Film Review: Glorious 39

InternetMovieDataBase's Film Summary: 1939 is set between present-day London and the idyllic British countryside in the time before the beginning of the WW2. At a time of uncertainty and high tension, the story revolves around the formidable Keyes family, who are keen to uphold and preserve their very traditional way of life. The eldest sibling Anne is a budding young actress who is in love with Foreign Office official Lawrence, but her seemingly perfect life begins to dramatically unravel when she stumbles across secret recordings of the pro-appeasement movement. While trying to discover the origin of these recordings, dark secrets are revealed which lead to the deaths of some of her friends. As war breaks out Anne discovers the truth and flees to London to try to confirm her suspicions, but she is caught and imprisoned and only then does she finally begin to discover how badly she has been betrayed....

Disappointment, disappointment, disappointment.

It had so much promise but it failed to deliver...

A film about one family's involvement in the pro-appeasement lobby in the lead up to the Second World War is a unique topic rarely explored in films, but something that could have been given a long distance but which failed to explore its full range. Seeing how the upper classes were trying to achieve peace at all costs, something only touched on in films like Remains of the Day, and here this film does little to further the exploration of this theme...

Now all the underhand goings-on are uncovered by the eldest daughter (who isn't really their daughter?! No real solid reason given as to how she ended up in their family- just one of the many unanswered questions!!) Anne Keyes, played by the totally wonderful Romola Garai, is that daughter and she is captivating. A stella cast of Bill Nighy as Dad, David Tenant as friend of the family who died/murdered during the course of the pro-appeasement and Hugh Bonneville (also murdered) are also wonderful. So what is the problem?

Well, the plot for one. No ends are tied up. The many references to Winston Churchill by the anti-appeasement people in the film and the feeble attempts to try and contact him to tell him what has been going on never come to any fruition, although no reason is given as to why. The biggest plot hole is the end. After locking anne up for ages, they let her escape and escape she does until she returns as an old lady to confront her brothers and her prisoners, they thinking she is dead... No mention is made of what she did in all those years... Stephen Poliakoff the director and scriptwriter could have just honed this into a really spectacular and seminal film, but falls way short of the mark... such a shame because the cast were amazing and the theme ripe for the picking...

***

The Children of Huang Shi

WAR MADE THEM ORPHANS, ONE MAN MADE THEM LEGENDS.

I recently watched this film, and yes, primarily I was attracted to it by the fact that Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Chow Yun-Fat play central parts in it. They are both pretty hot in my mind. So as I began watching it the story really struck me and like all things wondrous and therefore pondrous I have researched it more and have subsequently blogged it.

First, I shall begin with a brief synopsis of the film, I shan't put in any spoilers for fear it may ruin the film for you!!

The film is about a young British journalist, George Hogg, who with the assistant of a courageous (in this film American, in real life New Zealander) nurse and a Chinese Communist fighter, saves a group of orphaned children during the Japanese occupation of China in 1937. Basically. In short. That is the precept. However, it is essentially a build up of how this journalist and friends came to lead sixty orphaned boys on a journey of over 500 miles across snow-bound Liu Pan Shan mountains (or the Silk Road as it is otherwise known) to safety in the Mongolian desert from the advancing Japanese forces in China.

Along the way to this epic voyage he meets Lee, this American/though really New Zealander nurse who he falls in love with, Chen Hansheng the communist, Madame Wang the aristocrat turned merchant of opium and other narcotics in light of the economic displacement of the war, and of course the kids, who each have their own tale and personality of which we see a few of in the film.

On researching this film and the actual history of the story, there are of course some absences and playing around with the facts. Hogg was appointed headmaster, as it were, of these orphaned schoolchildren by Rewi Alley, a communist New Zealander, who has celebrated in China's revolution. It was his idea, in fact, to take the children to a safer place apparently, but it seems Hogg has taken the credit for it in this film by the total omission of Alley as a character. He was a communist and suspected homosexual so, for these reasons, it is suggested that he is omitted from this Hollywood film.

Regardless of these facts, it is, by the by, a "true" story as much as we can say such a thing. It was an eye widening film and made me look at a history, other than British history, of which my knowledge is lacking due to my unfortunately short-sighted nature (not that I don't enjoy other history- I just prefer to stick with what I know!)

It is appearing now and then on Sky, so catch it if you can. Personally I am going to go on Amazon, if the postal strikes don't get in my way, and buy this film to watch properly from the beginning, no interruptions!

Movie Blog: Public Enemies

Public Enemies, July 2009

Starring: Johnny Depp, and Christian Bale
Directed by Michael Mann

Rather like my *failed* book review section of this blog, I shall try and do this *with more success* for films.

I saw Public Enemies yesterday with my mate Colette. It was bloody, it was well filmed, it was amazingly cast and ergo it equals one huge success. Mind you anything with Johnny Depp in I am a complete sucker for!! Whether it be Jack Sparrow in Pirates to Ichabod Crane in Sleepy Hollow, from Sweeney Todd to John Wilmot in The Libertine... Johnny Depp never fails to deliver. This is blockbuster stuff at its best. Romance, violence, a bit of a thrill and a bit of drama et voila! One ace film!

