Jasmine Sarah

If Salmon Fishing in the Yemen weren’t a British movie, I’d probably have hated it.

Yes, I’m a biased anglophile. The accents alone had me at hello.

The title pretty much sums up the film (convenient, if a little off-putting). Consultant Harriet (Emily Blunt) and fisheries expert Dr. Alfred Jones (Ewan Mcgregor) are enlisted to help an incredibly wealthy Middle Eastern Sheikh with a seemingly impossible project – to introduce the sport of Salmon Fishing to the Yemen.

Dr. Alfred may be awkward (“When things get tricky, I talk to my fish”) but as a man of logic he is slow to understand the Sheikh, who glides about in a perpetual state of infuriating calm, seemingly possessing the answers to all of life’s questions. “Faith, Dr. Alfred… faith.” Shut. Up.

Meanwhile, the British Prime Minister’s shrewd and hilarious press coordinator Patricia Maxwell (Kristin Scott Thomas) needs “a good story about the Middle East that doesn’t have explosions” and latches onto the project.

Thank goodness for that- her antics had me laughing out loud, the highlight being online Instant Messenger chats with the equally shameless Prime Minister.

Director Lasse Hallström’s most recent films have been a rather mixed bag (don’t get me started on Dear John), so it’s hardly a surprise that Salmon Fishing is a bit all over the place. Some of it is really beautiful and really funny, but implausible subplots and cloying sentimentalism are flies in the ointment.

I have a heart, I promise- I shed actual tears over an aerial view of Scottish countryside. But I also have a limit to the amount of times I wish to hear the Sheikh harp on about “faith” and watch Emily and Ewan stare longingly into each other’s eyes across various locations. Yes, they are wonderful actors but by the end, I’m ready to move on instead of left wanting more.

I hated Take This Waltz.

It struck a nerve. It made me feel something — but not necessarily what I wanted to feel.

Does that make it a bad film? Probably not. Other things might, though.

But I’ll get to that. First things first:It opens promisingly enough with Margot (Michelle Williams) baking to a cool song. “Ooh she’s wearing cute denim cut offs!” the hipster part of my brain told me. “This is gonna be good!”

However, Waltz soon descends into strange and largely melancholy territory.

For someone who is afraid of the “in-between”, Margot spends a lot of time there after a series of chance encounters with a “familiar” looking guy, Daniel (Luke Kirby), who ends up living across the road.

She’s happily married to dependable Lou (Seth Rogen) but terribly unsure of herself and therefore terribly drawn to Daniel, who pursues her relentlessly over the course of the sweaty Toronto Summer, often quite literally stalking her (he’s a bit of a creep, really.)

Is the grass greener on the other side? According to writer/director Sarah Polley, we’ll never know. “To me, the only truth is in ambiguity.”

And she does at times explore these concepts rather well but the film certainly isn’t helped by the fact that every character happens to be extremely irritating.

And is it just me, or is Michelle Williams a little too good at playing an annoying character? I’ve never wanted to slap her more but no-one can deny that the girl can act. The expanse of emotion contained within that tiny body is nothing short of astounding.

At nearly two hours, Waltz feels longer.

And it’s uncomfortable to watch for a few reasons. The offbeat humour seems often to hit the wrong note — perhaps on purpose? Also, I dislike awkward moments and there are plenty of those.

But perhaps nothing aggravates so much as the fact that I relate to Margot more than I care to admit.

Neediness, emotional instability and childishness often plague those confronted with a deep emotional attachment. And long-term monogamy can turn even the most stable and independent of us into blubbering, baby-talking idiots, desperately grasping at coping mechanisms to keep the passion alive, whether it be through childishness like Margot or detachment and denial like Lou.

I’ll leave you with this “comforting” thought from Polley: “Is anything really enough?”

Okay, I’m gonna go watch a Disney movie now.

The fascinating correspondence between Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) and Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) via letters served as the birth of psychoanalysis, but they eventually fell out over a disagreement. Freud’s air of superiority and insistence upon tracing everything back to sex aggravated Jung greatly. Ironically, the theories he wished to disprove ended up proving true in his own life.

Suitably smug, condescending and sex-obsessed, Mortensen comfortably plays Freud’s pipe-smoking persona to perfection. But the focus of this film is upon his younger protégé.

