ABRAHAM LINCOLN VAMPIRE HUNTER (2012 - Cert 15)

It's clear from the title that this film is probably only going to really appeal to a certain portion of the cinema population. It's in the 'Ronseal' sub-folder along with Cowboys v Aliens and Snakes on a Plane, although if truth be told there is a lot more substance to Abe Lincoln than most films that crop up in this genre. The trouble is there should have been even more depth than is actually on show.

I've read the source material, a book (part of the 'mash-up'genre) by Seth Grahame-Smith (the chap who also gave us Pride, Prejudice and Zombies). I recall reading it (in proper book form, paper and everything, before the Kindle entered my life), on the train in the morning people would peer over the top of their Steig Larsson or their Penguin Classic and sneer at my choice of literature. Clearly I was an idiot who could only absorb historical material if it's diulted with creatures of the night. What they didn't realise, because they would never think to actually read the blurb of the book, is that Grahame-Smith managed to take the incredible life of one of history's most celebrated men and apply vampirism to it, tackling important issues like slavery, the Civil War, revenge and loss. It also took real life events and gave them a different and very interesting spin, the battle of Gettysburg, the death of Edgar Allen Poe. It wasn't cheap thrills, genre, b-movie lit, this was a well researched, intelligent epic that packed an emotional punch. Perfect for a film you might think.



The first name I heard attached to it was Tim Burton. Perfect director, I thought, a nice gothically, historical touch. Safe hands for something that is obviously a bit left field. Then it transpires that he was buying the rights along with Timur Bekmambetov, director of Day Watch, Night Watch and Wanted. Not quiet so appealing...the concern of style over substance ominously creeping over me.

So what do we get? An interesting Burton-esque oddity, cleverly taking us through the life of Lincoln, or a flashy, CGI-laden piece cherry-picking the showreel action sequences from the book, patchworking them together with exposition? The truth it's, ironically, it's a bit of a mash-up.

We meet Lincoln for the first time as a young lad during the obligatory scene-setting flashback (after a nicely polished Washington monument gradually going back in time), before you know it you've had a bit of slavery thrown in your face and a relative of his cops it at the hands of a set of fangs. Fast forward and we see Lincoln in his adult form (Benjamin Walker), he's still not happy with the murder of a loved one and is still hell bent on revenge. Dominic Cooper's Henry Sturgess pops up to help him and to help us with a bit of background as to how vampires have come to inhabit the USA. Crucially, the character of Sturgess also sums up the problem with the film. In the book he was comfortably one of the most interesting characters and really drove the narrative along. In the film, he is restricted to a paper thin element of the plot that doesn't really seem to serve that much purpose. His origins in the book were a vital part to the origins of vampires in the story and a huge influence over Lincoln's decisions on his career. In the film however, the backstory is limited to something much more formulaic, stunted and unfortunately predictable. This diluting has spread throughout the film, some of the more appealing elements have not made it on to the screen. Abe's political career gets next to no coverage, the Civil War becomes an excuse for an action scene, Slavery is touched upon before we are taken off on a rampaging chase scene. The 'issues' seem to be like a hot potato to Bekmambetov, he just can't seem to dwell on it long enough to make it count.

That little splurt of negativity isn't the whole story though, because there is plenty here to enjoy. Walker's casting is an interesting one, at first he comes across as far from prominent in the role but as the film pushes along it feels as though he really grows in to it. It could be argued that it's fine acting, it's not Walker that's growing, it's his character and his performance should be applauded. However, it could be that Walker is just like the film, inconsistent. He is supported nicely by Dominic Cooper and Mary Elizabeth Wanstead as the love interest and Rufus Sewell continues the fine British evil tradition with a nasty pantomime turn that looks alarmingly like a young Roger Daltrey.

If there is one thing Bekmambetov knows how to do, it's action. He pulls it off again here. It has his customary digital glean that doesn't smack of realism but it tick the box for entertainment, although it's nothing we've not really seen before. The train scene deserves praise in particular.

