True Grit

I approached True Grit with a certain amount of eager anticipation - it's the Coen brothers doing a Western, it's Jeff Bridges, it's Matt Damon. And for once a film turned out to be pretty much what you'd expect - and that's pretty darn good.

Of course, there are some for whom the very idea of a new version of True Grit (and this is a new adaptation of the book, not a re-make of the John Wayne version - important distinction) is sacrilege. But despite the fact that it was the film that Wayne won an Oscar for, it wasn't the classic that it would be made out to be and can't hold a candle to true Wayne classics, like The Searchers. So there is room for improvement, and True Grit Coen-style delivers.

The script not sparkles with their usual wit, but also displays their customary ear for unusual speech patterns and period phraseology. The film looks beautiful, with Roger Deakins adding his usual beautiful touch to the cinematography, aided by some stunning landscape. Of the cast, Bridges has a ball as the drunk marshall Rooster Cogburn and Damon shows a deft comic touch as the Texas ranger version of Monty Python's "When I were a lad...", but the film really belongs to newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, the young girl who hires Cogburn to catch her father's killer. Despite her nomination for Best Supporting Actress, she is the real lead here and gives an amazing debut performance. Elsewhere there is good support from the likes of Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper as the movie's villains.

Its not a perfect movie - the snake pit sequence after the ostensible climax of the film seems slightly misplaced, but overall its a hugely entertaining and well-made film.

Overall - 8.5/10 Definitely recommended - a film that delivers what you'd expect and hope for.

Paul

Paul is the latest offering from lovable Brit-com duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (this time without writer-director Edgar Wright, who was presumably too busy off helping Scott Pilgrim take on the world). Pegg And Frost star as, well as themselves really - a couple of British Sci-Fi geeks on a roadtrip round the US's top alien sites when they pick up the eponymous alien (voiced by Seth Rogen) who is trying to get home.

As a comedy, its a slow starter - the initial Comic Con scenes feel too much like a love letter to the fans and as such lack any real bite (Jeffrey Tambor's bitter comic book writer has potential, but is underused), whilst the repeated running gag about people thinking they are a gay couple feels tired and overused on its first appearence, let alone repeated outings. Its only when get out on the road and meet Paul himself does the film really take off. To be fair, even then its never quite reaches the comic heights of either Hot Fuzz  or Shaun of the Dead, but rather like Pegg and Frost themselves, its rather charming and hard to dislike. Rogen hasn't been this funny in ages, probably since Knocked Up and he's joined by a host of other familiar faces - Jason Bateman gives good value as the Man in Black in hot pursuit, Kirsten Wiig is Pegg's disllusioned creationist romantic interest and Sigourney Weaver has fun as the big bad boss, amongst others.

Director Greg Mottola (Superbad, Adventureland) creates a good-looking film whose Spielberg references (both visual and verbal) successfully tread a fine line between homage and pastiche.

Overall - 7/10 It never threatens greatness, but is a charmingly funny and entertaining film.

The AV Referendum - why I will be voting yes.

The legislation has finally made it through the House of Lords fillibusting and we will have a referendum on 5th May. Both the Yes and No campaigns are kicking off and, to be honest, they're both talking nonsense so far.

The No campaign seems to be centring around nonsensical posters about needing maternity units and bullet proof armour rather than a new voting system. This is nonsense not only because on May 5th voters won't be given the choice of AV or a new maternity unit, but its also nonsense because the figure they are quoting £250 million has actually been plucked out of thin air and it has no bearing to any costs that anybody who knows anything about things has come up with.

Other stupid arguments against AV - its too complicated - no actually I think most of the UK electorate can cope with ranking things in order of preference. Also, there have been arguments that AV is more likely to produce hung parliaments (if that is a bad thing) - there is little evidence of that, it is, after all, not a proportional system and in 1997 would have produced an even larger Labour majority. As to the idea advanced by some (not the actual No campaign, but some Labour supporters) that we should vote No to punish Nick Clegg - that's just ridiculous. One way or another Clegg will be gone in a few elections, we may have the electoral system we vote for for some time.

That said, the Yes camp are hardly doing much better:
AV is fairer votes - not necessarily - see above about 1997 - it is not a proportional system and can disproportionately exaggerate big swings.
It will ensure that MPs are elected with 50% of the vote  - no it won't as it won't be compulsory to rank all candidates (it is in Australia, I think) so some (in some cases many votes) will not transfer, meaning that candidates can still get elected with less than 50% of the vote.
Every vote will count/it will do away with safe seats - not true and not true. Strictly every vote counts under First Past the Post (or alternatively only votes for the winning candidate count) - I don't understand what difference AV will make). As to safe seats, in most safe seats the winning candidate (the monkey in the blue/red rosette) will get over 50% on first preferences anyway, so AV will make no difference.

