Film Review – The Wolfman

Unfortunately, a case of style over substance, without too much of the style.

Synopsis

Lawrence Talbot (played by Benicio Del Toro) having been estranged from his wealthy English home, returns on the behest of his brother’s grieving fiancé (Emily Blunt) to find that something evil is afoot. His brother has been mauled by wild beast, gypsies haunt the local area, and his reclusive father (Anthony Hopkins) seems completely unsurprised and emotionally aloof of the entire affair.

Whilst I am not a close follower of Anthony Hopkins’ career, I am an avid enough admirer of the grand old   man to know that he has made some very strange choices in roles before. Perhaps, those choices might be considered eccentric, I am surprised at this one. Great actors they might be, and the strength of their talent is evident even in this film, but even Hopkins, Del Toro, and the up and coming Miss Blunt, fail to inject this film with the spark of life it needed. Individually excellent, bringing presence and gravitas to their roles, I can only think that the directors were both over-flattered that these big names wanted to star in their movie, but also had more money than sense when casting them in the roles given. Hopkins plays a cantankerous old Irishman, somehow entrenched in Talbot Manor overlook the very English Blackmoor wilds. Benicio Del Toro plays his alienated son, who having emigrated to the Americas, has returned as an established Shakespearean actor (another stretch of the imagination) to perform on the London stage. Finally, the lovely Miss Blunt plays the grieving fiancé, for some unbeknownst reason, staying virtually unaccompanied at Talbot Manor after her beloved’s death. Joined also by Hugo Weaving playing the astute Inspector Abberline, they create a powerful cast for this film. Somehow, despite their screen presence and obvious talent, completely unsupported by a terrible script, there seemed to be no chemistry between these characters at all. As difficult as it already is to believe Del Toro as Hopkin’s son, casting one as an Irishman, the other as an American, stretch even the greatest imaginations beyond limit. How also we are to believe that in such a strained situation, with only the briefest of connection, a bond is formed between Blunt and Del Toro, is also a wonder.

I digress however. Unfortunately, the film’s shortcomings hardly start with the poor judgement in casting: for those that thought the story in Avatar was too simple, they will definitely struggle with the predictability and lack of depth in the Wolfman. If the special effects were something that the film makers were relying on, I have to report that, especially post Avatar, we have seen far better, and CGI used with far greater subtlety; and alas, having a brooding, dark atmosphere throughout the film, though done well, again shows poor vision in its monotonous lack of variety.

You will be unsurprised by my conclusion that this is not a film that you should spend any of your valuable time on; my only hope is that mine was spent so that it might save you yours.

CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

I am not sure that having so dismissed this film, I need add anything more. The debate as to whether mysticism in film encourages or discourages a belief in the supernatural and therefore God, is one to discuss at another time. This film, undoubtedly having such little impact on the long term memory of the viewer, I would recommend any other activity that might stimulate and challenge, rather than watch this film.

Film Review - Funny People

I’ve always thought even the worst of comedians have to be good actors to do what they do, and that their best work is in some of their more serious roles. This is true of Adam Sandler in this film. Supported ably by Seth Rogan and a host of other comedians, Funny People is a bit of a disjointed movie, consisting of two quite distinct parts, but both quite enjoyable if you can get past the crudeness of the peripheral comedy.

Synopsis
George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a world renowned actor, comedian and “funny man”. He has everything that money can buy, women falling at his feet, and he’s dying of cancer. One lonely night, Simmons goes to perform some stand-up at a club he used to frequent, and after venting his emotions to the audience, watches as the unfunny Ira Wright (Seth Rogan) takes the opportunity to poke fun at him. Reaching out, Simmons decides to employ Wright as a personal assistant and an awkward friendship begins to form between the two men. With death being imminent, Simmons reaches out to estranged family, friends and to a lost love in the form of Laura (Leslie Mann), now married with two children. We see Simmons search for the meaning of life, death and what really matters, and the destructive influence of getting everything you want.

