The Aviator

The Aviator is a biopic about the aviation magnate and Hollywood director Howard Hughes. With Leonardo Di Caprio in the title role, Martin Scorsese directing it, and a supporting cast including Cate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, Kate Beckinsale and John C. Reilly, I was really looking forward to watching it.

Howard Hughes starts out as a director, and produces a few very successful films. Early on we see that he is completely devoted to this, and has a really need to get every aspect of his production as perfect as possible. This manifests later as profound obsessive compulsive disorder, but the early signs are there once you watch it back. After a very successful directing career he marries a woman (Cate Blanchett), but his successful lifestyle soon begins to causes their marriage problems. Hughes starts to focus on aviation and buys a large share of an airline company. Breaking a number of airspeed records, and experiencing a number of horrific crashes, Howard Hughes soon becomes a massive influence on aviation but then the cracks start to appear. His life becomes thrust into the public eye more and he becomes paranoid and compulsive. He is then investigated by the Senate and manages to defend himself successfully. However at the end of the film his compulsions become worse and the film end with him repeated ‘the way of the future’ over and over.

Scorsese is an absolute genius in my opinion, and has directed some of my favourite ever films. While The Aviator does not quite make the list, it is a very good film, and is fantastically made. For example, all the aeroplane scenes were shot using scale models because of the criticism that Pearl Harbor received for using CGI. This makes the film more of a spectacle, and makes it seem a lot more realistic. Scorsese’s impressive attention to detail shines through as well. For example, he made Cate Blanchett watch all the film that her character Katharine Hepburn had starred in up to the point of filming so that she could perfect her mannerisms. Not being particularly knowledgeable about Hepburn’s films, I can’t say whether or not Blanchett does a good job, but the level of devotion to perfection that Scorsese has (and indeed that Hughes had), is a hallmark of the best directors.

Di Caprio is wonderful to watch as the main character Howard Hughes. I really like him as an actor, and as a person, and think that The Aviator marks another example of his impressive skills. His perfection of the obsessive compulsive mannerisms of Hughes is brilliant, and while I don’t know how true to Hughes they are, he is very convincing when he displays them. Di Caprio conveys the fill range of emotions that Hughes experiences in the film with immense precision. When he is directing the films there is a sense of tension when something hasn’t gone perfectly, and when Hell’s Angels premiere’s the anxiety Di Caprio shows in anticipation of the audience’s reaction permeated through the screen (although that might just be me getting weird). He seems completely comfortable in the cockpit of an aeroplane, and Di Caprio’s ability to turn this joy and elation into sheer panic so convincingly completes the tension of the crash scenes. Since 2002, Di Caprio has appeared in all but one of Scorsese’s films and, given time, this could become as iconic a pairing as De Niro and Scorsese. Di Caprio’s acting stock is definitely on the increase, and The Aviator is just one example of why.

Although, it is not a film that is completely made by Di Caprio, and the supporting cast add an awful lot to the impact of the film. Cate Blanchett is fantastic as Hughes’ first wife, and manages her accent perfectly throughout the film. Her relationship with Hughes is intriguing. Although they may grow apart, when she comes to visit him in his isolation there is a sense that the chemistry is still there. Alec Baldwin plays Hughes’ main rival Juan Trippe, the chairman of Pan Am airways. His determination to impede the progress of the protagonist makes him a dislikable character in the film, and this is only compounded by the influence he has over the politicians. No-one seems to want to help Hughes succeed except those who he employs. Even then Hughes is suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Alec Baldwin comes to represent the people plotting against Hughes and the eventual defeat of the Senate investigation is one of the best moments of the film. A quick mention must also go to John C. Reilly. When I reviewed Carnage I think I mentioned how strange it was not to see him in a comedy role, and once again in The Aviator it felt a bit odd. However, he does very well and seems to be forging himself a more serious acting career. All the evidence so far suggests that this can only be a good thing.