However, I will be voting Yes on 5th May for two main reasons:

1. A No vote probably spells the end to electoral reform for another generation - that would be a shame. Personally I would have preferred that they had started with reforming the House of Lords (an elected house using STV) but lets not give up now.
2. The preferential system of voting actually suits the way I approach things - I'm not rabidly pro-any party to the extent that I would say them and nobody else. I am probably more along the lines of being 70% in favour of one party, 60% in agreement with another. AV allows me to express this better - to say I want him, but if not him then her. For example, at the last election my preference would have been Green, with a second preference for Lib-Dem. I ended up voting Lib-Dem as I felt that under FPTP a Green vote would have no impact. Under AV I have more room to express a more nuanced opinion.

Of course, AV is not totally new to the UK. Scottish local councils are elected using STV, but when there is a by-election for just one seat, STV becomes by default an AV system. The results can be quite interesting - for one thing, the transfers do tend to go all over the place and not just in the directions you might expect. There have been 4 Scottish local by-elections since the last general election. 2 were safe Labour holds, although interestingly they failed to get over 50% despite polling over 40% on first preferences. The other two should have been SNP wins, but the transfers saw independant candidates take the seats despite trailing on 1st preferences. Its a different kind of democracy, but not necessarily a worse one.

Barnsley Central

The second by-election of the parliament takes place next week in Barnsley Central following the conviction of sitting Labour MP Eric Illsey for expenses fraud. Despite the reasons for the election, there is absolutely no way that Labour will lose the seat. They had a majority of 30% in May last year and that was a very poor result for them. This is ultra-safe Labour territory.

That said here's a guide to what the parties will be looking for.

Labour (May 2010: 47.26%). We shouldn't judge Labour's expectations by the result in May. As mentioned above, Labour have previously polled 77% in this constituency. Now they are in opposition with both the other main parties in a coalition which I can't exactly see going down a storm in this part of the world, I would say that anything under 60% would be a disappointing result for them.

The Coalition parties were neck-a-neck here last May, just 6 votes between them. Both will be heading backwards. I would expect the Tory vote to hold up a little better here than the Lib-Dem one - those who voted Tory (rightly or wrongly) will probably be less unhappy about the government they have ended up with. For the Libs it might be a struggle to stay in double figures percentage-wise.

BNP (May: 8.94%) The BNP almost doubled their vote here last May and comfortably saved their deposit. Again, I would expect them to be heading backwards - the likes of the BNP traditionally do better under a Labour government than a Tory one, the party is in something of a mess nationally and they no longer have the angle of being a protest against the government here - it being a safe opposition seat. In their favour, they have a female candidate, and women are supposed to do better than men in by-elections for some inexplicable reason. They will be hoping to save their deposit again and stay ahead of the other right of tory parties. Lets hope they do neither.

The other right of Tory parties. UKIP almost saved their deposit in May and will be hoping to break that 5% barrier this time with the only other female candidate out of 9. The English Democrats have no track record in the constituency, so its hard to call, but they will at least be hoping to beat the Loonies this time (unlike Oldham East and Saddleworth). Personally I think they will struggle to make ground against the higher profile parties in a crowded right field.

Official Monster Raving Loony Party will be hoping not to come last (which would make it two in a row avoiding the wooden spoon)

Independants - there are two independants - one Tony Devoy is local and stood here in May and got 1.6%. He describes himself as True Labour. As with the BNP - he's lost the protest against the Labour government angle - protesting against a Labour opposition is less effective, so will probably be heading backwards. The other indy is from Devon and is probably on a hiding to nothing here.

So my prediction:

Lab 65.2%
Con 12.6
LD 9.3
UKIP 5.6
BNP 5.1
Local Indy 1.0
Eng Dem 0.7
OMRLP 0.4
Indy from Devon 0.1

Never Let Me Go

Amongst the many films currently showing with Oscar and Bafta hype, this has been strangely overlooked, failing to garner a single major nomination. I say surprisingly as it is an adaptation of an award-winning novel by  Kazuo Ishiguro and stars two previously nominated actresses in the leads. It's also a much better film than many which have been nominated.

The story follows three children: Tommy, Ruth and Cathy (who narrates) growing up at Hailsham, a rather unusual boarding school. Its obvious from the opening captions that this is not quite the world as we know it and that these children do not have quite a normal life. The film is hard to define genre-wise, the source novel won sci-fi awards, but that might be doing it a disservice.

Tommy, Ruth and Cathy (who grow up to be Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley and Carey Mulligan respectively) share an unusual fate, a path already marked out for them. What is so effective here is that as it becomes clear what is going on, there is no great attempt to escape but rather the lostness of three youngsters trying to understand their existence and what is happening around them. Indeed, one of the more chilling aspects of this film is how little, other than the bracelets they wear to register in and out of buildings, this brave new world seems to be policed.

The acting is good - Garfield is solid, Knightley does well in bringing a fragile, human side to what could have easily been a dislikeable character. But this is really Mulligan's film and she does a superb job of anchoring the movie. Director Mark Romanek (whose previous feature One Hour Photo I really didn't like despite the critical acclaim) does a fine job as well - the film is beautifully shot and makes great use of its location. The overall feel is a melancholic, almost elegaic one, aided in no small part by Rachel Portman's beautiful score.

The end result is a thought-provoking rather than action packed drama. Two moments in particular are worthy of further reflection - the scene where Tommy and Cathy seek a deferment and are told about asking questions nobody wants an answer to and Cathy's poignant closing reflections.

Overall - 8.5/10 Highly recommended, beautiful, poignant, intelligent and thought-provoking drama.

The Fighter

The Fighter is a movie that comes with multiple award nominations and rather a lot of hype. Having seen it, I'd have to say that some of it is deserved and some not - if this walks away with the Best Picture prize at the Oscars it will be one of the biggest of numerous big Oscar travesties over the years.

What The Fighter is at root is a very cliched sports movie which ticks all the boxes -hero from a difficult background, initial defeat, gradual overcoming of adversity to eventual triumph snatching unlikely victory from the jaws of defeat. There's nothing particularly new or surprising here. The boxing scenes themselves are generally pretty well handled with the clanging exception of one awful montage scene.

What does raise this above the average are the performances and a script that peppers the true story with enough humour and pathos to keep it going. Christian Bale is garnering all the plaudits for his transformation into Dicky Ecklund (crack-addicted, former boxer, older brother of the hero) and now seems a likely winner of the Best Supporting Actor Oscar (in reality the part os almost co-lead). He's a hard character to like and can come across as rather irritating. Its only in the closing credits that you realise how close he comes to the original. Mark Wahlberg's much quieter performance as the true lead has been much less heralded but is no less good.

As to the women, Melissa Leo has been picking up the awards as the matriarchal head of this highly dysfunctional family. Leo is an actress I highly rate (see Frozen River for evidence), but her character here is litttle more than caricature in leopard skin and bouffant hair-do. Amy Adams (also nominated) is better as Wahlberg's barmaid girlfriend, but still doesn't have a whole character to work with. Neither should win the Supporting Actress oscar - one of them probably will.

That said what The Fighter is is a well made, entertaining and, at times, moving film. Its just not all that its cracked up to be.

Overall - 7/10 Underneath the hype is a solid, effective movie lifted by some great performances.

Putting the Cat Amongst the Pigeons

In the run up to this year's Scottish election, there is currently a deart of good polling as to what is happening. The trend in what polling there has been has been to show Labour moving ahead and seeming certain to regain control at Holyrood. A poll last month by TNS had them on a massive 49% on the constituency vote to the SNP's 33%. Speculation seemed to be limited to how close Labour would get to an overall majority.

And then MORI come out with a poll this week out of the blue which has the SNP marginally ahead in both votes, which would really stir things up heading into the campaign. But which poll should we be listening too?

Well, actually, to me, both look rather suspect - firstly the TNS poll puts all the other parties (except SNP/Lab/LD/Tory) at about 4% combined for the regional list. This is a slump from well over 10% for small parties last time (and last time there was a squeeze on them) - doesn't quite seem believable. Then there's that 49% figure which seems just slightly too high even for a phenomenal Labour performance and Labour are still a party in recovery, not riding the crest of a wave.


That said MORI has the SNP on 37% which is more than they've ever got in any election ever with no obvious reason for this high water mark. MORI also has the Lib Dems actually increasing their regional list vote compared to 2007, against a backdrop of them being in virtual free-fall since last year's General Election.