It also has moments of subtlety, which only make the cack-handedness found elsewhere all the more frustrating. The film isn't afraid off killing someone off and these moments do have an emotional touch to them. A nice scene on a Civil War battlefield has a quiet sombreness to it and Abe's death (not a spoiler, you all know what happens to him in the end) gets a curt nod with a wry smile. Nicely done.

So, a mixed bag, but worth a watch, probably on DVD in all honesty. Plus I can't help wondering whether had I not read the book I would have enjoyed it a lot more. It's a shame that you can't erase all prior knowledge and pre-conceptions from your noggin when you go into a cinema, the world would be a much better place with plenty more surprises.

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN (2011 - Cert 15)

I blame Judy Garland. It's all her fault.

Let me explain. Five days before my first trip to the flicks in a while (to see Marilyn) I went to Richmond Theatre to see a play that had done the rounds all over the country and a stint in the West End. It was called End of the Rainbow and shared a few similarities with My Week With Marilyn, the main ones being that they both attempted to show us a different perspective on a top female icon of the last century (Rainbow being Judy Garland and Marilyn obviously being Marilyn Monroe). Both were also set in London, chronicling a small portion of their lives as they hit the UK for work (a run of concerts and a film respectively).



Before I turn this into a theatre blog though, I must first concentrate on Marilyn and why it simply didn't work for me. I think I can boil it down to one problem, boring characters. Quite a big problem and I know what you're saying, Marilyn Monroe, how can she and the the film possibly possibly be boring? I don't think it can be blamed on the actors, Michelle Williams in the case of Marilyn herself. She certainly looked the part and sounded the part. She even moved like her, she clearly must have studied a lot of footage of Monroe as it looked very authentic. However, because the character is written without any depth whatsoever, it becomes a very flat impersonation more than anything else. We are meant to think that Monroe is insecure, delicate, misunderstood, a tortured genius. This is portrayed by us enduring what are effectively bloopers on set as she struggles with her lines without the help of a touchy feel director. Then with the kind words from fellow actors she perks up a bit. That's it. That's what the writer (Adrian Hodges) thinks counts as characterisation. Perhaps it's to be expected from a writer of Primeval. He has managed to turn a 20th century icon, a goddess into a dull, boring, woman. Then there is the other main character, the 'My' of the title, Colin Clark (played by Eddie Redmayne). Again, perfectly decent performance but the character just wasn't interesting. Much of the film is him in rooms, being told useful information by other characters, without any real explanation as to why a third assistant director on the film (effectively a tea maker) has become everyone's confidant. It doesn't feel as though he is pushing his own narrative, he is a passenger in the whole piece, but he really should be a driver. It makes his character feel bland. This consequently meant that the relationship between he and Marilyn just didn't resonate with me, it didn't work, and most importantly, I didn't believe it. There was constantly a sense that they might not both live happily ever after together, but I ultimately didn't actually care.

The two dimensional nature continues elsewhere. A whole host of good actors, Judi Dench, Emma Watson, Dominic Cooper, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, Derek Jacobi, even my mums friend Karl Moffatt (yes, I am name dropping) try their hardest with very limited material, all figures that don't feel essential to the story, more incidental and an excuse to get another big name in there on the cast list. Only Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier comes out with any real credit and satisfactory screen time.

Another problem is that it's simply too nice, too polished, not daring enough. Monroe's drug problem is shown by jars of pills by the bed, arguments are muted with lots of arm waving, no real histrionics. It feels middle of the road, lacking any punch whatsoever. Like David Haye brushing you across the face with a small bean bag. You expect more, you want more, it just doesn't deliver.

So what did Judy Garland do wrong? Nothing, quite the opposite, but that's the problem. Because Rainbow was so good, I think she may have contributed to ruining My Week With Marilyn. Admittedly the subject matter of Rainbow is a little darker in tone (it builds up to Garland's premature death at the age of 47) but it was much more subtle in it's portrayal of a fragile star, much more affecting and so much more interesting. Had I not seen End of the Rainbow, or had it not been quite so good, perhaps I would have enjoyed Marilyn more, because it's not a terrible film, I've seen far worse, it's perfectly ok, a fluffy, good looking, mildly amusing way to pass an hour and a half. Unfortunately though, it's nothing more than that.

