Slumdog Millionaire

Before I watched Slumdog Millionaire I was a bit wary of it. A lot of people have seen it and really like it, and I was worried that it was going to be a case of a movie suffering from over-hype and I wouldn't enjoy it. However, this wasn't one of those movies, and it lived up to the quote on the front of the DVD box: “the feel-good film of the decade”.

The film basically revolves around the Indian version of ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire?’ and starts off with the contestant being questioned about how he has got so far into the game. It emerges that he knows all the answers to the questions because of the experiences he has had throughout his life. He then takes to the stage for the next day, but overnight several things have changed in his life and the girl he has loved since he was a young man comes back into his life. When faced with the final question he does not know the answer, and elects to phone his brother. However, his lost love answers, and she does not know the answer either. He doesn't care about the outcome now and takes a guess, knowing that it will work out for him no matter what happens.

It’s a fantastic film, and one of Danny Boyle’s best works without a doubt. The flashbacks to Jamal’s early life provide a roller coaster of emotions through uplifting, funny and tragic, and the feel-good factor when Lakita comes back into his life is as enjoyable as the moment that you first hear that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father (no apologies will be made for spoilers there, if you didn't know that you must live under a stone).

I remember Dev Patel from back when he was in Skins, and it’s always nice to see an actor from your youth do well. In this he excels though. He firmly cements himself as a serious film actor in Slumdog Millionaire and, though I’m sure he will pop up on television from time to time, he has a glittering film career ahead of him. The children who play young Jamal are also fantastic, and a particular highlight is when he tries to get the autograph of a Bollywood star. However, Dev Patel takes the limelight, deservedly, for his ability to reach out and touch the audience’s hearts in Slumdog Millionaire.

The girls who play Lakita are very good as well. To begin with I wasn't sure about where the story could go with Jamal, his brother and Lakita, but then found that as it provided the backbone to the whole film, it was most enjoyable. The three of them seem immensely close until one night everything changes and the two brothers take two very different paths. Jamal’s devastation at Lakita following his brother makes the finale even more uplifting. As with the other two characters, the children who play Jamal’s brother are fantastic, but I wasn't so sure about the actor who played him in his older years. By this point I didn't really care what happened to Salim because I was more focused on the emerging plot with Lakita and Jamal.

My absolute highlight of the film though comes right at the end. Once they are together and the game show is over, Jamal kisses the scar she has on her face. This provides the perfect demonstration that, despite everything they have been through, both individually and together, he loves every single part of her and is just happy to finally be with her.

Slumdog Millionaire is the kind of film that, once you've seen it, you will rave about it. It’s a fantastic feel-good film, and can be watched with both family and friends. IF you haven’t seen it by now then I would encourage you to because it’s a cultural must-see. For me, it marks the start of the emergence of Indian-based films made for the public, which continued with The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. Slumdog Millionaire is a deserving Academy Award winner, and that should be enough for most people if you needed a reason to watch it.

Django Unchained

There was quite a lot of anticipation for the latest film from Quentin Tarantino. With some already excellent films behind him, Django Unchained was always going to be successful. However, its released was surrounded by a number of articles damning Tarantino for his comic use of violence and how he doesn't take serious issues such as slavery or the Holocaust seriously. I find that the best solution to this is as follows. If you don’t like the look of a film, don’t go and watch it. If you think it’s too violent, don’t go and watch it. If you think you might get offended because the film has slaves or Nazis in it, don’t go and watch it. It’s simple really.

The plot of Django Unchained is very enjoyable, and there’s no doubt that it’s an edge of your seat thriller, if you like Tarantino’s movies. However, there are some very similar plot lines to in his other movies, such as Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds, where there’s a main character who has a grudge to settle and kills a lot of people in settling that grudge. A man is freed from slavery, joins with a bounty hunter, kills people, and then tries to free his wife from slavery. The difference with Django is that it happens in a completely different setting. Imagine a Western which Tarantino would walk into and stamp his mark all over. Despite parallels to other films, Django Unchained is a different film, and it is a very good way to spend a couple of hours.

