The common dominator of these three wildy different but highly worthy movies is that they all take their time. There are slow, sometimes silent, moody passages where the director wants to create atmosphere. I have to say that there is the odd occasion when you want to yell "just get on with it", but by and large they work OK.
My main reason for wanting to see "Jane Eyre" is that earlier this year I went to see a play in Oxford called "Bronte" (see posting 6th April). It was about the three sisters and one brother and whose house on the moors was echoed in Charlotte's book. It was interesting to see some of her experiences used for the story. There have been many films and TV productions of "Jane Eyre" but somehow I must have missed anything recent, so it all felt pretty new. The two leads made the film. Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender are excellent. They are well supported by Judy Dench and particularly Jamie Bell as St John Rivers. The script is fine but the direction of Cary Fukunada is nothing special. Haddon Hall is the wonderful setting for Thornfield House, the third time it has been used for a "Jane Eyre" production. The costumes are what you would expect from a superior British period piece, and the music is also terrific. In the hands of another director, this could have been a superb movie.
Another film based on a well loved book. John Le Carre is my favourite author (although I do prefer is later work), and the seven episode 1979 TV series of "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" with Alec Guiness as George Smiley is a masterpiece. So how did it work, condensing the story into a two hour movie? Well Connie Sachs, played by Kathy Burke, has, I think, one scene? She is such an integral part of the book, it did leave me a little flat, and that was my overall impression. That is not to say it was disappointing. The casting was about the best you can get. Gary Oldman is spot on for Smiley as is the rest of the cast. The most impressive character for me was Mark Strong as Jim Prideaux. He was absolutely brilliant. The direction of Tomas Alfredson (the man responsible for the superb "Let The Right One In") really captured the atmosphere of post war England and the shabby world of espionage with all it's lies and devious plotting. Worth seeing.
As I watched the first half of "Drive", I wondered why it had an 18 certificate. There was nothing to trouble the censor there. But then the violence all kicks off, and pretty graphic it is too. Ryan Gosling plays the driver without any other name. He is monosyllabic and has no social skills. He is very good at one thing and that is cars, whether behind the wheel or under the bonnet. At night he moonlights as a getaway driver, and the opening sequence is absolutely fabulous. In the day he does odd stints as a driver in movies. He makes contact with a lonely mother ( Carey Mulligan) and her son who are neighbours on the same floor of their apartment building. They start what seems a platonic relationship, he husband is in jail, and it seems that for the first time in his life, the driver has found something more than cars. It is only when the husband returns that things start to go wrong. So we have what is an interesting story, but the uncommunicative nature of our hero does nothing to ease the sense of melancholia. That is until a bungled robbery results in the bloodthirsty second half, full of tension and drama. Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan are both very good. The direction of Nicolas Winding Refn is amazing. The car chases are few, but they are so well done. His photography of Los Angeles is wonderful and the pace of the film is just right. And the visual flair is there for all to see. Just be careful if you don't like violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment