Review #966: 'Cinderella' (2015)

Kenneth Branagh's live-action re-telling of the famous Cinderella story does not attempt to offer any kind of fresh spin on one of Disney's most beloved movies. Where the likes of Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) and Maleficent (2014) played out well-worn fairytales from a different perspective, changing the entire outlook of the tale in the process, the 2015 version of Cinderella alters very little and adds even less. The real stars of the movie are the set and costume design which, with the exception of Cinders' rather drab ballgown, are sadly the only hint of magic on show here.

Ella (Downton Abbey's Lily James) lives happily in her peaceful kingdom with her loving mother (Hayley Atwell) and kind father (Ben Chaplin), who teach her of the existence of magic from a young age. After her mother takes ill, Ella is told to be courageous and kind with her final dying words. Years later, her father attempts to fill the void in his life by marrying the recently-widowed Lady Tremaine (Cate Blanchett), who brings her two deplorable daughters Drisella (Sophie McShera) and Anastasia (Holliday Grainger) to his home to live. When Ella's father also dies on a business trip, the Lady Tremaine reveals her dark side, dubbing the young girl Cinderella and forcing her to live in the attic while tending to their every need.

While the 1950 version can be forgiven for its rather old-fashioned patriarchal ideas of young girls fantasising about marrying rich and escaping the blandness of their existence, times have moved on and such an over-simplification of an entire gender in modern film-making really has no place. The moral message of showing kindness is of course eternally relevant, but James, aside from having a naturally sweet demeanour, injects very little personality into her character. The bulk of the first half is made up of trying to develop these themes, but without any songs to distract or cutesy animals to provide the chuckles, the narrative seems to move along with the urgency and excitement of an ITV Catherine Cookson adaptation.

It only really kicks into gear when the Fairy Godmother (Helena Bonham Carter) shows up to help Cinderella on her journey to the King's palace, where the Prince awaits every maiden in the land as he searches for a wife. Although the pumpkin transformation looks very nice, her other creations - including two unfunny lizards - are rather grotesque creations unworthy of a bippity-boppity-boo. Game of Thrones' Richard Madden plays the prince blandly but handsomely, while the long-awaited dance with his Princess-to-be lacks the magic of the cartoon version. Ironically, the Prince finds himself in the same situation as that of his most famous role, Robb Stark - promised to one but insistent on another - but there is sadly no bloody massacre at the end of it all to liven things up. Aesthetically lovely but ultimately soulless.


Directed by: Kenneth Branagh
Starring: Lily James, Cate Blanchett, Richard Madden, Helena Bonham Carter, Nonso Anozie, Stellan Skarsgård, Sophie McShera, Holliday Grainger, Ben Chaplin
Country: USA/UK

Rating: **

Tom Gillespie

Review #770: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1' (2010)

And so here it is finally. After nine years watching the prepubescent speccy wizard grow into a chiselled speccy wizard, the long, long climax is here. Kicking off what has become a fad in novel adaptations aimed mainly at screaming teenage girls (Twilight, The Hunger Games), Deathly Hallows splits the final novel into two 120-plus films. Whether this is to avoid condensing a mammoth, multi-character into one rushed, incoherent stand-alone movie, or to take full advantage of a multi-billion franchise that is soon to finally end, is up for debate (although a sneaky feeling tells me it's the latter). What is for certain is that a huge, dragging chunk of Part 1 could have easily been wavered. It's like director David Yates forgot that this series is supposed to be fun.

This time around, there's no Hogwarts, and there's almost nothing recognisable about the franchise whatsoever. Beginning with an exciting broomstick battle over London which sees surviving members of the Order don Harry's (Daniel Radcliffe) face in an attempt to elude the lurking Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), things soon turn gloomy as Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are forced to go solo in the countryside in search of the Dark Lord's remaining Horcruxes. If that word perplexes you at this point of the series, you may as well leave early, as quite rightly, the film has no time for catch-up.

With the novel going into much-needed detail in terms of character, background and plot (such is the benefit of literature), the decision to split the film into two parts means Part 1 can breathe easy and take it's time before the final smackdown at Hogwarts in Part 2. This means we spend more time with the three leads as the weight of possible doom lingers heavy on their backs. The absence of the usual stellar adult ensemble is damaging, as Radcliffe, Grint and Watson struggle to hold the film on their own, given their limited acting ability and their character's lack of any real dimension. Grint is easily the best of the three, but Ron is shackled with a jealousy sub-plot (again) which means he gets to mope a lot and storm off.

