Review: Transamerica

It seems that to be a woman and prove yourself in Hollywood you must, at some point in your career, ugly up for a role. Charlize has done it, Nicole’s done it, Gwyneth pretended to be a fatty in that film where she was, well, fat. It seems that for the fairer sex you can’t make it in Hollywood unless you’re beautiful but you can’t be taken seriously unless you’re occasionally ugly. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule but more often than not, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

This time Felicity Huffman, of Desperate Housewives, does her cinematic duty and single-handedly carries an average film by acting her little behind off. When these girls take on the task they certainly know how to prove themselves, when that vital film role finally comes a-knocking, that is.

Bree (ho-hum) is a pre-op transsexual who is living out her life on her own terms and counting down the days until she can finally ‘get her dick turned inside out’. Her only real friend, from what we can gather, is her therapist who refuses to sign the final confirmation on her surgery until she chases up a random phone call she received the night before from a young man in a New York prison claiming to be her son. Bit tenuous? Yes it is but we go along with it because Huffman is doing such a good job.

When she arrives in New York she makes the last minute decision to lie about her true identity and uses the cover story of a missionary. Then begins ‘the road trip with a difference’ when she takes him back to LA with her after realising the abysmal state his life is in.

Director/screenwriter, Duncan Tucker holds nothing back when he creates the back story for this lad. Raped by his stepfather, he’s a male prostitute with gay porn ambitions, and a drug-using moody little fucker. Zegers’ performance manages to teeter on the right side of completely annoying but he remains rather two-dimensional. It’s a role one could imagine Edward Furlong playing in his younger years, although he would have done a far better job. That said, Zegers and Huffman do maintain a healthy, effective chemistry which develops over the course of the film.

Huffman’s character is both impeccably crafted and wonderfully executed. Never one to be a screaming queen, Bree is restrained, feminine and appears to effectively emulate a 1950s housewife whilst still being tough and able to demand respect from her wayward son. That Oscar nomination is well-deserved and it’s no surprise she nabbed the Golden Globe.

Yet, like so many films with blossoming potential, it soon unravels and it does so at its fastest when Bree visits her parents. The role of her mother is poorly written and is sometimes painful to watch. She also seems to cope better than expected with her son’s transformation given his/her lengthy absence with the door-slamming phase lasting only a few moments. From then Bree is only subjected to a few wails and snide remarks.

Had there been a less worthy actress (or possibly an actor) in the title role then this film could have fallen completely flat. Huffman carries it along and makes it watchable. Despite the restrictiveness of Bree’s character she still creates a sympathetic audience. Given this is Tucker’s first real film he shows a small light of potential, if he can learn from his mistakes.

Review: Shooting Dogs

When it comes to films like Shooting Dogs it’s desperately difficult to decide how to go about applying any subjective opinion to them. Although films are fundamentally entertainment, some also seek to achieve much more by educating and maintaining public memory. You can’t criticise films such as this in the normal way. Character development, the need for a love story and the absence of normal Hollywood formula become secondary to the re-telling of real-life events and doing so in an authentic, restrained manner.

Coming not long after the more-mainstream Hotel Rwanda, Shooting Dogs is another film set during the genocide of the Tutsis. Real locations and real people are used at a Rwandan secondary school which soon becomes a military base/refugee camp when the Hutu tribe set about wiping the Tutsis from existence, believing them to be plotting to usurp power following the suspicious death of the Hutu president.

Director, Michael Caton-Jones, tackles the subject with a very matter-of-fact approach. Avoiding getting too swept up in the overly-emotional aspect, though still effectively tackling the beliefs of a priest without seeming either preachy or cynical. John Hurt gives a commendable performance and newcomer Hugh Dancy, as a young, initially optimistic teacher, manages to hold his own. We are made to watch their ideals fall down as they watch friends hacked to pieces by machete.

Films depicting such tragic events will always fall under some form of criticism as they fail to satisfy the expectations of everyone who sees them. But Shooting Dogs still achieves its goal without struggle.