Jung is married with a baby on the way. A brilliant and respectable doctor, he is set in his beliefs until two people come into his life and upset its careful balance.

The first is a young, extremely disturbed Russian patient named Sabina (Keira Knightley) who Jung takes a special interest in. I’m sure you know where this is going. The second is fellow doctor Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel) who also becomes Jung’s patient. Sexually “liberated”, he never denies himself and encourages Jung to follow suit.

Both patients are obviously mentally unhinged, but as they each begin to find their own kind of peace and stability, it is Jung who is slowly driven mad.

The film delivers technically, but there are a few problems. Jung proves to be weak and unlikeable and this makes for rather unsatisfying viewing. And some of the scenes involving Sabina (particularly early on) can be very uncomfortable to watch. Fortunately, her character develops in a surprisingly satisfying way by the end.

The beautiful cinematography by Peter Suschitzky is a stand out. He has worked with director David Cronenberg before and they certainly compliment one another. Every shot is captured with preciseness.

Though interesting enough, A Dangerous Method can be hard to sit through at times. It is not for the conservative or easily embarrassed. At least it looks good.

If you recall the abysmal effort that was Clash of the Titans (2010) then you will probably agree that it shouldn’t have been hard to improve upon. So do they do so with Wrath of the Titans? …Not really, no.

The good news is that Sam Worthington seems to have finally decided on one accent this time around. Sounding British was obviously entirely too taxing for him. However, like him, I am Australian and I still can’t seem to understand half of what he says. Not that it matters. They’ve obviously scrimped on the screenplay again, so anything we do hear is … uninspiring, to say the least.

If I could sum up this movie in a couple of words, they would be “daddy issues”. Zeus (Liam Neeson) and Hades (Ralph Fiennes) have had Kronos, their “father” (I use the term loosely, and with good reason) entrapped for an infinitesimal amount of time so that he won’t wreak havoc across the earth. But – oh no! – People have stopped praying to the gods and as they lose their power, Kronos grows stronger.

Hades, still mad at Zeus (and you thought your family had problems) plays a game of “will he, won’t he?” as he turns on his brother, siding with their father out of what he claims is the only way, but we all know his motives stem from spite.

Kronos (played by a swirling mass of CGI) wants to destroy everything he created… there’s some logic for you. He is big, impersonal, and certainly won’t win Father of the Year any time soon.

Adding another factor to the family drama is Ares (Edgar Ramirez), a demi-god who betrays Zeus, his father to assist Kronos and Hades. Yep - daddy issues. Honestly, what is wrong with these people/gods? I wouldn’t be complaining if Liam Neeson was my dad.

Any way, as per usual, the only one who can save the day is Perseus. Cue Pegasus, a triad of weapons, and some surprisingly decent sidekicks and we’re good to go. Princess Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) is brave, likeable and never complains or needs any rescuing. And Agenor (Toby Kebbell) functions well enough as comic relief.

They set out on a quest in which they run into some terribly animated Cyclops’ and a hilarious, almost unrecognisable Billy Nighy.

Sam, or Perseus (how different are they, really?) seems tired, and over it. So am I. I could tell you not to see it but we all know you will any way. Besides, who am I to judge? I’m just as much a sucker as the rest of you, clearly.

[Note: Avoid this in 3D, if you can, unless for some reason you have a special preference for a colour palette of dark grey, and… dark grey.]

[Further note: I don’t even remember this image from the film. They’re lying to us through photoshop! Those bastards.]

Fifteen years on and James Cameron’s epic tale of the infamous ship and its star crossed lovers is still a masterpiece. The only difference this time, is that good old James has figured out a new way to get his hands on your money.

That being said, seeing it on the big screen again is a gift. It is the sort of movie that actually makes you feel as if you really get your money’s worth. Good, old-fashioned entertainment that has aged surprisingly well.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past 15 years, then you’ll be familiar with the plot. So let’s talk about the 3D: does it really add anything?

The answer is, mostly, no. Are you really surprised? The first 20 minutes look pretty cool in 3D as a crew explores the decaying, sunken ship with modern technology. The rest of the time, though, it is almost unnoticeable. I even took my glasses off a few times and, honestly, there was not much difference at all.

Once we get to Jack, Rose and their impending doom as the “unsinkable ship” does the inevitable, the 3D is forgotten and movie magic takes over. We are reminded that this is how you do a big budget film. (Modern Directors who aren’t Peter Jackson or Christopher Nolan: please take note).