So with both polls seeming rather suspect and no other companies (as yet) interested in this election, the only safe conclusion is that things may be closer than we thought and we don't really know how its likely to play out yet.

Gnomeo and Juliet

The story of unlikely pairing coming together against all obstacles. And that's just the uniting of Dame Maggie Smith and Ozzy Osbourne in the same cast list. I can't imagine many people predicting in the heydays of Black Sabbath that Ozzy would one day be voicing an animated fawn for Elton John.

This film brings together the music of Elton John, the story of Romeo and Juliet and animated garden gnomes. Added to the mix is a hugely impressive array of British vocal talent from established thesps - Smith, Walters, Caine, Patrick Stewart, Richard Wilson - to the new stars (McAvoy and Blunt) and the comedy talents of Stephen Marchant, Matt Lucas and Ashley Jensen. And of course Osbourne and Jason Statham, who are both surprisingly funny.

The story is familiar to all (as the film acknowledges), but this puts a fresh spin on it. It looks good, is consistently funny, the songs more or less work. And yet it never quite takes off as it threatens to do - its funny, but never hilarious. So what you're left with is a solid animated film with lots of inventiveness but never  quite achieves that something.

Overall - 6.5/10 An inventively solid  and consistently funny film that falls a little short of what you feel it could have been.

Tangled

Last year's big Disney offering was a return to traditional hand-drawn animation, but with a take on The Princess and the Frog that was anything but traditional. The reviews were rather better than the audience figures and this year we're back to state of the art CGi animation and a story that (despite all the spin to the contrary) is very traditional Disney fairy-tale. You know how its going to go from moment to moment.

But familiarity is not always a big barrier. On the plus side the film looks good, with the effects for light and hair working very well. This being a version of Rapunzel, those are rather important elements. It also has a good sense of fun to it. It may be predictable, but its also funny and likeable. It has a good villain, who comes across more human than many of Disney's wicked witches, but is maybe more creepy for it.

I'm not sure whether we really needed too comedy animal sidekicks, though. Both have good moments, especially Maximus, the horse who thinks he's a bloodhound, but both tend to get lost towards the end of the action. Similarly the thug chorus are fun, but on screen too briefly for individual characters to really stand out. The songs are also decidedly average and unmemorable - Mother Knows Best being by far and away the pick of the bunch. But none of that amounts to a huge problem in a Disney movie.

Overall - 7/10 It won't live with the best efforts of either Disney golden age, but is a decent second rank effort which gives you what you expect from Disney.

Morning Glory (and The Mechanic)

Morning Glory is a film set in the world of Breakfast Television and is, in many ways, like its subject matter. Its light and breezy, nothing too heavy, flirts with the odd serious idea, but never develops them and is occasionally funny. Actually, to be fair, its more than occasionally funny.

Rachel McAdams plays a TV producer, impssibly chirpy, borderline ADHD, who is given the job of turning round a flagging Breakfast TV show. Her first step is to fire one of the hosts and coerce serious newsman Harrison Ford to become co-host (alongside Diane Keaton). Meanwhile Patrick Wilson is thrown into the mix to give the girls something nice to look at (because, lets face it, Harrison is past his best) and add a half-baked romantic subplot. The film does briefly flirt with ideas of news/information vs entertainment, before decidind to sit firmly on the fence and go nowhere with them.

So its lightweight - one might even say "fluffy" - but crucially (and unlike many other recent comedies) its both fun and funny! That and the fact that Ford hasn't looked this bothered in a movie for years. In the meantime he appears to have taken a class at the Clint Eastwood school of talking in a growly whisper, but he seems to relish the chance to play the curmudgeonly old anchor and there is a real delight in hearing him bark out lines like "I mopped Mother Theresa's brow during a cholera outbreak".

Overall - 6.5/10 Its lightweight fluff, but a whole lot funnier than many so-called comedies.

Also seen this week, but neither good nor bad nor interesting enough to merit its own post:

The Mechanic Jason Statham as a professional hitman, tricked into killing his mentor (Donald Sutherland) and out for revenge alongside the slightly psychotic son (Ben Foster) of said mentor. The opening sequence is well done and rather fun. Thereafter the movie is decent enough, Statham handles the action well and even at times does something approaching acting. The bad guy is a bit of a colourless non-event and the ending is one predictable twist too far. The set pieces work on the whole. All in all, its a solid action flick which probably takes itself a tad too seriously and is not as much fun as the trailer hinted at. 5.5/10