Review: Inside Man

One suspects this is going to be one of those films that causes division amongst critics, and possibly audiences too. If you’re a Spike Lee fan or feel that the highs sufficiently outweigh the flaws then you’re onto a winner. But, like it or not, this film is flawed.

Spike Lee it may be but a Spike Lee Joint, as a definition of a sub-genre, it is not. Gone are the poor neighbourhoods and the pizza parlours. Gone are the biopics of high achieving African-Americans. Spike Lee has made an action film complete with twists and fast-talking cops.

The film opens with a drive-through of New York streets set to Indian hip-hop with beats heavy enough to get the pulses racing. This may excite the audience and is a very effective piece of music to use but as the film continues we realise that it doesn’t quite match the tone of the film. It invokes ideas of racial disputes or explosive street scenes but none of these happen because Inside Man is about middle class people trying to steal money from each other whilst high ranking policemen try to stop them. There are no underdog heroes in the film but, aside from the opening music, there would be no cause to expect it.

Denzel Washington returns to work with Lee for the fourth time as the slightly-corrupt-yet-good-guy cop put in charge of bringing down a Wall Street bank heist. He gives a typically steady performance with his trademark of ‘saying powerful things at a high volume’ in full use and working order.

As another British actor currently rampaging his way through the American film industry, Clive Owen gives a scene-stealing performance as the eerily calm head bank robber. It seems the old tradition of British actors playing the bad guys will never die as, quite plainly, they’re just better at it.

Of course, this is no simple bank robbery, as the plot soon unfolds. The exquisitely-rich bank owner, played by veteran Christopher Plummer, is panicked by the presence of some damning materials about him which have been lying in a safety deposit box for 60 years. Not wishing to see his good name sullied he calls upon tough ‘fix it’ girl Madeline White to rectify the problem. Being a ‘Spike Lee Joint’, any actor who is called upon to do their duty responds without question and the natural choice for this role is, of course, Jodie Foster who happily seizes the opportunity to glam up for a role.

All parts of New York society get a mention and the cast come in the form of just about every colour and creed available. Although this feels at times contrived, it is refreshing to see a Sikh get a role in a film after the Muslims seem to have been hogging the limelight for so long. These wide representations are kept wisely light and Lee narrowly avoids the easy option of coming across preachy.

Similarly, Lee knows what to avoid when making films and his mantra of ‘avoid formula at all costs’ is mostly present here. This aversion of clich√© makes Inside Man all the easier to watch and plays its part in smoothing out the flaws.

The main fault with this film is certain, rather large plot holes which rear their heads. Why precisely the bank owner would choose to keep such damning material in his bank rather than giving it a good solid destroying many years ago is never answered along with a proper explanation of how on earth the robber pulled off the heist in the first place.

Essentially, Inside Man is a good film. Its plot reveals slowly without the tempo unravelling and the characters are all three dimensional and well written. A lack of real action may turn away certain hardcore genre fans but if you can ignore certain niggling parts of the plot then there’s plenty to like.

French Cinema

There's more to films than just Hollywood, you know. Catherine Gee scratches the surface of French cinema

By Catherine Gee

If you ask someone what they think of when you say ‘French film’ the first thing to usually tumble out of the responder’s mouth is Amelie. Agreed, when Jean-Pierre Jeunet made the charming Gallic wonder he put foreign cinema back on the map. It had always been there, of course, but a lot of people had forgotten.

You can easily associate many things with French films. Sex is one of them. There’s usually at least a bit of nudity, gratuitous or not. Possibly, they like reminding the world that they’re a relaxed nation. A slow-paced plot is often another feature, though it can vary widely. They’ve also been known to push boundaries infinitely more than us stuffy old Brits have.