Having seen Jamie Foxx in ‘Ray’ and absolutely loving him, I was very interested to see how he would do in a Tarantino movie. He is very good, and has a very sinister air to his character. When the audience can almost ‘feel’ the character getting angry, and is anxiously waiting to see what happens, you can tell that the actor is doing something right. He delivers some of Tarantino’s one-liners perfectly. However, I did find the development of his character a little bit unrealistic. However, I then realised that it was Tarantino, the guy who can have a girl shot from one direction and have her fly off in a completely different direction. I found myself (unsurprisingly) rooting for Foxx, and overall liked the character he played.

I loved Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, and in Django Unchained he was every little bit as wonderful. His character, the bounty hunter, was quick-tongue, witty, sly, and determined. The scene where Django finally sees his wife again and she faints in shock is absolutely made by Waltz’s delivery of his punchline. I thought his character was very interesting too. The scene where he is making the deal with Candie just shows how principled his character is. I’m not sure he deserves his Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor though. Either way I don’t think he’ll win it, and I’m not trying to deny that he was fantastic in this film. It’s almost worth going to see just for him, which is saying something.

Leonardo di Caprio is one of my all-time favourites. Not because I think he’s an amazing actor, but because I just enjoy his films and his characters. He shows incredible versatility, and Django Unchained is no exception. As the wealthy Francophile owner of a vast number of slaves, he is very confident and arrogant. He hates to be made a fool of and seems to be very different to the historical view of slave owners, treating many of his slaves as his friends. However, there are some scenes which are just grim. He doesn’t bat an eyelid at one man being torn apart by dogs, and is more than happy to let two men fight to the death to see who is the better fighter. His acting is fantastic, but his character is better, and once again I found myself enjoying the time he spent on screen. He’s definitely one of Tarantino’s more interesting characters, and parallels can be drawn to Hans Landa in the way that he doesn’t show the typical historical attitude to the people Tarantino poses his character against.

Can anyone say a bad word about Samuel L Jackson? He is once again, absolutely incredible in Django Unchained, and the audience is left a little bit unsure as to what his role is in Candie’s life. He raised him, and also runs his house, but Candie seems to respect his opinion over and above many of the white men he employs. Jackson is as funny as Waltz in this film, and his sheer shock at seeing Django on a horse (and the following exchange between him and Candie) had me in stitches. However, his character is much more serious than that, and represents a major influence in the life of a white man, which at the time would have been largely unthinkable.  I largely agree with this article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/01/08/samuel_l_jackson_in_django_unchained_deserves_an_oscar_as_stephen_quentin.html) which promotes Jackson for the Supporting Actor nomination over Waltz, purely because he shows off his acting skills to the fullest in Django.

In terms of other Tarantino films, Django will never be considered as one of the best. That title will always, in my eyes, go to Pulp Fiction, with Reservoir Dogs a close second. I also don’t think it is as good as Inglorious Basterds, but I think it could give Kill Bill a decent run for its money. Having not yet seen Jackie Brown, I can’t comment on this, but Django Unchained will definitely be considered a classic Tarantino movie, and it’s definitely worth a watch. If you liked his other movies you will like Django, but if you don’t like violence, comic or otherwise, I’d steer clear. 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I was quite excited to see this film. I loved the Lord of the Rings films, and always thought that they should make a film of the Hobbit too. On a recent trip to Alnwick I decided that re-familiarising myself with the book would be a good idea, and I remembered how much I loved that too. So I was expecting quite a lot from the movie.

I wasn’t disappointed. The first instalment of the Hobbit series was entertaining, exciting, fast-paced and enjoyable. I was a bit sceptical at first about splitting it into three parts, but having seen the first part, I think it could work. It was a faithful translation of the book, with some bits added from Tolkien’s other works. The first part of the film tells of how Bilbo got involved with the Dwarf plans, and the first part of their journey, up to the point where the eagles save them from the goblin attacks.

There are several appearances from other Lord of the Rings characters. Ian Holm makes a welcome appearance as the old Bilbo, with Elijah Wood popping up as Frodo. Obviously, Gandalf and Elrond are involved in the story and so must re-appear, but both Galadriel and Saruman show in the movie. I really liked the way that the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring ties in with the storytelling nature of The Hobbit, and was very pleased to see Frodo appear again. However, when I first saw Saruman and Galadriel I was convinced that they were there to boost the cast a bit. However, after watching the scenes involving Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman I thought they had the potential to be really useful in providing a bit more background to the Lord of the Rings films.