Having been schooled at a boys boarding school and over a decade of teaching, not much shocks me. I do find the base level crudeness that you can find in most stand-up comedy nights distasteful (perhaps heightened by my sensibilities as a teacher). Funny People portrays the crudeness accurately, and so whilst I give it credit for being in touch with reality, I must warn those easily offended not to go and see this film.
Adam Sandler is one of my least favourite comedy actors. He sits on the bottom rung with Will Ferrell, and there is little beneath them. I find puerile comedy cringe-worthy, and so having never read any reviews for this film, I have to wonder what drew me to it. Perhaps having enjoyed Knocked Up (but not Superbad or Year One), the pairing of Judd Apatow (director) and Seth Rogan made me curious. Like Will Ferrell in “Stranger than fiction”, Adam Sandler proves his worth as an actor in this film, and it confirms my opinion that some of the best humour is not just situation comedy, but the wave of pairing comedy moments with bittersweet, sad or ironic moments that has swept American sitcoms (creeping into the end of Friends, prevalent in Ally McBeal and Sex in the City). As aforementioned, this is a film of two halves. The first concentrating on Simmons’ battle with cancer, and the second his fight to regain his lost, but married, love - Laura.
Seth Rogan again demonstrates how well he is cast in this role, playing the bumbling comic wannaby, and Leslie Mann also performs well (although the fake lying is embarrassingly overplayed). Eric Bana plays Clarke, Laura’s regularly absent husband, and whilst I like him as an actor, has such an awful Australian accent it is hard to take him seriously.
The film as a whole, whilst will not register amongst the classics, may be one I will remember favourably, the only barrier to recommending it being the volume of crudeness within it. It raises some deep questions, and offers some answer without being preachy, and so I would recommend this film if you can stand the aforementioned crudeness.

Christian Perspective

I can forgive and excuse the sex, penis and jokes about other profanities as an accurate portrayal of what goes on in the stand-up comedy scene. Others may not. I liked that this film raised deep questions about death, and what is important in life. It did so realistically and sensitively, and there were no glib, superficial Hollywood answers. The overwhelming message that if someone gets whatever they want it does not lead to happiness, was clear, as well as a secondary note on the importance of the relationships with friends and family. These are good things. Obviously, the audience are not challenged too strongly on the pointlessness of it all, or asked to examine the meaning of life, but these are gently touched on, and if we are looking to eternity, and hoping to challenge our friends on these issues, then this can only be a good thing.

Film Review – The Time Traveller’s Wife

Eric Bana is Henry, a man who struggles with a disjointed life of involuntarily jumping for occasional spells in time. His jumps are attracted to the big things in his life: the death of his mother, and the intertwining of his life with Clare, his wife (played by the lovely Rachel McAdams). The film follows their love and their struggle to overcome the complications his conditions brings.

Although I tend to avoid reading reviews of films before I watch them, it was not surprising to hear that this film compared unfavourably to the novel from which it was taken. It rare that film writers understand the strengths of the cinema and how these compare to the strength of the written word, rarer that they can translate one to the other, and difficult for audiences themselves to understand the these (and I know full well what a pompous critic that makes me sound). It is even harder in the case of slow moving romantic films, and one as popular, well known and well loved as Audrey Neffenegger’s best seller. Having not read the book (and not just because I am a man), I am unfortunately in no position to compare. I am reasonably informed that the book is all about love, absence and longing, and an inability to control their relationship. On screen, the obvious emotions: desire, tenderness and frustration of Henry and Clare are well portrayed, and despite the lack initial character development, I felt myself drawn into the story. I am sure that, as is the want of Hollywood, the focus is much more on the romantic aspect, but there is a great sequence which conveys succinctly the history and emotional ties he has with his parents. I would have liked to have seen more of this, Henry’s struggles to try change the past, as well moments that would define both his and Clare personality, but I understand the time constraints of a film. It took a little while to get into the film, but as it drew to its poignant conclusion, I was surprised to find myself invested in the characters. To those who love the book, I would say not to expect too much, but I feel that this is a film that has sensitively and respectfully handled the material; to those who have not, enjoy a romance that is above the average Hollywood fare.

CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

Amazingly for a modern day romantic film, The Time Traveller’s Wife succeeded in not making me cringe with any of my usual Christian moral triggers (although I do wonder at the rightness of seducing and sleeping with your future husband on the very first meeting, and even more so at deliberately befriending an infatuated child version of your future wife). My problem with this film is the obsession and perpetuation of the notion that finding that “one special love” somehow completes a person, and that this is what life is all about. I am sure that feminists up and down the country will also be outraged that fulfilment can only be found by either living in that relationship, or in motherhood. It is interesting to note that while much joy was found in Clare’s relationship with Henry, it was accompanied by much frustration and heartache (something I would only guess is true of any long term relationship). The film then paints a bittersweet peace found only when that relationship ends. We, who know God, should know that true joy and peace is found with him and in eternity.