My Queen really needs to stop being in dud movies.

Trash by name, trash by nature. This snorefest clearly only won the BAFTA due to being a Working Title production, as it was the most contrived Slumdog Millionaire meets City of God wannabe I've ever seen.

Film Review: Anna Karenina (Joe Wright, 2012)

Adultery. It’s always made for some of the most delicious film, TV and book storylines (and, as a Chelsea fan, I can't say I'm a stranger to my player's committing it #trollface). Indeed, between 1873 to 1877, Leo Tolstoy used it as the basis of his novel, which he published in eight parts. Joe Wright, always one for a literary classic (Pride & Prejudice, and to a lesser extent depending on how much you rate McEwan, Atonement), adapted this 19th century Russian lit classic to the big-screen. After scouting across the continent for filming locations, he finally settled for the unusual, somewhat Dogville-esque of having the vast majority of the film filmed on a stage. The big difference between Anna Karenina and Dogville however, though, is where the latter barely had any set at all, with the locations and props chalked into the wooden floorboard, the set of Anna Karenina, whilst discernibly all a stage, is vast and opulent, with moving backdrops and richly designed interiors aplenty. The purpose of Wright choosing to having the movie filmed on a stage was because he said that Anna felt like her entire life was “on a stage”, and, indeed, the scenes where she faces society and stylistic touches are added (such as dancing couples freezing into a tableau whilst she dances with Count Vronsky) are certainly very effective indeed.

 Performances in Anna Karenina are uniformly excellent. I remember, a decade ago, when Bend it Like Beckham first came out. It was a cute little movie about a girl juggling the pressures of her society and what she wanted, but one of the things that also stood out was Keira Knightley as the feisty friend who helps her get into a local girl’s team. It wasn’t the most polished performance, but then again, in Bend it Like Beckham, it didn’t need to be. A year later was Pirates of the Caribbean, where once again, she was appropriately spirited (her delivery of “you like pain? Try wearing a corset” is classic), but seemed to be continuing a trend of delivering solid, not spectacular, supporting roles as the pretty lady. Add in a few ill-fated turns in the likes of Domino, King Arthur and The Jacket, and the running joke amongst Brits was that Keira Knightley, though a pretty face (and a very beautiful one at that, something that is exhibited very well by Jacqueline Durran’s lavish costumes in Anna Karenina), wasn’t much scrub at acting itself.

Well, the era of mocking Knightley’s acting prowess is well and truly over, because she was quietly strong in Atonement, captured Lizzie Bennet’s playful cheekiness in Pride & Prejudice, and also more than up to the task as the crazy patient in A Dangerous Method. In Anna Karenina, she is excellent; I’d even go as far as to say she was awards-worthy. The thing about her Anna is, that not many viewers, reading the plot précis on the page, would have a whole lot of sympathy for a woman who voluntarily jacks in a comfortable marriage including a son she dotes on, all in pursuit of carnal desire with an admittedly dashing Count (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who wouldn’t say no). But Knightley imbues Anna Karenina with all the elements of her character, not just the ~selfish horndog~. She is a caring mother, a loyal sister to Stepan Oblonksy (a serial cheat, played with humour by Matthew Macfadyen; some would regard this is a quasi-incestuous casting, seeing as he played Mr Darcy in Pride & Prejudice, and that) and overall, Tolstoy and Wright would have us believe, not a bad person. I certainly didn’t think she was, and that is all to the merit of Keira Knightley’s wonderful performance. It is funny, because one of the things she is oft-criticized for in her acting (the way her lip pouts and her jaw juts out) is snuffed out for the majority of the film, and it is only when her affair with Count Vronksy sours that it re-emerges, yet, ironically, this quite suits Knightley’s acting and certainly helps convey the mad, irrational woman Anna is being driven to become.

 The support is also terrific, save perhaps Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who I still have my reservations about. Save his ridiculously obvious fake moustache, he more than looks the part of Count Vronksy, with his piercing blue eyes and thick muscular arms. But when delivering his lines, he comes across as a bit needy and drippish, rather than the potently sexual being that Vronksy is, and that Anna couldn’t resist. As such, it’s fairly easy to envision Anna turning him down, and one has to suspend some belief when Anna initially succumbs to her lust for her. Jude Law, on the other hand, as Anna’s stuffy, boring, but loving husband, is magnificent. It’s a thankless role, as the man 20 years her senior who sees his wife as beyond reproach, but his love and trust in her only stifles her further, but he delivers it with such subtly and nuance that the love triangle aspect of the film is appropriately murky in that I genuinely couldn’t take a side.

