MORNING GLORY- Review

Once in a while, somebody cracks the code and puts out a romcom that has likeable characters and a properly funny and talented cast. To be fair to Morning Glory, it's as much a workplace comedy as a romantic comedy, and it's also a satire about breakfast programming, albeit a very fluffy one.

Rachel McAdams plays Becky Fuller, a hardworking and dedicated TV executive of the kind usually played much worse by Katherine Heigl. When she loses her job on a local breakfast show, she finds herself begging for a job nobody else wants on another network, presenting their apocalyptically bad breakfast magazine show, "Daybreak". With six weeks to turn the show around, she begins making changes to get Daybreak up to scratch, starting with hiring veteran anchor Mike Pomeroy to bolster the show's credibility.

The Heigl connection is what's most astonishing to me. This is precisely the kind of film that you can imagine Katherine Heigl ruining, because its lead is exactly the kind of character she plays. Career driven, energetic, klutzy and with apparent self-esteem issues despite obviously looking like a cover girl for some magazine or other. The script itself is nothing that couldn't be overwhelmed by her shrewy and shouty shtick. And so this film's masterstroke, and the thing that turns Morning Glory into something a million times more enjoyable than something like The Ugly Truth, is its casting.

For one thing, it works nicely as a banner for why Rachel McAdams should be a much bigger star than she is now, although it also kind of suggests that she's been wise with her choices. She hasn't been in more of those Heigl-esque films, and thus far she's got a pretty good track record. More power to her, but she proves her mettle here as a much better comedy actress than I had previously thought. The crucial thing about a character like Becky is that she's not annoying when she's jumping up and down and running all around trying to hold this chaotic mess of a professional life together. You actually give a shit about whether she succeeds or fails.

The other nice touch is the pairing of Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton, with Keaton proving to be a reliable foil, as she always has been, and Ford coming to life in a way that we haven't seen in a long, long time. I've been saying for a while that his upcoming Cowboys & Aliens is precisely the kind of film he should be making these days, but this has actually changed my mind. I want to see Henry Jones Jr. in some more comedies. The guy has impeccable comic timing, and we haven't seen that utilised enough in all of those films where his wife and/or family are kidnapped or killed.

As to the satire, it's covering a bit of the same ground as All About Steve. OK, OK, I'm sorry for mentioning All About Steve, but please, let's be selective and remember that the best part of that misjudged horror was the parody of rolling news mentality. And in a nice fluffy film like Morning Glory, that's the most apt comparison. It's not Network, because there are certain characters who don't get angry or shout even once, and it's not Anchorman, because the news was probably the least part of that film's zeitgeist-y comedy. It's important to say though, that the film's sense of humour about breakfast show banality is one of the highlights.

Having liked it much more than I ever expected, I'm eager to avoid exaggerating its appeal. It's not perfect, by a long stretch. The more obvious touches come straight from the romantic comedy playbook, including the hugely obtrusive soundtrack and its tendency to herald funny montages and the like. Similarly, I would have shed no tears at all if the film had ended ten minutes earlier than it did, mostly because this very late point in the film is where they chose to bring in some new conflict for Becky's character and install a false mad dash moment. At least they didn't string out the obvious denouement across the whole film, but even in its minimised form, it still rings false.

Morning Glory is what you'd call the sure thing in cinemas this week. Black Swan's screeching melodramatic horror won't be for everyone, and the only other film targeted at the female audience this week is The Dilemma, the quality of which remains to be seen. On the other hand, you have this film, which is entirely fluffy but also very charming and winsome. So much of why it works is down to the casting. They went for Harrison Ford, not Robert DeNiro looking for a paycheck. Patrick Wilson, not Gerard Butler. Jeff Goldblum, not anybody else but Jeff Goldblum. And most importantly, Rachel McAdams instead of Katherine bloody Heigl. Give it a chance, and you'll be very pleasantly surprised.

