Hard Day's Night ***¼
The Beatles' first film. Considered quite a period piece comic classic, I found the film and its humour
very dated. Still the songs are great and one thing HDN does illustrate is the importance of Ringo as the loveable soul of
the group. Sure, he wasn't as musically talented as the others but The Beatles wouldn't have been the unit they were without
Starr's non-egotistical charm. Released - 1964 Seen by me: 4.5.03
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets ***¾
The second film in the Harry Potter series is darker, more action-packed and less whimsical than the Philosopher's
Stone - a shame for me as I prefer the films' more whimsical, Dickens-without-the-brutality qualities. An incredible visual
spectacle with fantastic effects, Chamber of Secrets is still very imaginative with some strong performances and again sticks
very closely to the original story (arguably too closely given that the film is 160 minutes long!). Kenneth Branagh is excellently
cast as the very vain new teacher Gilderoy Lockhart and is good though not quite as gloriously over the top as I had read
to believe. An excellent film which is very much worth seeing - especially at the cinema. Released - 2002 Seen by me:
15.12.02 (with Anne)
Harry Potter
& The Goblet Of Fire **** Film version of the 4th Potter book
where Harry is unwittingly entered into the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Sensibly the
Goblet Of Fire film concentrates on the tournament rather than the other sub-plots in the book though there is still some
room for lightness and humour amongst the darkness of the main story. The
effects are of course brilliant and Goblet Of Fire another excellent adaptation though Prisoner Of Azkaban is the pick of
the bunch for me so far. Released: 2005 Seen by me: 27.11.05 (with Naomi)
Harry Potter And
The Order Of The Phoenix **** Fifth film in the Potter series which, like most
of its predecessors, is a good action movie with some fantastic effects but is not particularly memorable or thought provoking
afterwards. Imelda Staunton is superb as the hideous Delores Umbridge, a Ministry-chosen
teacher brought in to lead Hogawarts as the powers that be show wariness of the intentions of Dumbledore. As has increasingly been the case with the Potter films, it would be very difficult to follow Phoenix
if you hadn’t read the book. Still well worth seeing for Potter fans everywhere. Released: 2007 Seen by me: 1.8.07 (with Amy)
Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone - 1st Viewing **** A
thankfully very British film adaptation of the first Harry Potter book with some superb casting and predictably brilliant
special effects. The first 45 minutes are magical and enchanting - Dickensian without the brutality. The rest of the film
doesn't quite live up to this magical beginning but is still really worth watching. Released - 2001 Seen by me: 5.2.02
(with Sam)
Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone - 2nd Viewing ****¼ Even better and more enchanting on its second viewing
in more comfortable surroundings. Especially notable this time are the fine acting performances - particularly Richard Harris
as Dumbledore and Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid. A brilliantly made, Dickensian adventure film. Released - 2001 Seen by
me: 27.12.02 (at home with Mum)
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban ****1/2 The third film in the
Harry Potter series is the first one made by a new director, Alfonso Cuaron. Unlike the previous two films, he doesn't
include practically every scene in the book but still presents a cohesive and entertaining film which does justice to its
parent novel. This change in approach is very successful as it breathes new life into a series which was in danger of
showing diminishing returns and prevents the film from being very long. The acting is excellent throughout with Michael
Gambon moving effortlessly into Richard Harris' shoes as Dumbledore. Among the "newcomers", David Thewlis is also particularly
good as Professor Lupin. The Prisoner of Azkaban is a superb film - probably the best in the Harry Potter series so far. Released:
2004 Seen by me: 11.6.04 (with Naomi and Amy)
History Boys ****
History
Boys is a film adaptation of an Alan Bennett play about eight boys spending an extra term at school for their Oxbridge exams
in the early 80s. It stars the same young men who have successfully played the
boys on stage over the last couple of years as well as fine performances by Richard Griffiths, Frances De La Tour, Clive Merrison
and Stephen Campbell Moore. The boys start their term being taught by the eccentric,
camp academic Hector (Griffiths) though the dour, practical headmaster (Merrison) replaces some of his lessons with rookie
recruit Irwin (Moore) to give the boys some edge and help them think outside the box.
