Henry V

I caught Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of William Shakespeare's Henry V last week on TV. To be quite honest I wasn't particularly interested in watching it -I was just bored. I had never read any Shakespeare plays or, indeed, even heard of this film and I didn't expect much from it. I half expected it to be fairly boring and tedious.
However, I found myself amazingly surprised by how much I was drawn into the film. I was in complete awe of the dialogue, language and speeches given in the film -obviously down to the plays' infamous author. But, as most people will know, it's very easy to be bored by an often murderous and horrific performance of even such amazing dialogue as William Shakespeare's. Yet, the skill of such actors like Kenneth Branagh himself, Brian Blessed, Derek Jacobi, Judi Dench, Ian Holm (and even a very young Christian Bale) really pull you into the story and make you believe in the emotions of each character.
I have to say that without a doubt I found the King Henry's speech, before the climactic battle of Agincourt, to be one of the finest moments in cinema I've seen to date. The inspirational atmosphere created by Branagh's performance, perfectly contributing score and mesmerising dialogue -I found all to be a work of pure perfection. In this one scene I see exactly what I wish to get out of a film when I see it.
So caught up in the spirit and story of the film, I found in myself a new-found respect for the English nation (in as much as a Patriotic Scot can) .
I could almost see Henry V as an English version of Braveheart -an English Patriot's film. But In truth, it is very easy to get swept away by the characters and story so that, where and when it's set matters very little.
The dialogue (all being in Shakespearian style) you would think might get confusing. Yet, the interesting thing I found when watching the film was that, even if I didn't understand the meaning of the sentences being spoken I could still follow the emotion and narrative -based on the actors' performances. Besides, it's not exactly that hard to understand ant the worst of times anyway.

The only major negative I found in the film was in fact not that much of a negative at all, when you consider the type of film it is. At the battle scene of Agincourt there very few, if any, wide/ establishing shots. It is fairly noticeable that they structured their shots around their budget. The battle is done predominantly in close hand-held chaotic styles. This certainly doesn't mean it is a poorly filmed scene (far from it), It simply adds a more personal feel to it. However Branagh redeems himself by using an extremely long establishing shot in the battle's aftermath, which lasts for well over a minute I believe.
But the film (and play) Henry V was never designed to be a huge action epic, its' strengths and genre lie elsewhere, in the more personal areas of character, dialogue, relationships and brotherhood.

Choke

‘Choke’ I have to say provided me with an unexpected reaction. Having only seen the trailer a couple of days before we viewed the film, I have now come to the conclusion that the film surpassed (if only marginally) my expectations.
From my perspective, the trailer had painted a picture of (yet another) trashy and routinely predictable comedy –punctuated throughout with the rare joke that actually warrants a smile of recognition. But I have to say I did find it far more enjoyable and funny than I had expected it to be. This I think is due to the fact that it is not what we are usually used to getting from comedy films these days. The film’s director being (in my mind) quite bold in some areas concerning the quantity of sexual content and exhibition.
I did think, however, that the film ended up trying to develop into something that it could never hope to be. Its attempt to add a bigger sense of depth and meaning to an otherwise acceptably light-hearted film stood out near the end as an unnecessary factor. In my personal opinion, Choke could do with a little less ‘meaning’ and a little more laughs.

Alexander Revisited

• http://alexanderthemovie.warnerbros.com/ (Strong Web presence by the way)

Well I’m going to get this inevitable blog over and done with now so here it goes.

Oliver Stone’s Theatrical release of ‘ALEXANDER’ gave one very clear message and the message was “this is a very bad film”. In fact, if I remember, it barely broke even at the box office. And I’ve seen the theatrical and completely agree that it just isn’t good enough. Then came the Director’s cut the following year, at which point it became apparent that not even Stone was happy with how the film turned out. Again audiences greeted it with a familiar contempt. Even though it had some extra footage it still didn’t quite cut it with the public (or me). When I first saw the director’s cut I had to turn it off, I thought so little of it.
And then in 2007 Warner Brothers allowed Stone to finally put that damn sword and sandals movie to rest with the release of ‘ALEXANDER Revisited -The Final Cut’ . The reason for yet another version of the film is explained by Oliver Stone himself on the DVD:

“Part of this process of going through three cuts is wrestling with the concept of making it clearer to the public. It was always a difficult film to understand –difficult to do.”

Obviously, having brought out two fairly unsuccessful versions of a box office flop, audiences were very skeptical. But slowly but surely its qualities began to be recognized. The film is completely restructured in a way that, scenes that were at the end now show at the beginning and visa versa. This wasn’t just a case of adding an extra 40 mins footage and saying “there! It’s better now!”. In the first cuts it showed Alexander as a very innocent young man, which I believe threw audiences a bit. Now it establishes the character as everyone expects to see him (strong and in his prime) then peels back his childhood.
A previous criticism of the first cuts was that the narration of Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) seemed to lecture the audience, which resulted in boredom. Stone seems to have taken this on board and re-cut and replaced many of these narrations throughout the film.

Obviously, at 3 hours 20 mins, it is a very long and demanding film. But I don’t think one can blame Stone for that. I mean, after all, you can’t possibly tell the story of Alexander the Great in an hour and a half –the man’s a bloody legend. But Stone does lessen the fatigue of the running time by interweaving the two parallel storylines of the film.
As well as Alexander’s conquest through the known world, we see revealed throughout the film (in flashbacks) the story of his upbringing. This helps us understand, better than before, why the Character of Alexander turns out the way he does. It also breaks up the narrative so as to keep possible fatigue at bay. Plus there’s an intermission so that helps.