Morning Glory is now playing in cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Morning Glory, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Holmes Away From Holmes

Did everyone have a good Christmas then? A big old blog post is coming after 8pm on New Year's Day, when David Tennant will have handed the key to the TARDIS over to Eleventh Doctor Matt Smith and I'll be some manner of soggy, crying wreck on the sofa. Part One of "The End of Time" astounded and confused me in equal measure, but I loved it. But to the matter at hand- Christmas Day has given way to Boxing Day, which is the unofficial National 'Nothing Happens' Day. It does however herald the release of Sherlock Holmes in UK cinemas, so I went along to see that. As something of a regular disclaimer, it's only my opinion on here- others are available. As ever, mild spoilers may occur in the process of reviewing, but never so far as to spoil any major plot developments.

So Sherlock Holmes is the latest reinvention of Arthur Conan Doyle's anti-social but brilliant detective, gadding around Victorian London with his loyal friend and war veteran, Dr. John Watson. With Guy Ritchie at the helm, this version sees Holmes and Watson take on Lord Henry Blackwood, a practitioner of the dark arts who is hanged after Holmes brings him to justice. When Blackwood rises from the grave, a chain of events are set in motion that threaten to change the world forever, not to mention the implications for the weary Watson's imminent engagement. Matters are complicated further by the involvement of the only person ever to outwit Holmes, the beautiful and wily Irene Adler, who has a shady employer working behind the scenes...

I should say at this relatively early point of the review that I read the script for this film some six months ago. My verdict then was that it was a film that would be made or broken by its performances, not by its plot or writing. There appears to have been a couple of rewrites since the version I downloaded, emphasising certain of the minor aspects detailed above, but I still think that holds true. The one potentially fatal flaw of the film is that is fails to establish and maintain a balance between comedy and horror. It's a rip-roaring historical adventure like the best of that cinematic sub-set, but physical comedy jars with the more atmospheric and creepy stuff. At some points, it's in danger of looking like the result of a high-speed collision between Shanghai Knights and From Hell. It's really saved from that by its cast, who are excellent without exception.


Robert Downey Jr. hasn't been changed much by his suddenly ballooning fame and renown, and he's still a terrific actor. He sports a surprisingly good English accent for Holmes, and really brings out the misanthropic aspects of Conan Doyle's original character. Jude Law also embodied certain overlooked aspect of the literary Watson- he's more like the wounded soldier than the slightly-awed sidekick of other adaptations. But more on that in a bit, because although these two take centre-stage, Mark Strong very nearly steals the show as the villainous Lord Blackwood- a really threatening screen villain who wields enormous presence throughout. Rachel McAdams is slightly less memorable but no less competent as Irene, mostly because the script has slightly crossed purposes, in presenting her both as a match for Holmes and as a damsel in distress where the plot requires one.

Adler is more than just eye candy though, and she's one of many things that have been transported to the film from the literary canon, where Holmes also fancied the pants off her and referred to her only as "the woman". However, the story isn't adapted from one of Conan Doyle's, and it's blatantly been a little sexed-up for the Hollywood treatment. For instance, another of the less prominent aspects of previous versions of Holmes is his skill as both a boxer and a fencer. In front of Guy Ritchie's lens, this makes Holmes a shirtless bare-knuckle fighter, albeit one who still uses his wits in the process of felling his opponents. In that respect at least, Downey Jr's Holmes is like no other before him, but the characters are translated very well for the most part. Law's Watson gets frequently gets fed up with Holmes' foibles, and quite right too- you can believe they've had to get on with each other for a very long time, and the performances just add another dimension to that.


Looking to the future is an almost inescapable act in the course of watching Sherlock Holmes. I'm really not spoiling anything by saying that Adler's shady employer is Professor Moriarty, because it's a fact that will be obvious to anyone who has ever been aware of the Holmes canon from the first rendezvous between Rachel McAdams and a handily shadow-laden gentleman. It's more reminiscent of the early Blofeld appearances in James Bond than of the tantalising glimpse of a joker card at the end of Batman Begins, and that's a slight problem. It's rare that a film seems so obviously set on a sequel, and that's difficult to get around whenever Moriarty appears (or rather doesn't appear) in this one. But as I said, those appearances are fleeting, and I imagine that a second viewing will allow me to get more swept up in Blackwood's doings now that I know the extent of the other baddy's involvement.