The contrast, conflict and respect between the two generations is cleverly portrayed, as is the gradual development
of the individual personalities of the eight students. All well written and beautifully developed then yet nothing like
my secondary education even though the boys are only supposed to be a handful of years older than me. The undercurrent of homosexuality, ubiquitous use of surnames and flamboyant flouting of academic prowess
were not part of my school experience though maybe these facets were more prevalent in single sex Grammar Schools a few
years earlier. Although The History Boys was written as a play and is probably most effective on stage, the film adaptation
is memorable and thought-provoking with some fine dialogue and excellent performances.
Well worth seeing. Released: 2006 Seen by me: 14.10.06 (with Naomi)
Hitch *** Comedy starring Will Smith as a "date doctor” which looks a little into the issues and
politics of the dating game. Hitch was not particularly memorable afterwards
and not really my sort of film though I’m sure it’s fine within its genre of commercialised modern comedies. Released: 2005 Seen by me: 15.4.06 (with Naomi)
Hitchhikers
Guide To The Galaxy *** Disappointing version of Douglas Adams’ famous
book though it was always destined to be an anti-climax for most people in their mid 30s upwards. The trouble is that we all grew up with the cult radio and TV versions in the early 80s and though the
film tries hard, Hitchhikers was always essentially a very British period piece. Furthermore
I’m afraid that Martin Freeman is not versatile enough to play the human “everyman” Arthur Dent though the
other lead characters – Mos Def as Ford Prefect, Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox and Zooey Deschanel as Trillian are
good. Hitchhikers has an interesting new ending and is worth seeing for those
who haven’t seen it before. Prepare for disappointment if you have though… Released: 2005 Seen by me: 21.5.05 (with Naomi,
Tracy and Nick)
Hot Fuzz **** Fast moving comedy by the team which brought us Shaun Of The Dead, Hot Fuzz stars Simon Pegg
as an ambitious policeman unwittingly transferred from London to a weird small town in the West Country. It is a funny and clever post-modern comedy yet one, perhaps tellingly, which I cannot remember much about
when I finally got round to writing this review several months later… Released:
2007 Seen by me: 13.10.07 – with Naomi
Hours, The ****½ Brilliantly
made and acted film which cuts between a day in the life of 3 women all connected by Virginia Woolf's novel "Mrs Dalloway".
The 3 leading actors are superb - Nicole Kidman as the disturbed, withdrawn Woolf writing the novel in the 1930s (I believe
- apologies if dates are not 100% accurate), Julianne Moore as an unhappy, suburban housewife reading the book in the early
1950s and Meryl Streep as a modern Mrs Dalloway in the late 90s. A brilliant film but depressing and disturbing with recurring
themes of insanity, suicide and (in the first 2 cases above) repressed lesbianism. A brilliantly made, thought provoking,
highbrow film. Released - 2003 Seen by me: 23.3.03 (with Anne)
Hunger Games, The **** The Hunger Games is a film
adaptation of the first in a series of novels by Suzanne Collins which are particularly popular with teenagers. Set
in a dystopian future, it tells of an annual event begun to keep the populace under control after a failed revolution. Each
region picks a teenage boy and girl to train up, face the media, then enter a vast wooded area where they fight and survive
till there's only one left. The organisers also introduce gruesome predators to test the contestants as an enraptured population
looks on. But this year, the determined pairing from the District 12 region make it different... The Hunger Games is a
well-made atmospheric adaptation of a far-reaching imaginative novel. A clear futuristic, totalitarian satire of Big Brother
and similar shows, it is well edited, exciting and thought provoking...and well worth seeing. Seen by me: 15.6.13 (with
Naomi)
|