Then there is the subplot about Konstantine Levin (played by Bill Weasley off the Harry Potter films, Domhnall Gleeson) and his enduring love for Oblonksy’s wife’s sister, Kitty (newcomer Alicia Vikander, a very pretty Swedish actress). Whilst Anna Karenina’s love affairs are complicated in that she has two men to choose from, Levin is confused and increasingly antagonised by the state of Russia, and therefore it is his philosophies that hold him back. Some of his conversation with the workers in his father’s manor go on a little bit longer than necessary and certainly aren’t amongst the film’s most memorable moments, but indeed, this is a common criticism of Tolstoy’s source material; the love/sex stuff is ace, but the Russian politics bored even the most learned of literary critics. So we can’t fault Wright, or Gleeson too much for that. Furthermore, the Levin/Kitty romance forms the most emotionally affecting scene in the film; Levin, having gone away for months after his initial marriage proposal was rejected by Kitty, comes back to see her, where they speak wordlessly to each other using only cubes of letters; a sort of 19th century hangman/Scrabble amalgamation. As Kitty admits she was wrong to turn him down, Levin lifts his hands to reveal three simple letters; I L Y. Perhaps it doesn’t sound like much on the page, but on the screen, and with the earnest facial expressions of the actors thrown in, it really was a cathartic moment of redemption for Levin, one of the few genuine good guys of the piece.

 Overall, Anna Karenina is one of the most exciting things I’ve seen in the cinema this year, which is truly high praise for a 19th century set Russian love saga with not a car chase in sight. Joe Wright deserves much praise for his brave take on a literary classic and his cast more than step up to the task, with Knightley, Law and Gleeson all show-stealing. As with many other Focus Features films (Brokeback Mountain, The Constant Gardner, Swimming Pool), the film is a treat to look at, with its swirling camerawork and the set which changes in front of your eyes. Anna Karenina caused controversy aplenty when it first came out due to its depiction of infidelity, but in truth, there is so much more to the book, encompassing themes of love, life & death, conformity, femininity and individualism. In just over two hours’ running time Wright was never going to cover every single one of them, but the end product, like our fearless, misguided lead, is beautiful to look at.

Grade: A-

If you enjoyed this post, check out Poker Blogs' review of 21!

Burn After Watching.

Have just gotten back from the cinema, where I saw Burn After Reading, a film I'd been quite anticipating - for the crazy looking trailer, the cast and crew involved, and the Oscar buzz already being generated. Most importantly, however, the film posters, which are a throwback to the work of legendry movie poster designer Saul Bass ( 1 // 2), are bunging wonderful. Even though my cinema ticket cost the equivalent of £1.42 and a half pence (Orange Wednesdays bb), I was not impressed in the slightest. It was a load of turd.

- The cast were AWFUL; living proof that you can bung as many talented performers as you want into a movie, but they’ve actually got to, you know, bother acting. Frances McDormand epitomized irritation, Brad Pitt did nothing apart from hang about looking like he was missing a few up there, John Malkovich swore a bit, George Clooney looked beardy and confused, and Tilda Swinton worked the asexual cold bitch shtick that is like, beyond passé. The guy that played Juno’s dad in Juno was OK enough, but eh. And no-one needs to know what George Clooney and Tilda Swinton bunging sounds like.



- The plot was just ridiculously poor. Don’t get me wrong, I love fun and frenzy as much as the next guy – District 13 is bloody marvellous – but one got the distinct impression that the Coen brothers had no idea what to do with this movie, created a bunch of characters and threw in a sex toy for good measure. Er, no.

- Speaking of the Coen brothers, those Oscars for Direction & Best Film they picked up earlier this year must have really gone to their head, and instilled them with the belief that they can fob their fans off with just a bunch of crazy shit that doesn’t make much sense. Whilst it’s paid its dividends in the past – The Hudsucker Proxy & Intolerable Cruelty were good fun – Burn After Reading lacked the heart and soul that those movies had, and a result, just looked lost. As for the SPOILER killing off of Brad Pitt's character /SPOILER, it was irritating when you did it with Josh Brolin in No Country for Old Men; don't try and pull that same stuff twice in two years, please. You're not as clever as you think you are; your viewers do actually have memories.


f
- Furthermore, um, Working Title and Focus, what the 4-x were you thinking? If it wasn’t for the likes of Atonement and Pride & Prejudice that these two production companies have collaborated on, I would be pretty unimpressed with the pair of them. How is it possible that the producers did not step back, look at their excuse of a film, and feel ashamed?

