DARK SHADOWS (2012 - Cert 12A)

Tim Burton's first film after the glossy but bland and instantly forgettable adaptation of Alice in Wonderland was apparently a TV series in the late sixties. Clearly I'm not old enough to remember it the first time around but I hadn't actually heard of it either, at least not until the publicity march began up to the release of Dark Shadows film. Having said that a quick scour of the 'pedias' and it's clear that Burton isn't the only one who is a fan of the 'Gothic soap opera' (I know, sounds good already doesn't it?).

So I won't be telling you whether it's a faithful adaptation or a complete reworking, because I have no idea. Instead I'll be doing what you should arguably always do, regardless of where a film's origins lie, judge it on it's own merits.

It's essentially a family drama, all be it with a quirky and blackly comic sensibility, centring on the Collins family in 1972 Collinsport, the town named after them as it was built on a successful ancestral family fishing business in the 16th century. They're a classic rich family with classic rich family problems, knocking about in a huge old gothic mansion, with far more rooms than inhabitants. Michelle Pfeiffer is the matriarch, Johnny Lee Miller is her brother, the weird uncle hanging on for the perks and wealth, Jackie Earle Haley is his troubled 10 year old son and Chloe Grace Moretz as the stroppy rebellious teenager. Other residents are Jackie Earle Haley, the creepy caretaker (think Filch from Harry Potter with marginally better personal hygiene) and Burton regular (and wife) Helena Bonham Carter as a live-in psychiatrist there to deal with the 10 year old boy and his belief in ghosts. 

So just a normal family set up eh?

That is until a long lost relative crops up, Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp playing a role he has apparently always wanted to play - yes, just like Robbie Keane was always a Spurs fan, that is until he signed for Celtic and Liverpool respectively). Not so strange you think, until you realise that Barnabas has been in a coffin for the best part of two centuries after being cursed and turned into a vampire. 

Now we are firmly into Burton territory. Barnabas heads straight back to the family home and integrates himself back into Collins family life. He also decides he wants to get back involved in the now failing family business, suffering at the hands of Eva Green's rival company. In the process of doing this he discovers that Green has a link to his past.....

So, there's a number of things going on and I think Burton deliberately doesn't quite hang it all together in a traditional way. You have the comedy of a 200 year old vampire waking up in the 70's (think California Man or Crocodile Dundee fish out of water stuff), there's a bit of unexpected horror and gore (we are dealing with vampires here) and black comedy, humorous and downright bonkers family exchanges, destructive sex scenes, a tale of corporate rivalry and more than a touch of the supernatural. And that's not even giving away any of the big plot developments. Perhaps, after the financial success of Alice in Wonderland, the studio gave Burton a bit more of a free reign and this is Burton going the opposite way from a big special effects fest, not wanting to get bogged down with traditional narrative and studio film conventions. He's chucking a hell of a lot at the canvas, some of it sticks some of slides off and ends up in a mess on the floor. However, for those moments that do work, it immediately made me think of Beetlejuice and the great off beat parts of Sleepy Hollow and Mars Attacks. This is Burton recapturing some of those joyous quirky triumphs, banishing the memories (mine, but perhaps his as well) of Planet of the Apes, Alice and Wonderland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 

He's helped by an excellence cast, all of which are great and keep the film pushing along, allowing you to forgive when it misses the target. It's great seeing Depp doing something other than Jack Sparrow, reminded that he is a fine actor and can carry any film. It's brilliant to have Pfeiffer back, Bonham Carter is as ever one of the best things about the film, despite her small amount of screen time, Eva Green is having the time of her life and is seductively chilling as the villain of the piece, Johnny Lee Miller looks like he was born to play a creepy, pervy uncle and Chloe Grace Moretz is definitely going places - bring on Kick Ass 2.

It's a funny film. I don't mean funny ha ha, although there is good comedy in there (not quite laugh out loud, sniggers, chuckles and chortles are the order of the day), funny as in odd. It starts in one way, you think you've got a handle on where it's going, only for it go in the complete opposite direction. Then you think it will romp along, only for Burton to slow things right down and focus on something right in left field, Burton relishes not letting the viewer ease into a comfort zone, it meanders, it plods, it plays knock down ginger with you, until it reaches a climax that is part Twilight, part Death Becomes Her, infused with Beetlejuice and a bit of Sweeney Todd. 

Am I recommending it? I am, it's well worth a watch, not a classic by any stretch, but there's more than enough in there to enjoy and there's a joy in having a film maker kick off the shackles and be given the freedom to just do something a bit different. And is there anyone better at doing 'different' than Tim Burton.