Controversy

Ask anyone who was old enough to watch grown-up films in the seventies about Emmanuelle and a knowing, blushed smile will cross their face. Back in the day everyone knew about that film. Unlike Deep Throat of two years previous this wasn’t to be pushed into the porn category, though there was easily enough sex and nudity in it to keep any nymphomaniac happy. It starred the virginal-looking Sylvia Kristel as a young wife who was very sexually curious and not at all impartial to a bit a same-sex romping, nor a bit of public masturbation whilst lying in a hammock. Even today Emmanuelle is discussed as being a turning point in filmmaking.

The nineties and early noughties have also brought further controversy from that side of the channel. La Haine, one of those films which will burn itself into one’s brain, is a comment on poverty-driven problems including racism and extreme violence. The brutal nature of the film made it instantly notorious yet was widely acclaimed.

Even more controversial were Baise-Moi in 2000 and Irreversible (starring Monica Belucci) in 2002. The latter portrayed a rape scene that was shot in one take and lasts nine minutes. The film, similar in narrative style to Memento, is told backwards, starting out in utter chaos and rolling back to blissful happiness. Yet the final scenes seek to make the story even more disturbing. Two years previously Baise-Moi (translated as Fuck-Me or Rape-Me) had openly courted controversy with its porn-actress co-director and unsimulated, graphic rape scene along with vicious, unfeeling brutality. It was the first to combine an erect penis with scenes of violence. The film is banned in Australia, Ireland and New Zealand and was only allowed in Britain with ten seconds’ worth of cuts which included the more graphic view of the rape.

Beauty

But don’t be thinking that French cinema is all about the controversy. They pride themselves on art house films and have influenced many a mainstream filmmaker. French actresses are renowned for being flawlessly beautiful whilst containing a risqu’e streak.

Sophie Marceau (The World is Not Enough, Braveheart), Isabelle Adjani (Possession), Fanny Ardant (The Woman Next Door) and Catherine Deneuve (Repulsion) can all stop many a man’s heart with a mere glance. But it is probably Brigitte Bardot who best sums up their striking effect and the French New Wave. She personified the wild, sexy but innocent appeal that can entice so many men. Her ‘explosive sexuality’ was considered a bit too raunchy for Hollywood, not that that stemmed her global impact any. Her films were dubbed for an English-speaking audience and she was incessantly hounded by the media wherever she went.

New Wave

Bardot was cast by New Wave directors such as Jean-Luc Godard in art house films which have had a phenomenal effect on filmmaking today. They experimented with editing techniques, narratives and visual style and adopted an iconoclastic approach traditional cinema. Prestigious Hollywood directors such as Martin Scorsese, Brian DePalma and Francis Ford Coppola have admitted taking ample inspiration from the French films of the 1960s. Quentin Tarantino’s production company A Band Apart was named after the Godard film Bande ‘a Part and its dance scene was a direct influence on the sequence performed by Mia Wallace and Vincent Vega in Jack Rabbit Slims.

Others

Since the 1960s French cinema has rarely dipped in global respect. The Three Colours Trilogy starring Juliette Binoche is rates highly in many people’s favourite films and Luc Besson (Fifth Element, Leon) is one of the most popular writers and directors today. Few who’ve had the good fortune to watch his masterpiece The Big Blue will deny it’s hypnotic beauty.

Yet this has all merely scratched the surface of an entire nation’s filmmaking and there’s plenty more to be had should the urge take you.

Watch This Face

He has starred alongside some of the most prestigious Hollywood actors but who exactly is Hugh Dancy? Catherine Gee finds out

By Catherine Gee

Hugh Dancy is currently being promoted as the next ‘one to watch’ hoping to follow in the footsteps of fellow Brits Clive Owen and Hugh Grant to a career that could rival any aspiring actor who was lucky enough to be born in LA.

For someone few people have heard of, Dancy’s working career has included films with Helen Mirren, Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, Jessica Alba, Brenda Blethyn and Bob Hoskins amongst others. But, considering his latest film is a starring role alongside John Hurt in the powerful Shooting Dogs, the 30-year-old actor from Stoke is rather laid back about it all. “I thought I would be star struck by John but he turned out to be distinctly unfrightening. I remember doing one tricky shot which was a continuous take that involved lots of extras running around and was all quite hard to choreograph so we did it about 15 times.

