Film: The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse

But is it any good? Great fun for fans of the series (and possibly for other, less deserving sorts). 8/10

In my opinion (not shared by everyone), The League of Gentlemen are at their best when working with a plot into which their wicked sketches can be injected, and any fears that their Apocalypse would be just an extended sketch show can be laid to rest - this is more Life of Brian (or at least Holy Grail) than Meaning of Life.

If anything, they could be accused of being too clever, as charecters from their fictional world of Royston Vasey escape into the "real" world of the writers. This is not an entirely original idea, but having the characters recognise, and even impersonate, the actors that play them is a delicious twist. A third narrative, in the form of a surreal historical intrigue at the royal court, would be a turn too far if it did not quickly establish itself as very funny (with marvellous, tiny cameos from Peter Kay and Simon Pegg), and wisely does not wear out its welcome.

The "real" writers are sadly under-developed (although this must have been a fine line to tread) and, for a fan of the series, some of the omissions are disappointing - especially in the climactic scenes where, budget allowing, the whole ensemble should have made an appearance, but due to financial constraints we get, as the League themselves admit, a load of Irish wrestlers.

Despite that, I am pleased to report that the film is clever in what it does and says about the nature of the characters within the narrative, but not too clever (see the disappointingly dull final half hour of Adaptation), the pace only lags occasionally, and you are never too far from a genuinely funny moment. The film is not afraid to find previously one-dimensional characters and flesh them out to carry the film, or embrace humour from film references to toilets, and I genuinely enjoyed it. I only worry what the non-locals will make of it...

[I saw this as a preview at the NFT with a Q&A with the League to follow. No sooner had it been announced that all 4 of them were there and would appear after the film than Lilly, in a fit of celebrity-spotting, excitedly pointed a couple of rows behind us and exclaimed, "Look! It's Mark Gatiss!"]

Film: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

But is it any good? Surprisingly, it is not bad. 7/10

I think my expectation for the Star Wars prequels have finally fallen to a level where Lucas can actually meet them. True, much of the dialogue is stilted, some of the acting (notably Cristiansen and Portman) is awful, and the only character approaching the levels fo charisma of Han Solo is, sadly, Yoda. Anakin's long-anticipated turn to the Dark Side is laughably under-motivated (Lucas gets points for trying but none for actual achievement), and there are more epilogues than in Return of the King - rather superfuously setting up Episode IV.

But - but! - Lucas does play to his strengths far more than in the two previous films. There's not too much dull dialogue to drag or story to get in the way of some very well-staged action scenes and generally good effects. Jar Jar Binks appears, but does not speak. And Natalie Portman's pregnancy apparently skips ahead several months in the space of a few days to set up a nice parallel moment towards the end of the film.

So, if only by comparison to Episodes I and II, Lucas manages a reasonably entertaining conclusion to his opus, which a small nostalgic part of me is very pleased about.

Film: Kingdom of Heaven

Ridley Scott brings us the extra-ordinary message that religious zealots tend to be a bit wacky, and that we’d be better off if we were moderate and tolerant of others’ beliefs. Sadly, this dazzling insight is not redeemed by anything original or entertaining, and Kingdom of Heaven is a limp mess of a film.

But is it any good? No.
Orlando Bloom, displaying his trademark lack of charisma, is a blacksmith whose child has died and wife has committed suicide and needs to find forgiveness from God, or something. He kills a well-intentioned (if tactless) priest, which seems an odd way to win the audience’s sympathy at the start of a film but is a fairly overt symbol of his rejection of established religion, meets the father he has never known, gets 5 minutes of sword-fighting lessons, and is nearly arrested in a frankly unintelligible opening fight scene. I should note at this point that although Scott and cinematographer John Mathieson put together some lovely compositions, every single fight/battle scene is a mish-mash of Keep! and The! cut Camera! up Moving! editing! which I find very tiresome.

Bloom is then ship-wrecked for some reason and by an amazing coincidence meets a character who Will Be Important Later and is Not What He Seems. He falls out with Guy de Lusignan, one of two warmongering zealots who chew enough scenery that they cannot be taken seriously but not enough to be entertaining. He has the apparently staggering realisation that his inherited land would be better off with a well; flirts with Guy’s wife (played by Eva Green, a real breath of fresh air until she has an attack of hypocrisy and vanishes from most of the last hour in a slightly mental huff); and proves his heroism by leading his men on a charge that (a) should not be successful, since he is sufficiently outnumbered that he shouldn’t be able to deflect all of his opponents from their objective, and (b) is staggeringly unnecessary, relying as it does on the poor leper King (Ed Norton, hiding behind a metal mask) making exactly the same decision he could have made many hours earlier to forestall the whole event.