Martin Freeman plays Bilbo Baggins in this film, and I loved him in this role. I thought he was brilliant, and perfectly managed to portray Bilbo’s lack of enthusiasm for the adventure. I especially liked the scene where the dwarves take over his house. His bustling captured Bilbo’s homeliness delightfully in my opinion. I am very much looking forward to seeing more of Martin Freeman as the films progress. I think it’s quite clear that Peter Jackson has an eye for casting, as Freeman is excellent in this role, and in an interview with NME magazine (http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/peter-jackson-martin-freeman-was-the-only-person/292825) Peter Jackson says that “Martin was the only person that we wanted for that role...before we met Martin”. I think he made a good choice.

In my blogs on Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King I think), I talk about how Andy Serkis surpassed himself in playing Gollum. Just when I thought he couldn’t get any better in the role The Hobbit comes out and just blows me away. Here we see a Gollum who is not driven to madness at having lost the Ring, but is happy and content knowing he is the only one who knows about it. Andy Serkis is supreme at conveying a more sociable Gollum, and once again, excels at performing the conflicts between his two personalities.

The way that the dwarves come across in The Hobbit is exactly how I pictured them as well. Richard Armitage is majestic as Thorin Oakenshield, and I predict big things for him in the future. He is able to convey passion, ferocity, drive and emotion with seeming ease. It was also good to see the dwarves Gloin and Balin, who are mentioned in the Lord of the Rings films. Gloin is the father of Gimli, and I liked the strong resemblance that they bear to each other. Balin is the dwarf who is buried in Moria, and it is easy to see from this film (and the book) why he is given such a special burial. His character is wonderfully played by Ken Stott, and I look forward to seeing more of him in the next films. A tip of the hat must also go to James Nesbitt, who pops up as Bofur.

Now before The Hobbit was released there was a lot of talk about the way Peter Jackson had filmed it. It used a higher frame rate than other films have used, and this was meant to affect the way it was perceived. I’m not sure whether it was because I saw the film in 3D but there were aspects of it that seemed really graphically poor. Fire, for example, always seemed really contrived, and there were parts of the motion sequences that seemed unnaturally sped up or like they were lifted from a PlayStation game (thanks to Tom Newbold for that little analogy).

Overall, The Hobbit is a good film. It has nothing on the Lord of the Rings movies, but it is still an enjoyable film. However, whereas the Lord of the Rings films can be seen by everyone, I’d say that The Hobbit should probably be watched by people who liked the original movies or books, because otherwise a lot of the intricacies of the plot might pass you by.

Lord of the Rings: Part 3

With the magnificent scale of the first two films there was a lot of excitement for the third film, and it delivered on to an unprecedented degree. It is the only one of the three films to win the Academy Award for Best Picture in its year, and it’s not hard to see why. The stunning conclusion to the trilogy is a marvellous piece of film making, tying up every loose end perfectly, and completing one of the most successful film trilogies in cinema history.

The plot carries on from the end of The Two Towers with Gollum leading Frodo and Sam to Mordor, but planning to kill them on the way. Also, the armies of Mordor are gathering strength and are ready to battle for the future of Middle Earth. We are introduced to Gondor, and the future of Middle Earth is ultimately decided. The scale of this movie is phenomenal, and the audience is never allowed to drift into boredom because there is always something happening.

Now, I am critical of this film in two main ways. Firstly, Frodo’s confrontation with the giant spider, Shelob, doesn’t happen in the Return of the King, but is in the end of The Two Towers book. I guess without the inclusion of this scene in the film there wouldn’t be much to do with Frodo and Sam in this film. Cinematic license once again defeats my criticism, and it’s a welcome addition to the film. My second gripe is another issue with the adaptation from the book. With the other two film adaptations, the bits left out of the book are understandable by their relative insignificance, however, at the end of the Return of the King, the Hobbits return to the Shire and find it is in the grasp of Saruman. I would quite liked to have seen this in the film, but I guess it doesn’t bring anything to the film, and so could be easily excluded.