“But you know when you get it right you really feel a sense of satisfaction and I remember him singing Elvis songs and thinking that’s great that someone loves their job as much as that after a fairly substantial time of doing it.”

The film itself is set in Rwanda during the genocide of the Tutsis. Dancy stars as a young teacher in a school which soon becomes both a military base and a refugee camp. “I wouldn’t say it was harrowing to film. Of course there were days that were more difficult and there were moments which, just because they were in Rwanda by definition you would hear some terrible stories. Day-to-day it’s a matter of working so you’re just concentrating on finishing the day’s shooting, it was only when I came back that I felt more like I had an emotional hangover. You finally have a chance to sit down and absorb what you’ve seen.”

Any film which deals with such powerful subject matter is automatically under great pressure to tackle it responsibly without undermining the struggle of those involved or falling into overdramatisation. “It’s a tricky subject to approach in any way but I think it’s really well balanced. You don’t see too much that you become desensitised to it even though it’s very clear what’s going to happen. I think also what I’m pleased with is it’s not trying to ram home any political points. It’s just entertainment even if it is entertainment of a more thought provoking type.”

After finishing the shoot in Rwanda, Dancy then appeared briefly in his second Michael Caton-Jones film which, as something of a change, is Basic Instinct 2. “It was a contrast, though I was only there for three days. It was the same bunch of people from Rwanda, so one minute I was in the sub-Saharan desert and the next in the east end of London in a load of fetish gear.”

The idea of Dancy in fetish gear is surely something that will appeal to his legions of teenage fans who have sprung up on the internet, to which he admits he is “flattered”. He has a particularly kind demeanour which will win him many more as his fame grows, though he hasn’t had to deal with much of it directly yet. “I did get stopped the other day by a girl. She asked who I was and then she immediately ran out of things to say so she just said ‘Um‚ keep things up for British acting!’ It was very funny but actually really sweet.”

The Inside Man

Catherine Gee talks rap artists, actors and future plans with famed director Spike Lee

By Catherine Gee

As far as film directors go Spike Lee is something of a legend. He may be small in stature but his presence is by no means diminutive. When this man talks, people cling to his every word. His films have won accolades around the world and his seminal work Do The Right Thing, back in 1990, had a brief affair with an Oscar nomination.

His latest release is The Inside Man, his first real foray into the action genre and is set during a bank hold-up. Once again Lee teams up with Denzel Washington, their fourth time together, and casts Clive Owen as the bad guy. “With a star like Denzel you don’t dictate what role he plays, so I said ‘look there’s two roles in it, the bank robber and the good guy.’ So he said, ‘Spike I want to be the cop because in the other role the guy’s face is covered up.’ Then it turned out when I gave it to Clive that was first thing he said ‘Spike I wanna do it but my face is going to be covered the whole movie.’” Fortunately Clive agreed to do the part anyway. He’d impressed Spike in a previous role he had played. “When I saw his role in Closer, that’s what cemented it. We needed a man that could stand up to the sort of man that Denzel was.”

Back in his youth, Lee’s films were based around life in ‘the ‘hood’ and the ongoing tension that bubbles within it. He wrote about what he knew and the place he grew up. There’s a scene in The Inside Man where a young black kid is playing an extremely violent, gangster-based PSP game and Clive Owen’s character comments on its brutal nature. “I saw the ability for some social commentary in this film,” he says in his familiar, measured tone. “In reading the script I was looking for ways where I could slip stuff in. There is this boy and it would make sense for this young kid to have a PSP. So I found this young animation company and gave them this scenario of a game as ‘the most violent game ever’. They came up with the one you see in the movie. I love that line that Clive Owen says, ‘I’m going to have to talk to your father about this game’.”