The Aviator is not a high powered, joy-filled, rollercoaster of a film. It does have its ups and its downs in terms of keeping the audience’s interest. However, as with any biopic, it is an opportunity to find out a little bit more about something new, and if you get into it, it is thoroughly enjoyable. It is very long (just short of three hours), but if you have the patience to sit down and engage with it, I think it will be well worth your time.

Other films starring Leonardo Di Caprio

Django Unchained - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/django-unchained.html

The Great Gatsby - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-great-gatsby.html

Other films directed by Martin Scorsese

Casino - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/casino_28.html

Raging Bull - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/raging-bull.html

Another Scorsese-Di Caprio film

The Departed - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-departed.html

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 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.

Robin Hood (2010)

*May contain spoilers*

The time has come. Finally I'm going to write about a film that I did not enjoy. Robin Hood from 2010 has all the makings of an epic action film. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett in starring roles, Ridley Scott directing, and a budget of $200,000,000. The film itself wasn't too bad, but it should not have been called 'Robin Hood'.

The film was so completely unrecognisable from any Robin Hood tale I'd heard before. In a previous post I talk about how the history around Braveheart was written by Hollywood. In this case, the writing takes this on to a whole new level. I can accept a couple of historical inaccuracies for the sake of a good film, but Robin Hood is one mistake after another. There are many mistake involving the different helmet designs and the timings of certain events, and the relationships between different characters. This wasn't a disaster for me though, what ruined the film for me was the relation to the famous Robin Hood tale.

Everyone knows it. Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The Sheriff of Nottingham doesn't like him doing this and tries to prevent it. There's a fantastic rivalry between the Sheriff's puppet Guy of Gisbourne and Robin Hood, and Robin eventually falls for the beautiful Maid Marion who is headstrong, independent and becomes part of his little band of merry men who live in Sherwood Forest.

This film completely betrays this myth. The Sheriff of Nottingham (played by the wonderful Matthew Macfayden) appears three, maybe four times, and doesn't speak much. Instead the main antagonist in this film is some guy called Godfrey who seeks to help the French army invade England. The main reason that there is so much turmoil in England at this time is because the King, Richard the Lionheart, is away at the crusades, but in this version, the King is killed and John comes to the throne.

Moving on to the character of Robin. I always thought that Robin Hood was a nobleman (Robin of Loxley) who was stealing from the rich in order to provide for the poor. Not only is he not a nobleman, but he is a common archer who is 'adopted' by Sir Walter Loxley, but he does not ever rob the rich for the poor. The biggest problem with Russell Crowe was his accent. I have absolutely no idea what it was. At one point it sounded Scottish, then Irish. It was awful.

Godfrey's character wasn't particularly believable either. I may have missed this, but I don't think his reason for committing treason was ever explained and he would not have been left to command the armies of the French. Another point is, at the beginning of the film Robin and his comrades are shown to be in France, and desert leaving a strong English army to pillage France. However, despite this, the French are also able to summon an army to attack the English. The fate of the soldiers in France is never explained, and the lack of French concern seems unrealistic.

The character of Marion was quite pleasing. True to the myth she is initially hostile towards Robin, but falls for him eventually. However, in this version, she was initially married to the real Robin of Loxley who is killed, and then is encouraged by Sir Walter to pretend that Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is her actual husband in order to ensure that she does not lose the land. I didn't realise there was any depth to their relationship at all until Robin declares that he loves her, and she goes off to join him and him men in the forest.

Potentially this film was designed as a prequel to a series of films, or even as a prequel to the legend. But the inaccuracies and problem that plague it make it unlikely that a second film would ever be endorsed. I think the script was re-written three times! Not the sign of an historical action masterpiece.

In my eyes, this film was poor. I love the Robin Hood legend, and for me, Prince of Thieves is the best depiction of the tale, but that's all to come. For now, unless you get stuck in chair and have your eyes forced open, try to avoid this film. Every time you think it might finish it doesn't, and when it eventually does finish you'll realise that that's more than two hours of your life you won't get back. In isolation it was an average film, for a 'Robin Hood' film, it was awful.