The Hobbits themselves are the crucial characters in the whole series. The idea that beings so small are capable of destroying the greatest evil in their world, where Men and Wizards cannot is brilliant. As the main character, Frodo is seen to change massively throughout the series. If you look at Frodo at the beginning of the series, and then just before the end of the quest it can be seen how different he is. The credit here has to go to Elijah Wood who manages to make this a gradual development, rather than a sudden snap. Frodo’s friendship with Sam is another central theme of the movies, and Sean Astin conveys Sam’s devotion to Frodo perfectly. The touch of comedy that is added by Merry and Pippin lightens the tone of the films, but they too play a pivotal role in the films, and I especially like the scene in The Return of the King when, just before the eruption of Mount Doom, they are screaming Frodo’s name on the battlefield, and then the emotion they show when the mountain erupts.

Now Gollum is a tricky one. His character must have been difficult to cast, and Andy Serkis is pure perfection. He is such a fantastic and under-rated actor. While Gollum is obviously a computer-generated, I believe that the motion was actually provided by Serkis, and his dedication to the role goes above and beyond any other actor in the films. Also, the voice of Gollum (also Serkis) is exactly how I imagine him speaking. Andy Serkis surpasses himself in the trilogy, managing to play the two different sides of Gollum magnificently, and in relatively quick succession too. For me, the finest thing about the Lord of the Rings is not the location scouting, or the story, or the scale of the films, it is Gollum. People notice the character, but in my opinion, not enough credit is given to the actor.

In The Return of the King we are introduced to the Kingdom of Gondor. While it’s not our first contact with Gondor, it is the first time we see Minas Tirith, the capital. We are introduced to Boromir in The Fellowship of the Ring, obviously, but in The Two Towers we see Faramir. Faramir does what his brother could not, and lets the Ring go, and while he’s not in The Return of the King much, due to his being injured for a lot of the film, the scene where his father thinks he is dead and tries to cremate the both of them sticks in my mind. Faramir is a strong character who steps out of the shadow of his brother’s legacy and shows incredible bravery to ride out in an attempt to defend his city. His father, Denethor, is thoroughly unlikeable. A combination of his weakness as a ruler, his lack of defence of Gondor, his denial of Aragorn’s ascent to the throne, or his attempts to burn Faramir add up to leave the audience slightly glad that he decides to burn himself to death. It also means that some resistance to Sauron can be mustered. Gondor is talked of as a great power in the Lord of the Rings, and we don’t really see this until the last half of the last film, but when it does come to pass, a spectacular battle commences and this strength is finally seen.

The whole Lord of the Rings series is unforgettable as a series, and is unrivalled in terms of the production of nearly every aspect of the films. The special effects are something special, and tourism to New Zealand can only have increased as a result of the spectacular scenery seen in the films. The actors are incredible, and the story is told so perfectly that it is difficult to say bad things about the films. All three films have to be must see films, and they are all modern classic masterpieces.

Lord of the Rings: Part 2

As the second installment in the Lord of the Rings series, The Two Towers has quite a high standard to live up to. It doesn't disappoint either, with some epic scenes, battles and characters.

Once again, the adaptation from the book is excellent, and the combination of the spectacular locations, fantastic action scenes and marvelous special effects result in an epic film which continues where The Fellowship of the Ring left off in more ways than one. The battle of Helm’s Deep is directed and produced much better than any of the fight scenes in The Fellowship of the Ring, and it’s one of the only cinematic battles that I’ve cared about and passionately wanted the bad guys to be defeated.

For me, this film rightfully focuses on Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, and the relationship between the three is the foundation for this film. The competitive spirit between Gimli and Legolas, Gimli agreeing to be tossed by Aragorn, and the understanding between Legolas and Aragorn all reflect how three characters of different kinds come together to form one of the strongest friendships in the film. Gimli is a raw example of fierce loyalty to his friends, thirst to kill orcs and his character is actually quite witty. Aragorn is the kind of character that everyone loves, and this is easy to see why. If you haven’t read the books, I’d imagine you’d be rooting for him all the way through the series, and when he eventually comes to the throne of Gondor it shows how far he has come since stalking the Hobbits in Bree. Legolas adds a bit more quirk to the trio, and is more graceful (as an Elf) than the other two, but is, if anything, much more successful in battle than the other two. As an archer he kills more orcs than the others, continually outscoring Gimli. The three characters, and the three actors, really complete the films for me. Obviously there’s the central story of the quest to destroy the Ring, but the story around Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli is no less enjoyable.