As for the actors, Copper-haired Kate Winslet is a vision as the passionate Rose. And Leonardo DiCaprio as Jack is charming and glorious in his youthful, sun kissed beauty. Like Rose, we hang on to his every word. Together, they remind us why we always loved this story. And why we wanted them to succeed. 

Still tragic, still stressful, (WHY weren’t there enough life boats, for the six billionth time?!) and still utterly exciting, aside from a few forgivable clichés, the only real problem with Titanic today is the same problem that plagued it when it first came out: why on earth does the old lady throw the necklace into the sea? Can I hear an “Amen”?

If you don’t mind putting up with (and paying for) James Cameron’s strange obsession with 3D (Avatar is one thing, but…really?) then take your best friend along (mine turned out to be a Titanic expert, and kept me going with fun facts throughout the entire 194 minutes) to laugh, cry, and remember what made you fall in love with this cinematic beast in the first place.

So I’m sitting here trying to describe the movie I just saw and the same two words keep coming to mind: utterly pointless. 

I wanted to like this movie. Wait… No, that’s a lie. I always knew it was doomed to fail and let’s be honest, the Snow White adaptation we are all really looking forward to is Snow White and the Huntsman – Kristen Stewart or not, there is something enticing about a familiar fairy tale being given a dark, gritty spin.

Mirror Mirror isn’t dark or gritty in the slightest. It’s bright, glossy, and manufactured. Interestingly, there is a moment right near the end where Snow tells the Prince, “I’ve read so many stories where the Prince saves the Princess. It’s time we change that ending.” This is a nice enough idea that the movie definitely does not follow. There is nothing unique or game changing whatsoever to this gaudy myriad of clichés.

Joined by a band of rogue dwarves (played by rather amusing, real-life dwarf actors, which is nice), sweet-as-pie Snow White (Lily Collins) must rescue her kingdom from her wicked stepmother, the Queen (Julia Roberts). Meanwhile, the in-debt Queen plans to marry the younger, richer and rather goofy Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer), who is, of course, really in love with Snow White.

Julia Roberts seems the most comfortable here and Nathan Lane is great as her advisor. As for the younger leads, while this will probably serve as a nice career boost for the relatively unknown Collins, it could do the opposite for Armie Hammer. Superb as the Winklevoss twins (yes, he played BOTH of them – what a guy, right?) in The Social Network and fresh from starring alongside Leonardo DiCaprio in Clint Eastwood’s recent J. Edgar, I really don’t know what he thinks he’s doing here. Sure, he looks the part as the Prince. But so did James Marsden, who really nailed this kind of role already in Enchanted (a similar, but far superior movie in many ways to this one).

A few of the moments between Hammer and Roberts are actually quite funny. They are, after all, both great actors. But a sword “fight” between the Prince and Snow made me want to rip the swords out of their hands and gauge my eyes out with them. Extreme? Maybe a little. But these are two extremely attractive individuals. We should be aching for them to love and fight. But we’re not. Because we’ve seen it all before. Snore.

The Hunger Games is the most recent Young Adult phenomenon to hit our screens. Adapted from the first book of Suzanne Collins’ best-selling trilogy, it is safe to say that fans of the novels will not be disappointed by this film (Collins even co-wrote the screenplay). And for everyone else, never fear, there is still plenty to keep you entertained.

The story is set in futuristic, post-apocalyptic North America, now called “Panem.” Divided into 12 districts and presided over by the ominous President Snow (Donald Sutherland), Panem is controlled by the decadent Capitol, who uses the annual televised event ‘The Hunger Games’ (a punishment for previous rebellion), as a tool for fear and control. The Games force 24 children (“Tributes”) between the ages of 12 and 18, one male, and one female from each district, to kill one another in a death match in which there can only be one winner.

16-year-old Katniss Everdeen (Oscar-nominated Jennifer Lawrence, Winter’s Bone) lives in District 12 amongst poverty-stricken coal miners, and when her delicate 12-year-old sister Prim is chosen as Tribute in the “Reaping”, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Katniss and the selected boy, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are whisked off to the Capitol with their eccentric publicist Effie (Elizabeth Banks) and drunken mentor, Haymitch (Woody Harrelson). Once there they must employ any tactics they can to gain “sponsorship” from rich Capitol citizens that may save their lives once inside the game.