Hands up- I did groan at some of the bloodier scenes where blood splatters and especially the part were a bullet went through Dillenger/Johnny Depp's face. ARGH!

I laughed and I very almost cried at the end... *I shan't tell you anymore... though everyone pretty much knows what happens!*

SYNOPSIS: Based on a true story in Depression-era America, bank robber John Dillinger (Depp), whose armed robberies of banks made him the number one target of J. Edgar Hoovers new FBI whilst simultaneously proving himself popular with the masses as he flouted the banks that had caused the depression. The FBI's top agent, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) has been assigned Dillinger. It is now his job to stop Dillenger. Purvis is outmaneuvered. From jailbreaks to bank robberies that looked doomed to fail Dillenger won over the public sympathy.

I loved the fact that they had the film Manhattan Melodrama with Clark Gable in at the end was a particularly sweet touch since it is SO ironic that Dillinger died on exiting the movie theatre after watching a gangster film. The other part I liked where he was in the movie theatre again and the commercials roll; the public there are asked to look to their left and right to see if "Public Enemy Number One" is sitting next to them. He is and no one spots him. That devilish grin says it all!

I am a fan of the 1930s and seriously love the music, risque-ness, the clothes, the attitude... This film completely captures the time and the crime. Blood thirsty, violent and completely compelling this film is definitely worth paying the cinema fees to see!!

REVIEW I: Charlotte Gray, by Sebastian Faulks

Right, this is possibly the only time I may well say this so prick up your ears accordingly- the film was better than the book.

I was so utterly disappointed with the book that I think I may well have been in shock after reading it because I couldn't work out if I liked it or not and sat pondering it for while. I decided after a glass of wine, or rather more accurately I would wager, a bottle of white Spanish plonk whilst sitting on the balcony of the villa we were staying in on holiday, that I came to the conclusion, I most definitely did not like it. Unfortunately I did see the film first, something I rather hate doing, mainly because I do know what films can do to books like the Da Vinci Code (though Tom Hanks did play a lovely Robert Langdon), Harry Potter (traversty- all but the fifth!), Persuasion (the latest tv version- TRAVERSTY with capitals my friend!), The Golden Compass, Eragon, oh and many a film besides.

However, first let's start with the positives...

Faulks convincingly sets the story in a time, place and situation. Charlotte's contension with her parents is portrayed brilliantly and the resolution of this subplot is satisfying, and the film is all the poorer for missing this whole plot out. The characters are very real and you can really relate to them. On the other hand, this can be a weakness in the form of the protagonist. Charlotte Gray as the protagonist was disappointing.

Not wanting to compare to the film, but intending to anyway, she appeared in the book weak, unsure and so dependent on others I wondered on what the scriptwriter for the film (Jeremy Brock) used as a basis for Charlotte, so stark was the contrast between the book and the film.

As I said, having watched the film first, I expected Charlotte to be this strong woman who, ok has to rely on others, but in the end makes a stand, and a very poignant one, that I was literally devastated not to have been in the book. I howled at the film's gait towards the ending and when it finally reached the climax I cried at the happy ending possible at such a time....

This could not be further from the book. I couldn't believe the ending... the airman called Richard Cannerly so did not deserve her, even though as much as I came to despise her inert attitude throughout the developing plot. I suppose it would have been realistic, but at the same time, the war did create many heroes. She seems an unknown anti-hero and at one point during my night of pondering I wondered why on earth write a book about it... then I calmed down and did begin to see the good side to the novel. So back to the positives...

Yes... well, Faulks understands men very well, but not women. Faulks writes very compellingly because I did finish the book, but I did dislike it....

Ok, ok, I can't be entirely positive about it, but no surprises there it seems! Julien and his father were constructed in a way that makes us like them, but then Charlotte disregards them so the reader is in constant confusion as to whether we want Charlotte to be with the airmen Cannerly or with Julien. The airmen is portrayed in a very mixed light, tainted more on the side of dislike or so I felt, so we are so unsure of where we stand. I actually wondered whether she was wasting her time searching for cannerly and whether she felt duty bound rather than feeling true love. When she fell in love with Julien, she was a different woman, she had changed, she had other dreams, other plans, another way to see the life. When she went back to Britain, she realised that. Now, she loves Julien and not Richard Cannerly.

The blurb of the book says she will find her true self during the story but in the book she doesn't. She chooses to stay fundamentally the same. Going through something like this would have changed her more dramatically than the book showed.

So in conclusion, watch the film leave the book... get your hankies ready and enjoy!

SYNOPSIS: Set in World War Two, Charlotte Gray falls for an airman who takes a stupid mission, crashes in the region of France and Charlotte wants to help with her excellent French. She gets recruited by the Allies to aid the French Resistance movement against the Vichy government and goes to France where she involves herself with the country's turmoils and its suffering people.

P.S. Cate Blanchett plays Charlotte Gray in the film; she is awesome, despite some critique on her Scottish accent in the film.