- Lastly, was this meant to be a comedy? I laughed a little at the start (due to wanting to larf at a Coen brothers' movie more than anything), but as the movie went on, the laughs wore thinner and thinner. Brad Pitt repeating "Osbourne Cox" over and over again does not a funny scene make. The main lulz I got from this movie was in how terrible it was.

All in all, I’d quite like my time and money back. I’m deeply, deeply disappointed in the Coen brothers for wasting my time with this, and feel that everyone involved in this should hang their heads in shame. If this gets anywhere near Oscar nominations, then there is something seriously wrong with the world.

For Your Consideration...

Well, there's 99 days to the Oscars and I'm trying to, er, atone for my lack of Oscar-relating blogging by doing lots now.



My own personal FYCs this year.

Film
Atonement
“Joe Wright and Working Title have made a film to be proud of. Amidst some incredible scenes (an extremely erotic library non-reading session between Robbie and Cecelia) as well as the fountain scene are amongst the many that will remain with viewers long after the credits have rolled. The quality and calibre of films that Working Title have turned out recently have been brilliant and Atonement ranks up there along with my personal favourites from them, Dead Man Walking and The Hudsucker Proxy. It is a wonderfully crafted, beautifully lush and immensely moving film that shows, above all, how storytelling can both destroy and heal.”

Actor
James McAvoy, for Atonement
“James McAvoy is the star of Atonement. In the Q&A that followed the screening of the film, director Joe Wright described Robbie as the highest form of a human being, and he is. Raised by a single mother, Robbie worked hard for everything in his life, but with success he is still a brilliantly warm and humble person. Even after he is put in the war to avoid staying in prison for longer, he does not whinge about it, but instead, gets through the day with the hope of seeing Cecelia guiding him through. James McAvoy plays this special individual with compassion and understanding. He has the accent and physicality of Robbie down to a T, but, more importantly, conveys his goodness, without ever having to resort to histrionics. McAvoy’s performance is a masterclass in subtle acting. In some pivotal scenes, it is actually his beautiful blue eyes that do the acting more than anything, and they speak more words than Briony’s ostentatious prose ever could.”

Actress
Tannishtha Chatterjee, for Brick Lane
“Chatterjee, the centrepiece of the movie, gives a performance of extreme sensitivity and intelligence. Playing Nazneen, a young woman from the Sylhet, Bangladesh, she is forced into an arranged marriage from a young age, from which she raises a family in the grim East End of London. Brick Lane is a film about a woman who is trapped, in her life, in love and in her Muslim religion, and Tannishtha Chatterjee’s raw performance is utterly heart-wrenching, more so, if we consider that she is a Hindu. ”

Supporting Actor
Rupert Grint, for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
“My darling Rupert is a joy. His ginger hair, large blue eyes, bumbling demeanour and spot-on comedy timing make him the true star of the show, and every scene that he features in benefits as a result of his appearance. Simply put, he is Godly.”

Supporting Actress
Saoirse Ronan, for Atonement
“As the young Briony, Saoirse Ronan is pitch-perfect, conveying her youthful innocence as well as whiny nosiness. Her sense of knowing about things she clearly doesn’t is infuriating, but Ronan prevents us from denouncing her entirely, reminding us that she is, after all, just a child. I have high hopes for her, and eagerly await her turn as Susie Salmon in 2008’s film adaptation of the atmospheric The Lovely Bones.”

Song
“Spider Pig”, from The Simpsons Movie
“Le Festin”, from Ratatouille

Film review: ATONEMENT (Joe Wright, 2007)

Britain’s bestselling author Ian McEwan is a wonderfully rich and articulate writer, but he has often struck me (and I know I'm probably alone here) as a man of too many words. Enduring Love, despite its unique and gripping plot, was overly descriptive, and even his recent novella, On Chesil Beach, could have done with being 50 pages shorter. I felt exactly the same way about Atonement when I first started reading it, there were too many “rhymes”, too many adjectives, to a point where it almost seem to obsess with the minutiae and try to hold the story back.

Then I realised that this time, it was intentional. Bringing the surprising turn of events that served the book so well onto the big screen was a huge challenge, but Joe Wright, who’s 2005 effort Pride & Prejudice ranked amongst one of the loveliest films of that year, was more than apt a man to do it: talented, engaging with his actors, focused and precise, he has given Atonement the big-screen fare, and more.

89. Pride & Prejudice (Joe Wright, 2005).

Click on any of the pics for my review.