Sympathetic stylist Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) helps Katniss make a name for herself, and Stanley Tucci plays an over-the-top TV host, Caesar Flickerman, to perfection.

But it is Jennifer Lawrence’s portrayal of Katniss that is the beating heart of The Hunger Games. Fans of the book and newcomers alike will be captivated by her masterful onscreen presence. In a genre containing many self-centred, apathetic female characters, Katniss is a surprisingly refreshing protagonist. Strong in her own right, both physically and in integrity, she works alongside the young men in her life, instead of standing by helplessly. These are qualities that young women can, and should, look up to. 

Comparisons with other Young Adult film/book juggernauts are inevitable, though, and just when you thought you’d left the love triangles behind with the Twilight Saga, the headstrong, heroic Katniss manages to find herself caught between two love interests. Liam Hemsworth plays her best friend Gale and Josh Hutcherson is very convincing as Peeta, who is both charismatic and vulnerable.

The Hunger Games has a distinctive look and the gaudy opulence of the Capitol contrasts uncomfortably with the stark, grey dullness of Katniss’s home in District 12. Non-traditional editing including jump cuts, and cutting back to the same person is used to capture Katniss’s disjointedness as we follow these new, strange worlds through her eyes. Director Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit) explains of his choices, “We never broke frame and made you think of this as a glossy piece of entertainment”.

Much of the rawness of the film’s source material has been sacrificed onscreen so as to appeal to a larger audience. A shaky camera effect is often employed, partially for a realistic effect but more likely to conceal graphic violence during combat scenes between minors.

For a book centred on children as young as 12 killing one another, this is pretty tame stuff compared to what it could have been. This may disappoint some fans. Ross certainly doesn’t glamorise death, and the Capitol’s attempt to do so is rightly portrayed as sickening and sadistic. Instead, the positive elements of the story such as bravery, friendship, sacrifice, and loyalty are played up.

The key to The Hunger Games’ success is that every element has been carefully measured. The strong leads make up for a few of the weaker supporting roles. Older veteran actors are peppered in amongst the younger cast. Every important plot point from the book has been included in at least a small way and any changes made things smoother. Dodgy CGI perhaps un-catered for in the budget was masked by camera techniques and lighting. And the cinematography, set design, costumes and direction- though ranging from edgy to basic- are all accomplished with skill, thoughtfulness and flair.

All in all, the idea of two more movies in this series doesn’t bother me one bit. With more great source material to come, and a heroine as wonderful and as human as Katniss (yes, she really is just as good as in the book, which is quite a feat to have accomplished), I say bring it on.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel follows the journey of an assortment of aging Britons who decide to “outsource” their retirement to India. Whether single, divorced or widowed, each member of the eclectic bunch has something drawing them to the land of colours: from medical reasons to a longing for independence and even the prospect of marriage to a rich maharaja.

When the retirees arrive at the hotel, the scene that awaits them looks nothing like the advertisements. They are met instead with an old, rundown establishment and its earnest young manager, hopeless dreamer Sonny (Dev Patel, Slumdog Millionaire), whose mantra is, “Everything will be all right in the end. If it is not all right, then it is not yet the end.”

Despite this slight putout, most of the guests begin to embrace India and their new home, dubbed by the madcap Sonny as “A home for the elderly so wonderful, that they will simply refuse to die!”

His enthusiasm is contagious and Evelyn, played to perfection by Judi Dench, begins to enjoy her newfound independence in the wake of her husband’s death. “This is a new and different world. The challenge is to cope with it. And not just cope but thrive.”

Other standouts in the very solid cast are an extremely likeable Bill Nighy playing it (mostly) straight as a man in an unhappy marriage and Maggie Smith as a shockingly racist woman forced to travel for a hip transplant. Her erratic behaviour and one-liners are laugh-out-loud funny. Tom Wilkinson, Penelope Wilton, Ronald Pickup and Celia Imrie also star.

Marigold Hotel is directed by John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) and based on the novel These Foolish Things by Deborah Moggach, who said of writing it: “I wanted to explore questions of race and mortality but I also wanted it to be funny.” I haven’t read the book, but the onscreen adaptation certainly fulfils her wishes.