When Gandalf is added into the mix there is a dry sense of humour added, as well as an increased sense of power and success to their mission. At the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, the three agree to find Merry and Pippin who have been captured by Uruk-Hai, and the story around them in this film revolves around them trying to trace them. This leads them to both Gandalf and the kingdom of Rohan. Throughout the series, Gandalf is a fantastic character who is loved by the Lord of the Rings fans. Ian McKellen portrays the wizard masterfully. I don’t really think there’s much more to say about him. Both the character and the actor are phenomenal.

The Two Towers introduces Rohan and its people. Rohan is under the grip of Saruman, and as a result, Theoden starts off The Two Towers as a weak old man. However, throughout the series he becomes a much more powerful leader and eventually leads his people in the Battle for Middle-Earth. I find myself warming more and more to Theoden throughout the films, but not as much as his niece. Eowyn is the classic example of a woman whose society demands that she cannot do something (go to war with the men), but who steps out against this and does it anyway, even encouraging a Hobbit to come with her. Her misplaced love for Aragorn is heart-wrenching for the audience, and when she eventually finds happiness with Faramir I was very pleased for her. I can’t work out what I think of her brother though. Eomer is sent away by Saruman’s puppet, Grima Wormtongue, at the beginning of The Two Towers but he doesn’t try very hard to fight this, riding away with some loyal soldiers. When Rohan is attacked he has to be summoned to come back and eventually win the Battle of Helm’s Deep. This doesn't seem very likely to me, and surely Eomer would have tried a bit harder to remove Wormtongue’s influence from Rohan. Nevertheless he is a strong influence in the final battle. Overall, Rohan is portrayed initially as a very weak kingdom, but grows in strength as the King gets more powerful.

Sauron is the overall villain in the series, and while being completely digital for the significant majority of the films, he is wonderful. The adaptation of Tolkien’s description of him is magnificently done, and the eye is quite imposing. Throughout the film’s Sauron’s tower gets more and more exposure, and the eye receives more and more work, with it moving around in the third movie. However, his second-in-command and his cohorts, the Witch-King of Angmar and the Ringwraiths, are terrifying. In The Fellowship of the Ring the black riders are very intimidating, and the Nazgul are very scary in the second and third installments  While Sauron is not one of the greatest cinematic villains, not in the same league as Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader etc, the way he is portrayed in the Lord of the Rings definitely increases his standing as a villain.

The Two Towers is another fantastic film, and after the epic Fellowship of the Ring it might have struggled, but there is no such difficulty. It is a marvelous adaptation from the book and has the most awesome battle of the whole series in it. It sets up the third film beautifully and definitely belongs firmly in the halls of epic films.

Lord of the Rings: Part 1

Now, I could review the Lord of the Rings films as a series, but that would be a very long blog and it seems that the done thing these days is to split something that could easily be finished in one into three separate installments  such as a movie adaptation of a popular book, so as to make more money. So this is what I’m going to do.

Obviously the place to start is with the Fellowship of the Ring. In my opinion this is the best of the three films because it’s most true to the book. Also, it’s the one I enjoy watching the most. The Fellowship of the Ring tracks the discovery of the One Ring and the start of the journey to destroy it. Frodo takes it to the Elves at Rivendell and then carries it with eight companions to between Lorien and Fanghorn Forest before their party is split up.

As an adaptation from the book, Fellowship is fantastic. When I first saw it, the characters were pretty much true to how I’d imagined them and the story was lovely and easy to follow. The initial trip to Rivendell is full of haste and panic, and the stalking of the party by the Black Riders was very tense. Beyond Rivendell, the journey of the fellowship was perfectly told in my opinion. For me, the highlight of the whole film is the scenes in Moria. These are dark, gloomy and delivered with perfection by Peter Jackson. As the first film in a trilogy which had so much expectation behind it, The Fellowship of the Ring did not disappoint even slightly.