THE KING'S SPEECH (2010)

Oscars. That's what everyone is saying whenever this film is brought up. Some are even saying its a sure fire winner, playing the Royal Card - the Yanks love a film about the Royal family. I've had some bad experiences over the years though when seeing films that have Oscar hopes (Titanic for example), so I wasn't sure how this would sit with me.......

So I made my way down to the lunchtime showing at the Richmond Curzon (staggeringly good value at £5 per ticket with my membership) to see what all the fuss is about.



I can tell you that they are all spot on. And the some. Everyone who says this film is great, every critic who says Colin Firth is brilliant in this, every punter on the street who says it moved them to tears throughout, they're all right. The truth is that all the hype still didn't prepare me for how good this film is.

At the centre of it are two mesmerising performances, Colin Firth as George VI (getting the majority of the plaudits) and Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue, a speech therapist enlisted to help the Duke of York overcome a debilitating stammer. Firth's George is riddled with insecurities, deeply introverted with a lack of confidence that stems from his condition. His depiction of a stammerer is so convincing, it's incredible, with it only really surfacing when nervous and under pressure. Whilst relaxed with family, it barely surfaces - a nice touch that adds to the teetering, fragile personality of George.  Logue is the opposite. Charming, sure of himself, over familiar with his regal patient. Their evolving relationship is very much at the heart of the film, the historically significant issues of war and abdication become subplots as the friendship blossoms and the future king becomes more dependant on Logue (similar in this respect to the director Tom Hooper's last film, The Damned United with Brian Clough and Peter Taylor's relationship being vital). It's an absolute pleasure to see two such fine actors up against each other in so many scenes, at times battling each other, at others complimenting one another. A real masterclass. Like Federer v Nadal.

The two leads are supported more than ably by a stellar cast that help push the film into the 'special' realm. Helena Bonham-Carter (a joy to see her in something that isn't either a Potter film or directed by her husband) is great as George's wife Elizabeth (who many would know as the Queen Mother). She is a pillar of strength to her husband's vulnerability but is also mischievous with a cheeky sense of humour. You can tell from her looks at George that she is really in love with him and every stammer that he makes is like a jolt of pain on a nerve to her. Guy Pearce as King Edward VIII is perfectly suited as the playboy King (dare one suggest that he is a possibility of what might occur if Prince Harry was made up). Michael Gambon is excellent in his few scenes as George V, throwing gravitas around as King and father. Timothy Spall turns in brilliant show as Winton Churchill, all be it a slightly hammed up version. Derek Jacobi as the Archbishop, conservative and straight, but compelling with it. It just goes on and on. On paper the strength in depth of the cast is astounding but on screen it's ten times better.

The tone of the film was far from what I expected as well. The subject and the cast would suggest a typical British period piece, perhaps suited to the small screen better, however we are treated to a proper cinematic film. Tom Hooper really makes this feel like a proper film and has not let normal expectations hold him back. Sweeping montages, epic camera shots, moody London streets. Special mention must go to how he shows how daunting the prospect of public speaking is to George VI - a first person view where spectators and crowds seem huge, towering over the microphone at the forefront of the screen. You are with George, and you too are overawed.

It's a comedy too. Not in a Jane Austen, chortle kind of way, but proper comedy. There are some hilarious moments of banter between George VI and Logue, confident one liners from the latter, self-deprecating humour from the former. There are some nice, subtle jokes about out of touch Royals, Elizabeth trying to figure out how to use a lift for example, and  Hooper and the writer David Seidler (barely a noticeable credit to his name before this) get real mileage out of the remarkable situation, the King being so dependant on an average speech therapist.

For every laugh though, there is a lump in the throat. It's not just a touching finale, as is so often the case these days. I honestly can't remember the last time that I was so moved, so many times during a trip to the flicks.

I can't recommend this film enough, everything about it is top class, acting, writing, direction, it's pitched absolutely perfectly. Then you consider that it is about one of the most amazing stories in the history of our country and it becomes utterly unmissable.

We have yet to see what the film and it's stars will be up against when it comes to Oscar night, but if something beats this film, Firth and Rush (what a battle that could/should be) to the gong, it will be a hell of a movie or performance.

The best film I have seen in a long, long while.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1 (2010)

In the world of Harry Potter there are two types of people, those who can practice magic (Wizards) and those who don't have the powers (Muggles). This dual society extends to the real world as well. Those who love Potter and his adventures and those who have not fallen under the spell of J K Rowling's creation (or is it really her creation...?).

Having read all the books and seen (and enjoyed) all of the films thus far, I firmly fall within the first category. So with this in mind, there was never any danger of me not seeing this film in it's opening weekend.