This film’s strength lies in its older characters, which are much more developed than the young Indian couple and other supporting roles. Its denouement is ultimately predictable and should have been better but, by the time it rolls around, you care far more about the individual plight of each retiree than the fate of the hotel and these, at least, are largely rich and satisfying.

I liked Margin Call so much that I would pay to see it again. A drama inspired by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, it focuses on a fictional account of a US-based financial company on the eve of its meltdown.

Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) is an entry-level analyst whose boss, (Stanley Tucci), having been fired in a huge company culling, leaves in Sullivan’s hands an unfinished project and the ominous warning, “be careful”.

He stays back late to work on the figures and comes to a startling revelation, causing him to call his friend (Penn Badgley) and their supervisor (Paul Bettany) who then calls in his boss (Kevin Spacey) and the domino effect continues as an emergency meeting is held with slippery company heavyweights (Demi Moore and Simon Baker).

Just when you think this is it, the big boss, CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) is helicoptered in and must decide the course of action the company will take in the face of its inevitable downfall, come daylight. The unscrupulous Tuld clearly favours self-preservation but there are many shades of grey as the other characters vary in their motives and integrity.

An electrifying confrontation between the standouts that are Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons’ characters, sums up what’s at stake. Saving themselves will (and does) destroy the market but that is what they set out to do.

It’s easy to vilify these characters and the human counterparts that inspired them but producer and star Zachary Quinto stressed that Margin Call is “…not really about accountability or blame, or raking anyone over the coals. It’s … an examination of the impact that this catastrophe had on these particular characters’ lives.”

What makes it work is that the audience gets an insider’s view through the eyes of the younger characters that are coincidentally thrown into the whole mess. No knowledge of the financial world is required to truly appreciate the drama.

With its fantastic ensemble cast and super sharp screenplay (which received a well-deserved Best Original Screenplay Oscar nomination), I really can’t fault Margin Call. It is what it is. If the premise doesn’t excite you, see it for Jeremy Irons, who is out-of-this-world good at being bad, or to savour the talents that are Bettany, Tucci and Spacey as they perform some incredible monologues.

All of this from a first-timer, Director/Writer J.C. Chandor, makes it all the more impressive. Even if it leaves you cold, its timeliness certainly can not be denied. The events that inspired it are not unique and as history repeats itself again and again it is important to catch a glimpse of why.

Lessons learned from Like Crazy:

1. Never, ever overstay your visa. EVER.
2. If a man builds you a chair, you know things are getting serious.
3. Long-distance relationships are hardly ever worth it.
4. If you’re in love with somebody, it’s probably not a great idea to enter a serious relationship with somebody else.
5. While you’re at it, save yourself the trouble and try really hard not to fall in love in the first place.

Jacob (Anton Yelchin) and Anna (Felicity Jones) are a young couple in love in LA. For a smart girl, English-born Anna makes a huge blunder in overstaying her student visa. Yes, people do stupid things when they’re in love. People do stupid things in general. But whichever way you look at it, overstaying your visa is an incredibly stupid thing to do. And it means nothing but complications for the couple who now must experience the ups and downs of a long-distance relationship.

With Anna in London, and Jacob remaining in LA, they strike up other relationships in between their on-again-off-again status, Jacob with co-worker Sam (Jennifer Lawrence, who almost steals the show despite her limited part) and Anna with her neighbour Simon (Charlie Bewley).

This really is a great young cast. Director/Co-writer Drake Doremus outlined the situations for the actors, but most of the dialogue was improvised and Felicity Jones is especially impressive. Expect big things from her.

One big question Like Crazy poses: Why can’t Jacob move to London? His furniture making skills are questionable at best (I don’t care how much “love” he put into a chair for Anna - that thing was ugly) so staying in LA for business reasons did not make sense. Yep, there’s no point beating around the bush. Jacob is weak, and Anna has placed her bet on the wrong horse here, having to make most of the moves herself, including the first.

This is annoying, but it can not be denied that it is realistic. Love in “real life” is never guaranteed to be neat, tidy or ideal. I didn’t want Anna to love Jacob- heck, I didn’t want Sam (Lawrence) to either- but plenty of people fall in love with the wrong person. It’s a fact of life. And if life (and this movie) have taught me anything, arguing with this fact is utterly pointless. When you’re in love “like crazy”, you can kiss reason goodbye.