To recap though, 2009 began with the tidings that Guy Ritchie, he of Revolver fame, was directing Sherlock Holmes, with an American (even if that American is a brilliant actor) in the title role and Jude "smarmy fuck" Law as Watson. I was understandably gnashing my teeth with disgust at this prospect. Now we're at the opposite end of the year and I've actually seen the film, I can happily report that there's no shit in Sherlock. This is different to any other film Guy Ritchie has ever directed, and it's certainly much more entertaining. Tonally uneven, but a terrific adventure to which I wouldn't object about seeing a sequel in a couple of years. At least not too vociferously anyway.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Planet 51 and Nowhere Boy still to come before the end of the year, along with a few others I mentioned in the Christmas Eve post. On top of that, I'll be bringing you my personal favourite and least favourite films in cinemas for the last year. I'll hold off the lists for the decade until next month, because they might take a little longer to ponder and collate. I'm sure you're waiting with bated breath for that, but in the meantime, why not post your thoughts on Sherlock Holmes in the comments?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, have a very Merry Christmas.

Love and War

How lucky y'all are- the third post in the space of a week. I've been to the cinema a lot more often recently after the general drought of new releases that followed Half-Blood Prince, and thusly I'm bringing you two films that couldn't be much further away from each other in terms of tone and content. One is a tribute to the "men-on-a-mission" exploitation war movie and the other is a sci-fi romance, but I like to keep all kinds of readers happy. As ever, mild spoilers may crop up here and there but not so far as to reveal any major plot developments.
------------------------------------------------

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS


Who's in it? Brad Pitt and Diane Kruger are being touted as the leads in the advertising, but the real de facto leads are Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz.

What's it all about? In Nazi-occupied France, young Jewish woman (Laurent) escapes a colonel known as the Jew Hunter (Waltz) as the rest of her family are slaughtered. Years later, she has an opportunity to get revenge on the German high command as Joseph Goebbels organises a film premiere at her cinema. Little does she realise that the American Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt) and his "Basterds" are dishing out some vengeance of their own.

Any good? I don't quite put Quentin Tarantino on the same pedestal that most film buffs do. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown are all excellent, but it's what he's done since then that's been off-putting to me. I didn't like Kill Bill that much, and I haven't bothered to see Death Proof yet. That is a track record that should overwhelmingly suggest that I enjoy his work, but I'm still yet to be convinced that he's the greatest director of our time. Inglourious Basterds is a continuation of the kind of slightly juvenile and gleeful homage to exploitation cinema that characterised Kill Bill, but on some level, I enjoyed this much more. Maybe it's the Nazi factor- two of my top five favourite films ever feature Nazis as the bad guys, so maybe they just make terrific villains.

On the other hand, I suspect it's more to do with the sheer scope of the film. Like Pulp Fiction, the film is made up of interweaving stories with different sets of characters on screen in each of the film's five chapters. This made me feel almost as if I were watching a stage play- the lengthy running time and the extended scenes filled with dialogue only heightened this, and that made me feel like there was something distinctly uncinematic about it. Which is odd really, as the film is a massive tribute to cinema. It's obviously not an angle explored in trailers, but a lot is made of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda films and efforts in the German film industry. And without spoiling too much, the general message is that cinema can save the world. The film is practically a love letter to the institution Tarantino adores so much. But that doesn't mean it's not a lot of fun to watch. The humour is broad and as dark as the subject matter demands- this isn't The Great Dictator, but the jokes definitely come thicker and faster as the film progresses. Tarantino's trademark dialogue is also one of the best parts, and he gives his sterling cast something to chew on.