When you consider what an Olympian task it is to bring to the screen the world of Alexandrian civilization, you really do see what a good attempt Stone has made.

In 3 ½ hours we see Ancient Macedonia and Greece, the murder of King Phillip II, battle of Gaugamela, destruction of the Persian empire, conquest of Babylon, Alexander’s wedding in Bactria, Murder of Cleitus, battle of Hydaspes, return to Babylon and the death of Alexander the Great. All of which are not only believable but they all seem so real. Now that’s not bad for 3 ½ hours.

The imagery and use of Ancient Greek mythology is very well placed throughout the film also. We learn of the ancient heroes and gods with Alexander as a child and see how they shape and mould his life and personality. Zeus’s eagle is probably the most obvious one, but I’ll not go into that –you can watch the film and find out for yourself.
The score by Vangelis manages to perfectly match the legendary heroic themes of the film. You do get the sense, through the music, that Alexander is a larger than life god –with all the glorious themes and tracks throughout. However, Stone doesn’t just look at the character through rose tinted cameras. He shows the character as a troubled and lonely young man -And doesn’t dwell on his successes but on his failure to see success.
Although not an action movie, the battle scenes are fantastically and disturbingly real. The way they’re filmed gives the audience a strange ability to imagine how it must have been back in that age. And they’re just so damn cool!

In the end I think Alexander Revisited stands out as a very good film. It not only entertains with its epic battles and visually stunning story, but it sends messages also. It dispenses with the typical shying away from homosexual subjects. Instead a character’s homosexual relationship just becomes a love story within the movie. The themes of glory and honour are perhaps just a bit obvious. So too are the family and friend problems shown.
But In my opinion Alexander Revisited shows, as good as can be done, an entertaining portrayal of the life of such a complex man as Alexander the great.

Boy and Bicycle

I can't believe I forgot to give 'big Ridley's' short film a mention on my blog!
Unfortunately this was one Ridley Scott film that I did actually find quite boring. I thought there was very little in the way of entertainment value to keep me interested in the film -from that perspective at least. I think it would have benefited the film if it had had a shorter running time -there's only so long you can spend on a certain subject, I think.
.... 'Gladiator', it aint.
However, I think I have to agree with Charlotte in that I was impressed by how good 'Boy and Bicylce' looked. I think it's the first Black and white film I have seen that looked visually as good as many colour films. Mind you, that's what Scott's known for anyway. You could take a still from most of his films, print it, frame it and it could pass as a beautiful piece of art in its own right.
Sadly, though, this visuall aspect of the film was the only plus point for me. The camera and lighting were very impressive (as was the editing of shots). Alas, the story was just far to tedious for my taste.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I was let down by Scott's fist short film. After all, for a first short film, at that period in time, with that technology, I think it's amazing. But compared to today's standards I don't think it stands up as well as it did.

King of Comedy

Well we didn't get to see 'Network' on Thursday (how sad) but I'm interested to see if it's really all it has been hyped up to be. Instead we saw Martin Scorsese's 'King of Comedy' starring Robert De Niro and I hate to admit it but I did really like it.
Up until this particular screening the only Martin Scorsese film that I found at all entertaining was 'The Departed'. With this exception, I can't say I see what all the fuss is about concerning Scorsese's films. Granted he knows his stuff and has had many a successfull film, I just find it hard to find the entertainment value in his films. Although I can appreciate his technical skill etc. the genre and storylines his films just don't do it for me.
Having said that, with thursday's screening of 'King of Comedy' I can safely say there are now two of his films that I do enjoy. I hadn't expected this kind of genre from Martin Scorsese -and I certainly didn't think he could pull it off in the way that he did. To put it simply; it was bloody hilarious! ....In an embarrassing kind of way.
I thought De Niro managed to pull off a fairly convincing and comedic crazy fan, and had an disturbing ability to make you feel an empathetic embarrasment towards his character.
I did think that the behaviour of the two obsessed fans was quite disturbing, but there's so many people out there like that that it didn't seem that far removed from today's reality. I also think that there's something rather amusing about the fact that back then it was considered quite shocking behaviour, where as now most reality T.V spends its time showcasing people of a similar strand.

Jonathan Woss and Russle Brand

Well I listened to most of what had been broadcast of this highly controversial prank. To be perfectly honest, I think this whole 'incident' has been blown far beyond its actual significance. Also, I've come to believe that the blame has been directed (primarily by the papers) towards the wrong people.
On listening to the prank call made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand, I do not see how people can act as offended as they are. Yes, I think the two show hosts step beyond the accepted line. Yes, I think what they said to Mr Andrew Sachs was unnecessarily cruel and offensive to him.
However, When members of the public (who did not hear the broadcast originally) deliberately seek out the recording or manuscript, with the expectation of being offended, it vexes me. It seems to me like they have nothing better to do than to seek out offensive materials in order to be provided with an excuse to moan and bitch.
Also, I do not believe the main blame should have been dropped onto Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand in the heavy manor in which it has been. Although there is no question that they crossed the line, the fault for the backlash lies with the people who allowed it to go on air. As I understand it, the prank in question had been pre-recorded and so the BBC should have had plenty of time to see that it was not suitable material to be aired. Yet, they let it go out anyway.
In my opinion It's the BBC s fault that this controversy has reached the ridiculous scale that it did.
Well that's what I think of it all -in a nutshell.