of unpleasant agenda I expected while also not jumping the other way, either. These were morally ambiguous (or downright dubious) people doing morally ambiguous things - their motivations were sketchy and their methods underhand. As such, it is hard to see how you can get a consistent pro-American message out of this (though I'm sure some would try). Some of the negative implications as to how the US political system works were laid very bare. This didn't try to beat people over the head with any specific message, so to a far wider degree than I expected you're allowed to make your own conclusions (or, rather more likely, have your pre-judged ideas remain with you throughout the film). It was a bunch of stuff that happened. Apply your own opinions as you wish.

The script was well-written and managed to wring quite a bit of humour out of things that, really, weren't all that humorous - which is a reasonable skill. If nothing else, this has reminded me that at some point in my life I should try to watch the West Wing. After watching this, I'm not convinced I'll find it as insufferable as I may expect. I should give it a go, at least.

Acting-wise, this was quite star-heavy, but no the worse for it. Tom Hanks was decent enough as you'd expect, and Julia Roberts - never my favourite actress - did an ok job of playing a deeply unsympathetic character. The revelation here - for me at least - was Philip Seymour Hoffman, who was a delight to watch. I'm not sure how I've managed to avoid the films he has starred in up to now, but I'm glad I've finally caught something he has starred and confirmed for myself that everyone that raves about his acting are actually right, for once. His first scene announces his presence in the film in such an imposing way that he steals the film from then on. I really must try to catch some of the other things he has done (according to IMDb he was in two other films I've seen : Patch Adams (awful film) and the Big Lebowski (great film). Can't say I recall him being in either though).

And, rather significantly increasing my motivation to see the thing in the first place, Amy Adams was in it too (so, it wasn't quite so much of a wrench to see something other than Enchanted!). She does very well in a role where she basically has absolutely nothing to do than be a sounding board for Tom Hanks from time to time. If there was an award for 'best performance in an utterly thankless role' then she should probably win it, though of course there is no such thing. I'll just go see Enchanted again instead.

Better than I expected, and probably worth a look.

((31 December 2008) : I rated this 7 on IMDb so I should do the same here.)

This is one of those films from that period while I was living in the USA that I seem to have missed entirely. I've even seen the Simpsons parody of the film without having the faintest idea what it was parodying. I guess I've have to watch this episode again now!

I haven't seen Leonardo DiCaprio (Frank) in a film for quite some time, but he wasn't disappointing here, and his performance (in, admittedly, a mostly-fun part) is really rather good. Tom Hanks is fine here too - nothing outstanding, but he does the job required in a decent enough way. Christopher Walken is very watchable, and you want him to be in more of the film than he is.

The plot itself is pretty fun - by definition, there's a lot of locations, a lot of action, and a lot of things going on, and mostly it all fits together (despite the very long list of goofs in the IMDb entry!). The character motivations mostly make sense. although they don't get in the way of the action, which is probably what is required here. The direction is fine, as you'd expect from Spielberg, but nothing outstanding springs to mind.

And... Amy Adams? Well, her character (Brenda) is delightful, whether wearing scary braces or jumping on top of Leonardo (probably the first time I've thought 'hmm, being Leonardo DiCaprio isn't such a bad deal' since watching Baz Luhrmann's Romeo And Juliet and the scenes with Claire Danes :-) Now I mention it, I must dig out that film and watch it again. But anyway...) It's a nice part, played as well as I expected from such a talented actress. But, it also brings me to the big gripe I have with the plot of this movie. There's quite a bit of character development invested in Frank and his relationship with Brenda. It's not as if he's just using her - he really seems to be trying to get off the roller-coaster he's on by this point. But once the Feds catch up with him, and their not-very-likely-to-succeed plan to reunite doesn't work, she is never mentioned again for the rest of the film! Now, I know this film is based on a real story, and life doesn't usually have neat endings - and this film was about Frank, not Brenda - but it really, really annoyed me that this story wasn't tied up in some way. I hoped when he was flying off at the end that he was going to see her - just a brief goodbye scene or something would have sufficed, but we weren't going to get it.

So, a decent film, and for the most part rather good fun. Not enough Amy Adams, but what there is is very watchable. And the end is too frustrating (even if it is 'really what happened'). It has some problems, but is well worth a look. Even if only for the neat animated titles, which prove that a simple idea can often be the most effective.

((31 December 2008) : I didn't give this a rating at the time. I think 7.5 is fair.)

What to do in the middle of January, when nothing happens and no-one pretends it does? I have nothing interesting to say about my faith, my job or my life - everything is continuing as before. And I'm trying to take a break from stressing too much about political things, because I know what I think, and I know what I know, and I know that my views and opinions aren't remotely represented by any of the political parties, and that none of these things are going to change any time soon, whatever I do and however much I stress about it. So, while it may be somewhat defeatist, for now at least, I'm more-or-less giving up and trying not to get wound up day after day by the crap that keeps coming our way.

So, in a vague attempt to do something reasonably pleasant and enjoyable, and as I'm so impressed by the outstanding acting Amy Adams does in Enchanted, I've decided as a mini-project that I'll try to dig into her back catalogue (so-to-speak) of films. That seems as good as way as any of seeing some recent films that I probably ought to have seen anyway, but haven't. Once I get bored of watching films and/or writing reviews of them, I'll probably move on to something else.

One really ought to start, Enchanted apart, with Junebug (2005). But, while I've now seen this, I feel I need to see it again before I can judge it fairly. I'm not entirely sure if it is a very good film indeed with an outstanding performance by Ms Adams, or an ok film that doesn't quite come off but with an outstanding performance by Ms Adams :-) Another viewing is required. So, for now, onto Catch Me If You Can (2002)...

I hoped this film was going to be as appealing as the trailer made it out to be - but in fact, it turned out to be even more charming and a rather delightful couple of hours. A clever collision of Disney animated films and the 'real world' (or, at least, New York) which really worked and was both very funny and very touching. Amy Adams was simply wonderful in the beautifully-written lead role, as well as being a very attractive lady. The songs even worked very well! I think in part I may have just been in a surprisingly good mood when I watched this, but I certainly enjoyed it far more than expected, and was definitely one of the most memorable and rewarding films I've seen all year.

(Note there is a longer (much too long!) second review.)