Indeed, though his films have always been accomplished works regardless of their subject matter, Lee seems to have grown up since his days of She’s Gotta Have It, multiple Nike endorsements and rubbing ice cubes over Rosie Perez’s naked breasts. He’s not impressed with the violent nature of much of today’s media. “In San Andreas [the Grand Theft Auto game] you get points for shooting prostitutes and cops, it’s crazy. I think the film is being critical of things like that.”

His view also remains the same when it comes to music. “If my kids must listen to a gangster rap album they listen to a clean version. I don’t think any musician should be talking to them like that. The subject matter never changes; they’re just talking about being on MTV and being from the streets. Ten years ago you were talking about the same stuff so where is your growth as an artist? Before you were wearing gold, now you’re wearing platinum; before you were driving a Benz, now it’s a Bentley. It’s the same thing. That’s why I’m such a big Kanye West fan, there’s some content. I’m not saying he’s perfect, he loves the clothes and the cars and stuff but you can tell he spent some time on his music. How much time does it take to say ‘bitch ho, bitch’?

So, if 50 Cent isn’t his thing, what sort of music does Spike listen to? He’s quick to answer, “I got lots of stuff on my iPod. John Coltrane, Springsteen, Sinatra, Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, the Spinners, Tribe Called Quest, Public Enemy.”

Yes, Spike Lee certainly is more grown up than he used to be. But fans needn’t fear, he still knows how to get that adrenaline racing.

Sarah in the City

Catherine Gee discusses relationships, family and future plans while on her London lunch date with Sarah Jessica Parker

By Catherine Gee

Despite her face being synonymous around the world with the name Carrie Bradshaw, Sarah Jessica Parker has been making films for 23 years. She started her first role in a major film in Footloose back in 1984 and has since been loved in Flight of the Navigator, Hocus Pocus, Ed Wood and Mars Attacks! Yet, all this was nothing compared to what would happen when she took on the role of New York columnist Carrie Bradshaw in the woman-led tour de force that was Sex and the City.

Now that the programme has finished its six season run, Ms Parker has been left to pick up her film career and carry on without the comfort of a regular job. “It’s been really scary leaving the show,” she says with surety. “This endless gypsy-like life where I am like the new kid at school all the time, which for some people is really easy, but for me it’s not. I don’t really like change and I like everything to be the same constantly, except I love being terrified.”

Despite finding the whole experience daunting she doesn’t feel it gets in the way of her choosing what roles to play. “I aim to do something new that seems challenging to me. I consider what story I haven’t told, what person I haven’t played. I like the idea very much of just trying to play characters I haven’t played before in unfamiliar environments alongside new people.”

In choosing the films to make, it would be easy to imagine that she has become typecast as her Sex and the City character, but Parker disagrees. “It’s up to me to make smart choices. I have plenty of opportunities and I have had plenty of chances to play a mediocre version of the story that we told for so long but I don’t really have an interest in that. I don’t think my character in Family Stone was anything like Carrie Bradshaw, I don’t think Paula [in Failure to Launch] is anything like Carrie Bradshaw and I don’t think the part I played in Spinning Butter is anything like Carrie Bradshaw. I feel very lucky at the moment.”

In Failure to Launch she stars alongside Matthew McConaughey as a woman hired by McConaughey’s parents to make their 35-year-old son finally move out of their house. “I was actually quite concerned about the title,” Parker smiles.

It’s a common theme in romcoms that women enter into relationships with the belief that they can change the behaviour of the man they are seeing. “I would say that anyone who thinks they can really change another person, let alone a man, is slightly misguided. I have so many single women friends who date men who have big warning signs all over them and they really feel they are uniquely skilled in some way that they will be the person who finally fixes all these flaws. I personally find men far more complicated and interesting than that,” she adds with a flirty grin.