AN EDUCATION (2009)

Finally I managed to get back on to my Lovefilm choices, they had somehow taken a bit of a back seat and I was starting to wonder whether my monthly outlay was worth it. However, when An Education landed on my desk at work I knew I had to make some time to see it. Plus it was one that I could easily persuade the girlfriend to watch.



Smothered with critical praise and award nominations after it's release last year, it's the simple coming of age story of a 16 year old girl (Carey Mulligan) in 1961 Suburban London, on track for a stellar education at Oxford University before she falls for the seductive charms of of Peter Sarsgaard's older man. Her life changes and she finds herself at a crossroads, academic education or 'The University of Life'.

Based on the memoirs of British journalist Lynn Barber, and the screenplay written by British novelist Nick Hornby, it's the acting cast that make this film such a pleasure to watch and make it worthy of the praise that it has received. Carey Mulligan, as Jenny, the young girl and lead character is truly fantastic. She was up for an Oscar, and could not have been far off grabbing it, for her portrayal of a girl going from wide eyed innocence to thinking she knows it all as she wrestles with the right way to grow into her adult life. She is equally at ease at playing a geeky, cello playing college girl as she is as a maturing socialite wining and dining in Paris. It's her breakthrough performance and it's clear she has a bright future ahead of her.

Alfred Molina, as Jenny's father is once again fantastic. He represents the now very dated views of the only way that a woman can succeed is to excel academically or to meet a successful man. Even though his opinions are practically prehistoric and is often seen as the baddie of the piece, it is a testament to Molina that he manages to be so likeable. You also feel a great deal of sympathy for him as he is convinced that there is little worth doing outside of their suburban bubble, while Jenny boasts of eating great food, and drinking fine wine. He wants the best for his daughter but he does not know what that is.

Peter Sarsgaard is no doubt in line for the big time as well based on this performance. He is charming and appealing as Jenny's (much) older suitor David, despite the relationship itself being undoubtedly open to misinterpretation. His slick manners and the ease with which he deals with people seduces Jenny despite it being clear that he is not all that he seems and the way he earns his crust is also far from honest.

The cast list goes on - Dominic Cooper as David's good friend and 'business partner', does plenty with what he is given. Like David he is amiable and fun, but you are exposed to moments of aggression that leave you in no doubt that he is capable of being far from nice. Rosamund Pike is good as Cooper's ditsy  wife, representing a possible glimpse as to what Jenny's life will become if she choose to enrol in 'The University of Life'.

Then just when you think that the roster must be complete, Emma Thompson turns up as the Headmistress of Jenny's school. She only appears for two scenes but it's a worthy addition and she pulls it off without trying.

The film is well made too, Lone Scherfig doing a tidy job with the material, but she admirably pulls off a reconstruction of 1960's London. Each old car and dated shop front making you feel as though you are there, transported back in time. Nick Hornby must get a mention as well for the screenplay. Having not read the source material I'm not sure how good an adaptation it is, but there is enough good stuff in there to suggest he may have a new penning career there for the taking.

It's not all positives though, there are some issues that stop it from being as good as it promises to be. Once the relationship takes a turn for the worst and Jenny's choices are shown to be far from right, things become very dark very swiftly. However, just as quickly as things went badly, they all turn around for the better again. All of a sudden. An entire academic year is condensed into 5 minutes of screen time and we all live happily ever after. It's not that I dislike a happy ending (although they do irritate me), it's just that this all felt too neat. She learnt her lesson, made it right, and everything is sweetness again. All in the space of ten minutes.

Also, despite the performances being brilliant, the characters themselves are slightly two dimensional, seemingly there to represent a particular point of view of political stance. Only Dominic Cooper and Peter Sarsgaard, other than Jenny herself, have anything resembling depth.

These criticisms though do not detract from what is essentially a lovely, very watchable film, with a brilliant cast, presenting important subject matter in a polished slice of cinema.

We can all relate to it, we've all been a young person convinced that we all know better than anyone else, only to be shown that our innocent naivety will see us caught out by someone else more wily, leaving us to eat our words in the end.