Yates is the safe choice at this point to end the series. He lacks the cuddly obviousness of Chris Columbus and the more visionary efforts of Alfonso Cuaron and Mike Newell, and apart from a nice little animated sequence near the middle, the film just goes through the motions. There's a nice little dance number, but it's the only recognisable touch from the director. "These are dark times, there's no denying it," warns Rufus Scrimgeour (Bill Nighy), the new minister of magic, in the film's opening scene. Dark and grainy times they are, and oddly joyless, Part 1 feels like an extended advertisement for the real end, Part 2, squeezing it's dedicated fans for all they're worth.


Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Robbie Coltrane, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, John Hurt, Rhys Ifans, Tom Felton
Country: UK/USA

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #769: 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince' (2009)

Defiantly avoiding the familiar sign-posts of the early Harry Potter movies (Harry's troubles with the Dursley's, the journey to Hogwarts, meeting the new Defence Against the Dark Arts), returning director David Yates and the franchise in general has firmly settled into it's dark, brooding persona. The trouble is, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) and his ever-present shadows Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) have developed into one-dimensional bores. Thankfully, The Half-Blood Prince is rich in snivelling villains and wise old wizards and witches, all portrayed by an embarrassingly rich line-up of British thesps, who liven up the proceedings somewhat and add that much-needed gravitas.

It's a cast so crammed with talent that the likes of two-time Oscar-winner Maggie Smith is reduced to a walk-on part. But the film is plagued by a lack of proper pacing, and Yates has trouble keeping a grip on the mixture of drama, comedy and action. Certain scenes that were utterly gripping in J.K. Rowling's novel whizz by without you realising what just happened, confusing the thick plot to the point that any audience members unfamiliar to the books, and have waited two years between the movie instalments, might be left scratching their heads at the mention of Horcruxes and Vanishing Cabinets. This time around, Harry and Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) partner up to gain information from new teacher Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent).

Seeking to destroy Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) once and for all, Dumbledore's biggest clue lies in a memory tampered with by it's owner, Slughorn. It's a conversation between him and a young Voldemort, Tom Riddle (Frank Dillane - son of Stephen), discussing a dark magic that Dumbledore believes to be the key to Voldemort's immortality. Harry is given the task to appeal to Slughorn's love of celebrity and reveal his secrets, and impresses the bumbling teacher in his Potions class after discovering a textbook marked with alterations by the mysterious 'half-blood prince'. But Harry also believes nemesis Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) has been made a Death Eater and is up to no good, much to the scepticism of Ron and Hermione.

It's the best book of the series, in my opinion, and it's a shame that screenwriter Steve Kloves, who has written every Potter apart from Order of the Phoenix and has always done an excellent adapting the hefty books, can't quite get this one right. The moments in which Harry delves inside the Pensive, an apparatus that allows one to physically enter a memory, are impressive. We finally get some insight into the past, and the two young actors playing Tom Riddle (as well as Dillane, Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, nephew of Ralph, plays an 11 year-old incarnation) are excellent, showing us a younger, curious dark lord. But it isn't enough to stop the film feeling like it's dragging out the franchise that made many people millions of dollars, or allowing me to forgive the many narrative flaws and many moments of plain rushed storytelling.


Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Robbie Coltrane, Helena Bonham Carter
Country: UK/USA

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #194: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2' (2011)

So the Potter machine is finally at it's end, with the decision to split the final book into two films proving a financial masterstroke. Ten years on from the first, the films have had a number of different directors, used practically every fine British actor there is that's still alive, and have ranged vastly in quality. They have also become extremely dark, with the 'love will triumph over evil' moral and the never-truly-threatening bad guys of the early two films being replaced with murdered house elves, tortured children, mass murder, and main characters being mercilessly killed in the blink of an eye. Author J.K. Rowling wanted the fans to grow up with Harry and mature with the books, and on many levels it works very well.

Part 1 left us with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) having to bury one of his trusted friends, and Lord Voldemort (Ralph Feinnes), along with his Death Eaters, are closing in on Hogwarts. Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) have still got some horcruxes (pieces of Voldemort's soul, for those you haven't watched it) left to find, and arrive at Hogsmeade to find a way into Hogwarts, which is being run by the evil (?) Severus Snape (Alan Rickman). They find a way in thanks to Dumbledore's brother Aberforth (Ciaran Hinds), and are quick to take control of the school. But with Voldemort approaching, teachers and pupils alike must join forces in a climactic battle, while Harry scours the school for the horcruxes.

While Part 1 seemed to be stretched out and become rather slow in the middle section, Part 2 is action-packed. I'm not ashamed to say that I am a fan of the books, yet I was disappointed with the last one. After so long reading, the finale was anti-climatic and wasn't as dramatic or revelatory as I was expecting it to be. This is the main reason why Part 2 works so well. It extends the final showdown, making it rough, exciting and worthy of watching seven previous films, as Harry and Voldemort cross wands and fists. A slight disappointment though is the Battle of Hogwarts, which was a great section of the book. Giants, werewolves and stone men alike clash with the wizards and Death Eaters as Hogwarts is reduced to rubble. The build-up to it is great, but then the action shifts away to Harry, and his search for the horcruxes is less interesting than the battle happening around him.