Aside from the film raising the ‘issue’ of Peter Pan syndrome, she still wants to offer her son the same kind of home comforts. “He already knows that when he’s married he’s supposed to come home every Friday no matter what his wife says and have dinner with me. We’ve already decided his wife’s name will be Mary.”

Should she find herself in the same situation, however, she will always have the DVD of this film to show him, though she feels that’s a little brash. “At the age of three it’s really hard for me to imagine letting him leave the house let alone forcing him out the door with a DVD of mine. It’s going to be a pretty tough pill to go out to the world and live in a studio apartment but that’s one of the beautiful challenges of being an adult and being independent. I can see why it’s very appealing to live at home but I would also say to somebody it’s equally thrilling to stand on your own and grapple with life’s complex and difficult situations.”

Such grown up situations meet us all in life and we always end up having to do something we don’t especially wish to do. In Parker’s career that situation is paintballing. “I’m boring, I guess. Matthew is very athletic. He’s really skilled, He’s a real outdoors person, I’m a real city person. But, you know, I got to do the paintballing and now I never have to do it again.”

Potter Returns

It’s happened, he’s arrived. Potter is back for the fourth time and it’s all change at Hogwarts.

All of a sudden the kids have begun to notice each other. In that way. Yes, the rude way. Watch out mums and dads, there may be some hopeful glances and sexual tension in this flick. Hermione has not only turned into something of a hottie but we also have to contend with the casting of brand new hotties in the characters of Fleur Delacour, Cho Chang, Victor Krum and Cedric Diggory. That’s potentially one rather titillating night out, but fear not folks; it’s still a family film. Now that he’s the grand old age of 14, Harry has to battle with a whole new evil: girls. The Yule Ball is coming up and he has to find a girl to ask and then get her to say yes. And does he manage it? Of course not, he is a boy after all and them being not wonderfully great at ‘getting things done’ he and Ron get stuck with two girls whom they have not even a passing interest in.

To find the girl to play the character of Harry’s crush, Cho Chang, the film-makers trawled through 5,000 potential actresses and came up with the one with the least acting experience of all. That being none. Not a scrap. But she must have been doing something right. The role went to 18-year-old Katie Leung and very nice she looks too.

Another change that’s been made for the fourth film is the hiring of a British director. Yes, really. After three films using an American and then a Mexican the powers-that-be finally decided to use a homegrown man to make the homegrown films. And this ain’t just any British director. Oh no, we have the only man who’s been smart enough to cast Johnny Depp and Al Pacino in the same film (Donnie Brasco). Yes, really. He also made the it’s-cool-to-slag-it-off-but-you-know-you-like-it-really Four Weddings and a Funeral. In other words, this is not just a kids’ film. It has not been made to imitate a normal kids’ film and it’s also been giving the rating of 12A. Meaning that it’s not necessarily appropriate for anyone who isn’t in the beginnings of puberty thanks to some fast paced, violent and genuinely frightening sequences.

New editions to the cast include some the finest of the cream of the acting crop. The wonderful Miranda Richardson is cast as nosy reporter Rita Skeeter, the woman who takes it upon herself to prove to the world that Harry Potter is an attention-seeking fraud. Richardson you may know from such programmes as Blackadder (where she played the squeaky Elizabeth I), and Sleepy Hollow. It’s also about time someone from Only Fools and Horses was cast in a Harry Potter film and the lucky actor is Roger Lloyd Pack (Trigger), taking on the role of Ministry of Magic bigwig, Barty Crouch.

As scary Lord Voldemort (which must have been truly difficult to cast) is Ralph “Rayff” Fiennes, for whom they used an impressively small amount of make up. Instead of relying on mammoth amounts of CGI to make him look frightening, minimal amounts of prosthetics were used to give him a translucent pallor and evil-looking veins. It’s up to Ralph to do the rest of the job.Rather than playing inter-house Quidditch games this year, Harry finds himself nominated for the Triwizard Tournament. An ancient tradition which is so dangerous it hasn’t been played for over 100 years.
It’s gonna be dark and it’s gonna be violent and it should keep the children’s fantasy enthusiasts occupied until the release of the Chronicles of Narnia, at any rate.