There are too many characters in the trilogy for me to deal with on a film-by-film basis, and I’d be repeating myself a bit too much, so I shall deal with them bit by bit, but considering the whole series, starting with the Elves. True to the books, the Elves are graceful, peaceful and elegant, and the beauty with which they are all blessed with makes them a joy to watch in the series. Elrond is wonderfully played by Hugo Weaving and comes across as stern, loving, fierce, gentle and majestic throughout the film. He is undoubtedly wise and is generally motivated by two desires: to see the Ring destroyed, and to protect his daughter. Moving on to Arwen, Liv Tyler manages the same array of emotions as Elrond, with grace, beauty and fierceness all present. Her choice to live as a mortal just so she can be with Aragorn is possible the greatest expression of her love and Liv Tyler portrays Arwen wonderfully. Similarly, Cate Blanchett is masterful as Galadriel and makes a fitting narrator to the story.

Boromir is another wonderful character as well. His death is one of the saddest bits of cinema in modern times. He epitomises the way that Men are portrayed in the films, as both strong and weak, and easily tempted by the power of the Ring. Sean Bean is a fitting actor to play Boromir, and throws himself in to the part, so much so that the audience goes from dislike to like very quickly at different points in the story.

When I read the books I wasn’t clear as to what the Uruk-Hai actually were, and how they differed from the Orcs etc. The Fellowship of the Ring made this so much clearer. The Uruks that are created are hideously sinister, and are fearsome villains throughout the series. I particularly enjoy seeing the Uruks being ‘born’. Saruman is a fitting commander as well, and comes across as deviously treacherous, obviously what was intended. As Sauron’s puppet he instructs much of the early rise of Sauron’s strength, and his head-to-head with Gandalf represents the clash of two magnificent powers. His eventual comeuppance is extremely satisfying to the audience.

The soundtrack to the three films is utter perfection as well. It’s one of the few soundtracks that is a lovely piece of music when it’s not accompanied by the film. In my opinion it’s a cinematic masterpiece and definitely makes the films what they are as much as the cast or the special effects.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a fitting opening to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It sets the standard for the films to follow and remains wonderfully true to the book while producing a piece of cinematic gold.

Blades of Glory

In my opinion Will Ferrell is a fantastic comedic actor. He delivers his lines with perfect comic timing and delightful emotion. While he is generally the same in most movies, he still makes me laugh every time, and Blades of Glory is no exception.

The plot revolves around figure skating, which immediately sets the stage for the comedy. There are two figure skaters, argued to be the best in the world, one really masculine (Will Ferrell) and the other quite feminine (Jon Heder). At the Winter Sport Games they both share top spot, but this causes a fight and they are both banned from figure skating for life. A loophole results in them being allowed to engage in paired skating though, and so they are paired together. This too sets the stage for many funny moments.

The antagonists in this film are the brother and sister skaters who dominated paired skating and conspire against their compatriots to ensure they remain victorious. The climax of this plotline is Will Ferrell and the male half of this duo chasing each other through the venue in their ice skates. Naturally, both Will Ferrell and Jon Heder’s characters manage to get over their disdain and dislike for each other and win the gold medal that they both desperately crave. It’s not the kind of comedy that you have to engage with to understand, and you can definitely dip in and out of it.

As I say, Will Ferrell is brilliant. I am yet to find a film with him in a lead role in which I do not find him immensely funny. Blades of Glory is no exception, and in his role as the more masculine half of the duo he shines. For me he was the stand out actor in this film. He even manages to play a sex addict convincingly without poking insensitive fun at this condition. As expected, he is fully believable in the role he plays: impressive when you consider that he has also played a news anchor, a regressive adult, and an elf, just to name a few. If nothing else, Will Ferrell is the reason to watch this film.

Nevertheless, he is not alone in this film and Jon Heder also shines as Jimmy, the more feminine half of the duo. Throughout much of the film the audience finds itself feeling sorry for Jimmy. Either because he is the better skater, or because he is hopelessly in love, or because that romance doesn’t go as planned, or even because he is chained to a toilet and has to eat toilet paper in order to free himself. Jon Heder manages to make this victim element very convincing and improves the whole dynamic of the relationship between his and Will Ferrell’s characters.

