A Beautiful Mind

Now regular readers will know that I am not Russell Crowe’s biggest fan. If I’m honest I can’t stand the guy. In the vast majority of roles that I've seen him in he is wooden and bland, and I don’t like him as a person. However, A Beautiful Mind is the exception to this. This is the Academy Award winning film about the life of John Nash and his struggle with schizophrenia.

John Nash starts off as a student of mathematics at Princeton and immediately the audience sees that he is a very dedicated and hard-working individual. He is striving immensely hard for an ‘original idea’ in order to revolutionise his field. His room-mate is his polar opposite, but they get along very well despite him not getting on well with other people. During his teaching of a class at Princeton he meets a student in the typical manner – she is the one who challenges the teacher. After he finishes at Princeton he becomes a codebreaker and is subsequently sought by the secret services to break a Russian code about a bomb that is planning to be dropped on America. He has since married Alicia, the student in his class, and they have a son. However all is not what it seems, and she begins to get suspicious of his behaviour, calling in a psychiatrist to help him. He is subsequently diagnosed with schizophrenia and we wee how his life is dramatically affected by this. His room-mate at Princeton, his room-mate’s niece and the secret services agent are all revealed to be hallucinations, and Nash’s life begins to fall apart. After an incredibly long struggle with his illness Nash is awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution to modern business and economics, and this is a heartwarming conclusion as he dedicates his achievement to his wife who is ‘his reason’.

Now, much as it pains me to say this, Russell Crowe is absolutely incredible in A Beautiful Mind. A few posts back I compared Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean to Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man and Robert de Niro in Awakenings. Well now Russell Crowe can be added to that list. He is spectacular at getting the little parts of the character right. His gait and the manner in which he walks so consistently throughout the film is brilliant, and his speech and accent, which I have criticised Crowe for before, is almost nailed on throughout the movie. Despite being a thoroughly unlikable character, the audience immediately takes to John Nash as the underdog of life, and Russell Crowe brings a strong sense of engagement and emotion to the role. The emotions that Nash experiences when he is first committed is conveyed beautifully by Crowe, and even better is his emotion at the end. I watched  A Beautiful Mind recently with my Mum and she was saying how tragically sad it is at the end, and I agree. I can only praise Russell Crowe for his acting in this film, and am genuinely surprised that he missed out on the Academy Award for Best Actor. Having said that, I haven’t seen Training Day, so I can’t possibly comment.

Jennifer Connelly plays John’s wife, Alicia Nash, and she does a very good job. By no means can it be easy to play the wife of a schizophrenic man, and Connelly does fantastically well to convey the emotion, frustration and difficulty that this illness brings to the lives of everyone affected by it. Now the film embellishes the finer details of John and Alicia’s marriage a bit. In reality they divorce during the stages of John’s illness, but John lived in her house after his was discharged. They re-married in 2001, but the film doesn't mention any of this. I think that whether or they were married doesn't matter though. To me, them not being married is incidental as she still devotes a substantial amount of her time to taking care of him. I wouldn't have tipped her for an Academy Award based on A Beautiful Mind, but I am not going to begrudge her it. She puts in a very good performance in a very tricky role.

The other supporting actors are fairly incidental, and like the other films with actors that steal the show, Ed Harris, Christopher Plummer and Paul Bettany sort of fade into the background. Their roles in the film aren't especially exceptional, and while none of them put in a staggeringly bad performance, they are massively overshadowed by the fantastic character that Russell Crowe creates. I cannot think of a single aspect of his character that I don’t like. From his dedication to his work, through his dismay at losing, his joking about hallucinations, his determination to ignore the hallucinations and his mannerisms when he reaches old age and is accepted and lauded by everyone I find his character so charmingly lovable that I am always rooting for him. It might be my background in psychology or the fact that this type of film is my absolute favourite, but I really like the character.

John Nash is undoubtedly a genius, and undoubtedly not enough people are aware of his influence. A Beautiful Mind is the opportunity to find out about someone you might not have heard about. If you have heard about him then it is an emotional and enjoyable journey through the struggles of a man whose difficulties many of us cannot begin to comprehend. I rate this film so highly, and consider it to be one of the best winners of the Best Picture award. There is no-one that I wouldn’t recommend it to, and would encourage everyone to watch it. I myself watched it again yesterday, and already I want to see it again.