Brad Pitt does make an impression as Aldo Raine whenever he appears, but the standout performances come from Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz. Waltz in particular is marvellous as the Jew Hunter- he hams it up slightly, but you never feel there's any denigration to the menace he presents. Like all the best villains, he's a thoroughly sick human being, but the best of those long scenes I mentioned feature him playing with his food via interrogation and terror. Diane Kruger's tribute to the German cinema divas of the era and the assorted Basterds are also memorable, but neither Eli Roth or Til Schweiger are given enough screentime in the interweaving and diverse narrative. One of the more non-sequitous sub-plots brings to the forefront the always excellent Michael Fassbender as an English captain and, bizarrely, Mike Myers in Austin Powers mode as his superior. It's one of the standout scenes for its humour and gentle mocking of the British, but it feels slightly indulgent in a film that already runs for quite a long time. Tarantino is not a director who does restraint or subtlety much, but that works in the favour of this film.

Inglourious Basterds is a very confident film overall- Tarantino has enough confidence in his audience to sit through a long film, of which about 50% is in German or French with English subtitles. More than that, he resists what most other directors would do by tightening up those scenes with the Jew Hunter for the sake of building tension in the short-term, and creates a much more memorable film for this. Not flawless, but highly entertaining exploitation cinema.


------------------------------------------------

THE TIME TRAVELER'S WIFE


Who's in it? Rachel McAdams is the eponymous wife, with Eric Bana as the "chrono-impaired" love of her life. Ron Livingston and Stephen Tobolowsky admirably support them by looking confused at how time travel is possible.

What's it all about? Henry (Bana) has a freak genetic disorder that causes him to involuntarily travel through time. This causes complications with the love of his life Clare (McAdams), whom he meets for the first time when he's 28 and she's 20, even though she's known him since she was 6 and he was 34.

Any good? Audrey Niffenegger's book is the type of bestseller that sweeps the charts every so often when Richard and Judy, or some other influential personality, decrees it to be a good read. Loath though I am to discovering books in this way, The Time Traveler's Wife was an interesting story, and although by no means perfect, it was one of the better "Book Club" type recommendations. This film adaptation is thankfully not too reverent to the source material, and isn't afraid to give proper focus to both Henry and Clare by cutting some of the more unwieldy subplots and characters to place the focus on their relationship. There's been an overriding tendency in films recently to show too much backstory- when G.I. Joe has flashbacks, you know the problem has gone way too far. Director Robert Schwentke understands that we don't need to know every single detail of our protagonists' lives just to care about them- if anyone needs that, the book will enrich your knowledge- and instead moves forward with the slightly boggled narrative.

Time travel is a tricky proposition in films from time to time, as it either has to make complete sense with causality or lull the audience into suspending their disbelief by breaking the fourth wall and telling them not to worry about it. This film achieves a neat balance between the two by performing a sleight of hand. The romance is the operative part, and only the most detached people will be wondering why the universe isn't melting around Henry's ears as he cheats on the lottery and takes his wife's virginity before she's ever even met him. And for this purpose, Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams are pitch perfect casting. Bana needs more good work like this full stop, and McAdams is as endearing as she usually is in such roles. And because they're so good, you allow yourself to be taken in by it all. There were a couple of slightly mawkish scenes and one totally out of place bit of dialogue that jarred me for a moment or two, but the film drew me back in soon enough.

It's for reasons like this that I could imagine The Time Traveler's Wife being a rather excellent date movie, but please be aware that it depends on how sensitive your companion is- the ending had a lot of people crying in the screening I attended, and that might not be how you want to end a date. However, wading through the throngs of bereaved viewers on my way out of the cinema, I was very much possessed of the feeling that this is a film that deserves to do well. If you read the book, go and see the film.



------------------------------------------------
Very much up to date now, so couldn't tell you what my next post on here will cover. Aliens in the Attic, if I can subject myself to such an exercise of endurance? I'm wanting to see A Perfect Getaway at some point too. If all else fails, I'll be back in a couple of weeks for Funny People and The Final Destination. Please don't forget to comment letting me know if you've seen Inglourious Basterds or The Time Traveler's Wife- it's always good to get feedback.

I'm Mark, the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.