Review: Mrs Henderson Presents

Dir: Stephen Frears

Starring: Bob Hoskins, Judi Dench

Be warned if your going into see this film. Amongst all the pretty naked ladies Stephen Frears has also managed to sneak in Bob Hoskin’s todger.

Those who can handle such exposure will surely be letting themselves in for a treat. Director, Frears (of Dirty Pretty Things, High Fidelity and The Grifters fame) has gone and done it again in this delightful all-singing, all-dancing comedy-drama.

Set during World War 2, it tells the real life story of Mrs Henderson who, after the death of her husband, decides that 69 is simply too young to stop having fun so she buys a theatre and hires Hoskins to run it for her. The two manage to make both the best and worst team, taunting and ridiculing each other whilst simulaneously dreaming up inspired ideas. When the theatre begins to fail Mrs Henderson decides to use naked girls to bring back the audiences. The Lord Chamberlain, so taken aback, decides to let this go ahead so long as the girls remain motionless, as if they are imitating art.
Also starring Will Young in what is, although a small role, clearly what he was born to do, never has there been a better example of someone being born seventy years too late.
Being set during the war it also deals with the immediate effects of the London Blitz sensitively yet with spirit, touting themselves as the theatre that never closed. Frears had come up trumps once again.

Review: The Brothers Grimm

Dir: Terry Gilliam

Starring: Heath Ledger, Matt Damon

Poor Terry Gilliam. He doesn’t seem to be having a right lot of luck at the moment. The last film he made was Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas way back in 1998 which wound up being a fair way from breaking even. His Don Quixote project never made it to fruition (though it did make a very entertaining documentary in the shape of Lost In La Mancha) and now The Brothers Grimm has floundered at the US box office. After the past few years this pitiable man has had, he really does deserve this project to be a sleeper success.

This latest project tells the story, once upon a time (well, 19th Century), of two siblings who make their living as con-artists. They travel from village to village in French-occupied Germany convincing the people they are suffering from attacks by fairy-tale creatures and then proceed to ‘save’ them from further harm. All for a price, of course. This is fine until they are rumbled by, Gilliam favourite, Jonathan Pryce’s French nobleman who packs them off with a mission to stop another couple of tricksters in a nearby village. But all is not what it seems when they discover missing children and a real magical curse set over a forest. By all rights, Grimm and Gilliam should have been a match made in fantasy cinema heaven. Surely the ‘only American in Monty Python’ would be in his element creating costumes, magic and fairy tales. Only Jim Henson (and he’s dead) could have had a better chance at making this work.

So what went wrong? Well Harvey and Bob, that’s what. The two Weinsteins (big wigs from Miramax for those who don’t know) came in at the 11th hour and kept the film in production after MGM had pulled out. They then promptly set about sticking their oars in and making unnecessary changes. Forcing Gilliam into a mainstream position that he doesn’t naturally fall in, they swapped the brilliant Samantha Morton (Minority Report) for the ‘hotter’ Lena Headey in the role of Angelika, the love interest. As a result, her character is unfulfilled and largely two-dimensional. Headley does give what is asked of her but little more. Had she been given the chance to shine, Morton would have brought considerably more integrity to the role. The casting of Matt Damon and Heath Ledger as the double act of the title is another ‘standard’ choice. Ledger has clearly been working hard to make the world forget about his rom-com, teen-schmick past. Parts in Monster’s Ball and Lords of Dogtown have done their bit in upping his ‘real actor’ status and his performance eclipses Damon’s as Jacob, the brother obsessed with fairy-tale stories. Here is a man that has bags of movie-star potential. Only time will tell if he lives up to his, slowly building, hype or goes the road of Colin Farrell.