Bill Nighy's Minister of Magic sets the the tone of the story, and the film for that matter, in the opening moments. 'There are dark times ahead'. The penultimate film in the series (the final book being split into two halves) is indeed the darkest yet, although I appreciate that this has been said of every sequel in the series so far. I'll do my best to avoid any spoilers, but it picks up where the previous film, The Half-Blood Prince, left off with Voldemort growing stronger and the Death Eaters seizing a firmer grip on power and stepping up their efforts to kill Harry Potter.

Although the story is familiar, this film is very unlike any other in the series so far. Fairly early on in the film, the three main characters, Harry, Hermione and Ron become separated from their protectors and consequently have to fend for themselves. This means that the usual locales of Hogwarts and the like are not seen at all and much of the film is played out in sweeping rural landscapes, beautifully presented by director David Yates (at the helm since film 5) with some earlier scenes taken place in Central London. These alien surroundings give this film a freshness and a maturity.

The action set-pieces are superbly done, including a thrilling chase through the Dartford Tunnel and a great sequence where the Ministry of Magic is infiltrated, to both comedic and exciting dramatic effect. However these set-pieces are not as frequent as in the other films with long stretches without any magic or visual effects. The reason being that at the centre of this film is the three characters and little else: by breaking the final book into two halves, the makers have been given the opportunity to use this episode to build gradually towards the finale and in doing so they can really explore the relationship between Harry, Hermione and Ron. I suspect that younger fans of the series will be disappointed and perhaps lost at the long stretches of contemplative dialogue, but in doing this, Yates and co have made a proper film. A study into teenagers growing up, adult issues of jealousy are explored, coming to terms with death and the horrible occurrences that are taking place. This really is grim stuff. We have spent 6 films with the three of them, put them through all sorts, but we get to know them more in the space of this 146 minute film that all of those put together.

The actors themselves have come a long way since being cute but annoying child actors in the Philosopher's Stone. Daniel Radcliffe is probably the weaker of the three, although he is given the worst dialogue with moany mournful lines that act as exposition. Emma Watson is turning into a very good actress. it remains to be seen whether she will continue with the craft but she plays Hermione with enthusiasm but also a sadness. One scene in particular at the beginning of the film involving her parents is particularly heartbreaking, as well as a very touching scene where Harry and Hermione dance, trying to put all the troubles to the back of their minds.  Rupert Grint is easily the most improved. Gone is the wooden, clunky delivery, he is now polished using facial expressions very proficiently to convey a frustrated teenager, struggling to understand his emotions and just wanting the quiet life. These performances have to be strong as they carry the film for the length of the substantial mid-section.

The full cast really is a who's who of British actors. Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as Voldemort, a real baddie, none of this pantomime nonsense. He really reminded me of Darth Vader with his ruthless blood lust. We are under no illusion that should Voldemort be successful, then the world will be in a lot of trouble. Helena Bonham-Carter also has great fun as the nightmarish Bellatrix Lestrange, the truly psychotic sidekick to Lord Voldemort. Plus it is always a joy to see Alan Rickman as Snape, although you don't get much of him. You can only hope he comes to the fore in the final film.

The darkness is not all about the actors though. The rise of the new Ministry smacks of the rise of fascism and it's propaganda. There are also some very tough scenes to watch that include torture, murder and pure evil. There's blood in this film, more than you would expect, and there are some properly scary moments, particularly for children. It really is not all plain sailing. As we get to the end, there is a moment that really hit me hard, proper tears let me tell you.

Ah the ending....I've heard some people call it a non-ending. The sort of cliff hanger you would have at the end of a tv

I loved this film. It really felt like a proper grown up flick, a character study, almost an art-house film. The film makers, and the cast, have done such a fine job with this film, made it with great care and good intentions, that the decision to spilt the film in two has been proved to be the right one. To have attempted to shoe-horn the final book, in it's entirety, into a 3 hour film would have meant that we would not have been taken with on the quest with Harry, Hermione and Ron and the feeling of dread as the finale approaches would not have had half the impact. This, and the decision to not make it 3D (a change of tact from the studio's original position, which must have resulted in financial loss), clearly proves that Yates and co really want to ensure that these films do the rest of series justice. They only get one shot at this.

As for the Muggles, if you've managed to resist the magic of the films and story so far, I doubt I'll be able to change your minds here. I suppose there really is no saving you.

I saw the film at the Everyman Cinema in Baker Street. First time I've been to this two-screen picture house but I'd thoroughly recommend it. Nice and comfy seats, good snacks and lovely bar to have a drink before and after. A great Central London alternative to the Sin-e-world mulitplexes.