The three van Waldenberg siblings are also a source of hilarity. The obvious sexual tension between Stranz and Fairchild climaxes in an incestuous kiss, which left me slightly stunned. Also, they are both thoroughly dislikable, directly contrasting with the lovely Katie, Jimmy’s love interest. She is the typical little girl who is under family rule until love makes her break out. However, this too is quite funny, and her seduction of Will Ferrell is very funny.

Overall, Blades of Glory is quite good. It’s not the funniest film I’ve ever seen, but it’s not the most ridiculous comedy in the world. It’s an easy going film which deals with a potentially funny sport, and delivers comedy with wonderful ease.

Gladiator

Gladiator is another historical drama epic film based on fiction. It sees Russell Crowe playing a fictional Roman general attempting to avenge the murder of his Emperor, wife and son. As Maximus Decimus Meridius he threatens the power of the new Emperor by his success in the gladiatorial arena. It’s another Ridley Scott film, but unlike Robin Hood, it cements itself as a historical classic through its plot and cast.

The film basically starts by showing how successful and popular Maximus is as the general of the Roman armies of the North. He is loved by the Emperor as a son, and this prompts his actual son to get jealous. When Commodus murders the Emperor, Maximus is outlawed because he would be too dangerous a threat to Commodus. Maximus survives the attempt on his life and discovers that his wife and son have been killed by the new Emperor and is captured by Proximus to be entered as a Gladiator in a series of competitions. He fights his way through these contests and up to the Colosseum where he wins the hearts of the Roman public and eventually kills the Emperor, dying shortly afterwards.

The plot is very good. While it’s not full of twists and shocking moments, it’s not predictable and this is good. Additionally, in terms of CGI, it’s very good. The creation of Ancient Rome is wonderful and makes this portion of the film completely believable. The script is well written and the cast is well chosen. However, as with many historical films there are some problems. Granted, cinematic license is a consideration, and changing the way that Marucs Aurelius died (from plague to murder) just sets up the story. However it’s the simple things that give rise to my issues. The name ‘Maximus Decimus Meridius’ does not reflect Roman names at the time. Some changes are made for cinematic license, yes, but in some cases, directors need to listen to their researchers and reflect the times that the film is set in. However, it is a deserving Academy Award winner for Best Picture beating some fantastic films.

The soundtrack is hilarious though. I think watching ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ before I saw Gladiator was a mistake, and as soon as it was pointed out to me that Hans Zimmer had written the scores for both films the Gladiator music sounded exactly like the theme to Pirates. Obviously the piece is Hans Zimmer’s production, but he could be a bit more creative than just slightly re-hashing one piece for another set of films.

Now I don’t actually like Russell Crowe in this film. Actually, I can’t stand him as an actor. I only really like him in ‘A Beautiful Mind’, and most of the time I just find him wooden and sullen. In both Robin Hood and Gladiator I think that he struts around in armour, delivering his lines with shocking two-dimensionality and no depth to most of his characters. His character is exceptionally likable in Gladiator, but in my opinion he is not. The classic scene, where he reveals himself to Commodus in the arena, and where he is fighting Commodus at the end, are the only two examples of where I like Russell Crowe’s performance. I’m not sure how Russell Crowe won the Best Actor Academy Award for this role, and can only assume that every other leading actor in this year just didn’t perform at all.

Joaquin Phoenix is a brilliant villain here. He is brilliantly sinister and ever so slightly creepy, and for me is the stand out performance of the film. He manages to portray the twisted, jealous and ambitious Commodus with absolutely precision. Unlike Crowe, his character seems to have layers and different aspects to it. He is a power hungry man who just wants to have Rome under his control. This is perfectly reflected in his stabbing of Maximus before their fight: an underhand move designed to make him succeed in front of all of Rome, quashing their little rebellion against his power.

Gladiator is a classic epic historical film, a deserving Oscar winner and one of those films that everyone should see, preferably before they watch the Pirates of the Caribbean films otherwise the soundtrack will be too distracting. It’s a wonderful and enjoyable film which not even Russell Crowe can ruin.