Gilliam still retained some say and the film is not without some typical non-mainstream inclusions. During the course of the two hours we are treated to a man getting torn in half and the gruesome death of, wait for it, a kitten. Yes this is a film to be viewed with a macabre sense of humour and without the desire for factual accuracy. Apparently German people have northern English accents, by the way.

Ultimately, however, this film just don’t ride. Lack of real structure, underdeveloped love story and a partial absence in atmosphere really let the side down. This is Terry Gilliam doing fairy tales. It should have been filled with dark Time Bandits-esq visions and even darker humour. Damn those Weinsteins.

Short piece on Bill Murray

Widely recognised as one of the most acclaimed comedy actors of his generation, Bill Murray has entertained people throughout the planet with his performances. Born on the 21st of September a long time ago in 1950, Murray originally went to med school but dropped out in his sophomore year after being arrested for possession of cannabis.
He followed his brother, Brian Doyle-Murray, on the National Lampoon Radio Hour where he met future Saturday Night Live collaborators John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd. He found fame and success during his stint on SNL between 1976 and 1980 and went on to make his first films, Meatballs (1979) and Caddyshack (1980).
It was on the set of Caddyshack that he met future Ghostbusters partner Harold Ramis. Though the part was originally intended for John Belushi, who died before production began, it was this film that became his biggest, early years success. Now a firm favourite of anyone who was young in the 80s and many more since then. Other successes included Stripes (1981) Scrooged (1988) and Groundhog Day (1993).
As he has got older, Murray has chosen increasingly mature roles. Finding renewed acclaim in The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) and Lost in Translation (2003) he sealed his status as one of the smartest comedy actors. We must be warned, however, as his recent productions of A Life Aquatic and Broken Flowers have exhausted him he intends to take a break.

Film School: Jim Jarmusch

The long awaited Jim Jarmusch and Bill Murray collaboration is finally upon us. Broken Flowers has arrived, telling the tale of a man called Don who receives a letter from a former girlfriend telling him he has a 19 year old son. He then sets out on a quest to meet his estranged offspring.
Another telling of ‘real’ America, the casting of Bill Murray was already in Jarmusch’s mind as he wrote the script. Having previously turned in similar lanconic performances in The Life Aquatic, The Royal Tenenbaums and Lost in Translation, he seems the obvious choice.
The two first met in a bar with Steve Buscemi ten years ago where they talked about current scripts and their past encounters with women. They worked together for the first time two years ago in Coffee and Cigarettes albeit Murray’s role was a small one. Jarmusch then wrote a part for him as his leading man in Broken Flowers, with even a small part for Murray’s son, Homer. ‘He’s always had that balance of mischief and melancholy,’ according to Jarmusch.
Also starring in Broken Flowers is Sharon Stone who, never one to be understated, is playing yet another strong female role. There can be no doubt that her name, like Murray’s, is a box office puller. A woman imprinted in public memory after her performance in Basic Instinct, she is now filming the sequel entitled Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction. Yes really.
One such actor who, despite being recognised within the industry as a very talented actor, is a virtual unknown to the outside world. Playing the character of Winston, Don’s close friend, is Jeffrey Wright (Manchurian Candidate, Ali, Basquiat). A very meticulous actor, Wright perfected an Ethiopian accent for the role which he would maintain by ringing up the Ethiopian Embassy with made-up questions, seconds before shooting, in order to hear the man’s accent down the phone.
As the woman who bore Don’s son Jarmusch cast Jessica Lange, one of the entertainment industry’s most successful actresses. Both Murray and Lange had worked together before on the massively successful Tootsie and so knew each already.
One can never say Jarmusch doesn’t know the ingredients to a successful film. As a man who has no interest in moralising his audience or dictating to them how to feel he relies on his story telling skills to make an impression on his audience. His belief that everything in life occurs at random, like Chaos Theory, influences the way he works. The notion that we may know or be able to predict what’s coming, to him, is not interesting. It is life’s chance occurrences that make stories worth telling, which perfectly sets the scene for Don’s journey to find his son.