The film culminates in a large battle set-piece, which is unfortunately reminiscent of similar but better acts in the Lord of the Rings trilogy but doesn’t measure up (not least because Bloom is the only character involved to whom we have really been introduced, Jeremy Irons’ rather good Tiberias having vanished – I think I must have dozed off and missed his exit, although this has the feel of a movie where huge swathes of film have ended up on the cutting-room floor, including a proper fate for Guy, who is supposed to be the main villain of the piece, responsible for thousands of deaths, but is punished only by being made to ride a donkey and is never seen again).

Given that the Arabs are treated very well – the two main characters, Saladin and Nasir, are both level-headed and fair – it’s a pity that Christianity is treated so badly, with heavy use of “God wills it so it will happen!” and very little thought given to what God actually wills. Guy and his sidekick are revealed to be absolute idiots, as Bloom warns them what will happen if they troop across the desert to attack Saladin without water – not that they should need telling – and they do it anyway. (Saladin’s men have no such problems on the return trip, mind.)

The film takes a long time to find a semblance of a plot, and when it does it is driven by idiots and clunking plot mechanics, the supporting characters are under-developed and Bloom is incapable of carrying a film. Apart from Gladiator, the obvious comparator is Lord of the Rings, which benefited greatly from a strong character ensemble, a real sense of purpose and carefully used humour. Scott has taken none of those lessons on board.

Film: The Jacket

Adrien Brody is strapped into a straitjacket and locked in a drawer, which projects him into the future. Tempting as it is to say that 100 minutes locked in a drawer would be more entertaining than The Jacket, it's not that bad. Sadly, nor is it particularly interesting or worthwhile.

This is almost the opposite of 12 Monkeys: Brody is sent forward in time from an asylum in order to save himself. 12 Monkeys is a great film and a favourite of mine. It's also funny, inventive and has decent characters; again, the opposite of The Jacket. About the only thing they have in common is that the viewer is never left in any real doubt that time travel is taking place. Rather implausibly, Brody's doctors come to accept this too and defy all common sense and Hippocratic oaths.

Brody comes across as alternately a wide-eyed innocent and insufferably smug - the latter usually when he has slept with Keira Knightley. (And am I the only one to find it slightly creepy that after sleeping with her adult self, he is very touchy-feely with the same character as a young girl?) Knightley is believable against type as a really, y'know, edgy character, and while there is a decent reason for this, it doesn't make her more interesting to watch. The whole film is unrelentingly dark with very little humour but without grabbing the audience's sympathy, what's the point?

Overall, this is one of those films that is inexplicably described as complex or hard to follow by many reviewers; it's a simple idea that could have been a more interesting film but is ultimately a bit of a bore.

Film: Friday Night Lights

But is it any good? Interesting, well acted character film meets sports drama

Without wishing to spoil the ending, Friday Night Lights (based on a true story) seems an odd choice of tale to film. Why pay for the rights to a true story when you could make up your own? There’s nothing in the plot, of a small town in Texas intensely focused on the success of the high school football team as it aims to win the State Finals, that really stands out, but the film succeeds (on the whole) as a character study.

The film’s greatest strength lies in showing how much the team means to the community and to the players. There’s a lot at stake here, an inhuman amount of pressure to put on young men’s shoulders – as one says to another, “Do you feel seventeen?” The always excellent Billy Bob Thornton turns in a slightly subdued performance, but the young footballers are terrific.

There is the usual problem of making a film about a whole season – early suspense, then the matches leading up to the final are glossed over, even though you suspect the team should have more problems progressing than it shows. And characters are neglected – Jay Hernandez as Ivy League-bound Brian Chavez is supposed to be a member of the core group of players, but I suspect that most of his material ended up on the cutting room floor. However, the three main players do get generally satisfying character arcs – Don Billingsley’s relationship with his father, a former State-winning player, is particularly good.

The other fault with the film is the hyperactive camerawork. In the steadicam world, it is easy to neglect the simple art of keeping the camera still, and in this case it finds rest only when studying the high arc of a football (the match scenes are pretty well shot). I appreciate the intent to make an almost documentary-style film, but it undercuts some of the dramatic moments. Still, this is an enjoyable outing that makes some efforts to avoid the predictable.