Les Miserables

When it was released, I was very keen to see Les Miserables, but unfortunately didn't get the chance to see it. When I did get the chance to see it I was looking forward to what promised to be a fantastic film adaptation of a musical that I have never been fortunate enough to see. However, by the time I had sat through the entirety of the film I was bitterly disappointed.

There is no denying that the plot is fantastic, and would look absolutely incredible in the theatre with the right direction. However, the film was, in my opinion, a very poor adaptation of this. It was long, and very drawn out, and I didn't think that it flowed very well at all. It was disjointed and difficult to see how it all fitted together. When Anne Hathaway appeared at the end of the film I felt it had been so very long ago that I was watching her struggle with the life she was confronted with. There was no explanation for many of the character’s actions. For example, why was Javert chasing Valjean for stealing bread and breaking his parole at least twenty years after the act had occurred? The film started really well, and I was very enthusiastic about what seeing the rest of the film. However, I thought it went downhill quite quickly. I’m well aware that I face the fury of the mega-fans of Les Mis, and am probably going to come across as uncultured in my criticism of this film, but I really didn't enjoy it.

Hugh Jackman is a fantastic actor, and this should not be news to many. In Les Miserables, he does not disappoint, and lives up to his acting past. He has an acceptable voice, but the main problem is that I didn't think he had any gravity to his character. There was no sense of him ‘owning’ the screen in my opinion, whereas there was with, and I cannot believe I am going to say this, Russell Crowe. Whenever Russell Crowe was on screen there was a certain level of tension. However, I was rooting for Valjean in his attempts to do what was best for Cosette. Now I’d like to point out that Russell Crowe having a presence on screen does not mean that I think he was especially good in this film. Actually, as ever, he royally annoyed me. He cannot sing for toffee, and was a poor choice to be cast as Javert for this reason. Recently it was pointed out to me that I can’t criticise the actors for being unable to sing in this film, because they are not singers. I think this is rubbish. While the film should have been cast more towards singers than Hollywood stars, the actors still accepted the role. Russell Crowe appeared similar to many of the previous characters he has played and was wooden and staunch in a role that deserved much more character.

The big talking point of this Les Mis film was Anne Hathaway, and she was incredible as Fantine. However, this was spoiled for me by the fact that she wasn't on screen for very long. No obviously this is not something that can be helped, because that’s the story. The emotion that Hathaway puts into ‘I Dreamed A Dream’ alone deserves the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, and there is very little criticism that I can bring to Hathaway for this role. She was the main reason that I enjoyed the first half hour of the film so much, but by the time she makes a re-appearance it seemed like half a lifetime ago that she was singing.

Both Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne do well in this film, and Redmayne in particular has a cracking voice on him. However, the film did not give enough time for me to care about the outcome of their relationship. Throughout their ‘courting’ I found myself thinking ‘But didn't they just look at each other?’ Now I’m sure this adds to the romance of their relationship, but I just felt sorry for Eponine, who had been in love with Marius before Cosette glanced at him. Nonetheless, Amanda Seyfried (who has a surprisingly difficult name to type) is actually quite perfectly matched to the role of Cosette and does a very good job.

In my opinion though, by far and away the best performances of the film come from Sacha Baron-Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. Both actors provide light relief and a touch of humour from the monotony of much of film. The moment when Baron-Cohen calls Cosette ‘Courgette’ was wonderful, and both characters are clearly meant as a more light-hearted addition to the cast. Having sat through much of the film, I was delighted to see Baron-Cohen and Bonham Carter re-appear at the wedding of Marius and Cosette. Anne Hathaway aside, I think these two characters were the two I enjoyed most.

There is no doubt that the whole soundtrack is exceptional, and the scale of the musical adaptation is incredible. But I just didn't enjoy it at all. I’m probably spoiled somewhat by the fact I haven’t seen the theatre production, but I thought the whole thing was poorly done. Just because a film has a grand scale, fantastic cast and wonderful costume and set design does not mean that it is fantastic, and after looking forward to seeing the film so much I was very disappointed by this version of it. Ultimately, a film should not have to rely on its audience having previously seen the production or read the book in order to understand who is who and what is going on, and this is the main criticism I have of this film.

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.

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.