It is as big a climax as you could hope for though, with every penny of the massive budget visible on screen. The special effects are virtually flawless, but the majority of the huge cast are give little or nothing to do. The likes of Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Julie Walters and David Thewlis, who are the pinnacle of British talent, are given little more than a few lines. I know, these were major players in previous films, but with this kind of talent reduced to little more than cameos, it makes it upsetting that we're stuck with Daniel Radcliffe for the duration (likeable as he is). Ralph Fiennes though, who only appears briefly in the previous films, is given a lot more to chew on, and revels in it.

A fitting climax to a memorable series of films. Although never achieving anywhere near greatness, Harry Potter notched up some decent films (forgetting the first two), especially Alfonso Cuaron's third instalment, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004). It will be interesting to see where the three leads go from this, as none of them are the most gifted of actors, and it's a wonder if they'll ever manage to shake off the phenomenon that is Harry Potter. 


Directed by: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Matthew Lewis, Michael Gambon, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs
Country: UK/USA

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #32: 'The King's Speech' (2010)

There seems to be an ever-growing obssession with our monarchy these days. In the recent years of political blunder, the credit crunch, and the folly of Iraq and Afghanistan, people seem to be turning to our Royal Majesty and her ancestors for comfort, possibly harking back to the days when we were a super-powerful empire. Yet the press are never too far away from finding a way to criticise or unveil an unspoken truth. I've never known a subject that can be so simultaneously loved and despised in equal measure. The cinema-going audience remain eager however, with the recent releases of The Queen (2006), The Young Victoria (2009) and now The King's Speech proving critical successes as well as audiences flocking to see them.

Arriving just in time for awards season, The King's Speech has been heavily praised and awarded in equal measures. It depicts the struggle of Prince and Duke of York Albert (Colin Firth) to overcome his severe stammer. In an era where the radio was becoming a powerful method of communication between the monarchy and the general public, it is something of a worry to the Prince, who with his father's illness and his brother's dangerous love-affair with an American socialite, is looking at a possible long term as King. His dedicated wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) tries one last possible solution in unorthodox speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who methods prove trying for the short-tempered Albert. Soon enough, his father George V (Michael Gambon) passes away and his brother Edward (Guy Pearce) abdicates soon after taking the reign to be with the woman he wants to marry, and with the seemingly unavoidable conflict with Germany brewing, Albert must find a remedy to his affliction in order to speak to his people.

What struck me almost instantly about the film was the unique visual style. Not unique to film in general but to a genre that usually loves to linger on pretty dresses rather than trying to conjure up emotions through clever camerawork. Cinematographer Danny Cohen seems to trap Albert in a tight box, shooting up close and watching Firth twitch every muscle in his face. It's a very effective method, and alongside Firth's excellent performance, you get a feel of Albert's inner struggle and the overbearing pressure that is quickly building up on top of him. It also looks somewhat bleak. For a film that spends most of it's time in beautiful palace settings, it looks somewhat brown and drained of colour. It's almost as if it wanted to capture an age that we see mainly through black-and-white footage and sepia photographs. Critic Martin Filler described it as being 'steeped in strong tea' and he's bang on. It captures a certain Britishness that so many films in the genre attempt but ultimately fail.

It raked up the awards, taking the Best Picture and Best Director awards, as well as an Oscar for Firth and for the Screenplay. This did initially put me off, but I reset my attitude and hoped for an excellent film.. In a way, it is an excellent film, but hardly worthy of being labelled the best film of the year. The acting is excellent all around, the music, script and as mentioned, the cinematography are also outstanding. But there are niggling problems with the film that stuck with me and brought the film down. Minor historical inaccuracies aside, which always have to be accepted to a certain degree, I was puzzled with the insistence of including Winston Churchill's (Timothy Spall) character, who seems to be there for no other reason that for us to say 'oh look it's Churchill!'. The character just seems like a caricature and the scene which he is mainly involved in took place with someone else anyway. Also Edward's character has obviously been altered to make him more of a sneering villain, a man whose selfishness and disloyalty to his country has placed Albert in this avoidable situation.

A very good film all-round, notable for Firth's excellent performance as well as his supporting players who are equally as good. In a year full of strong films, I just don't think this is quite up to the same level. But I don't work on the voting board at the Oscars, so what do I know, right?


Directed by: Tom Hooper
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon, Derek Jacobi, Timothy Spall
Country: UK

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie