Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom

The cynic in me would say that studio bosses would have received the news of Nelson Mandela's death with mixed feelings. Sadness and respect, of course, but I can't help wondering that the timing of his death could be seen as something of a positive for those with a financial and a creative interest in Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom. People will go and see the film for many reasons: to reflect on Mandela's life and legacy, to see Idris Elba's performance or, like me, to simply learn more about the man and his achievements. From this point of view, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom is an informative biopic and will give the audience a run-down of the major milestones and events in Mandela's life. This, however, does not necessarily make for a great cinematic experience.

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom can't be knocked for its ambitious scope: it attempts to tell Mandela's story from his coming-of-age ceremony in the South African savannah, to his election as President in 1994. Idris Elba takes on the role and, for the most part, gives a nuanced and accomplished performance which captivates the audience from the very beginning. He is a commanding screen presence and, placed alongside Naomie Harris as his headstrong wife Winnie, is certainly one of the film's strengths. Harris' portrayal of Winnie's transformation is also very interesting to watch: from doting and vulnerable new wife and mother, to militant campaigner, Winnie's story is just as engaging as that of Mandela.

Elba is particularly assured when playing Mandela as a young man, charting his involvement with the ANC and exploring his attitudes towards violence and his experiences in prison. The problem here, however, is that the film feels a little too referential and merely skims the surface of Mandela's personal conflicts. Of course, a film charting the monumental events of Mandela's life was never going to have enough time but it often felt that the film was going through the motions, ticking off the milestones: a whistle-stop Mandela Tour.

The film is shot beautifully by Lol Crawley and the images of rural South Africa are particularly striking. Some have criticised the film's score as being too emotionally manipulative but I feel that it fits with the film's tone: this is not an exposé of some aspects of Mandela's life or a revelatory film: it is a dramatic summary, if you will, of Mandela. Its primary function is to be an emotive drama and its score reflects this. During scenes of prison visits by Mandela's family, the prison guard demands that the visits are conducted with the proviso that the conversations will include “no politics”. Some will disagree, but I think that, similarly, the film's own politics are less evident than they could be. This is not necessarily, however, a weakness.

Perhaps the central issue is this: does the film's subject-matter – based on the life and achievements of one of the most influential figures of modern times – automatically create a film of value and importance? The answer is no, it doesn't. Many will, perhaps, be disappointed with Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom because it fails to offer any more information than Mandela's Wikipedia entry. South Africa may look stunning, the cast may be captivating and the events portrayed may be exciting and affecting. But it's all too neat. At the beginning of this review, I asked whether or not biopics can make great cinematic experiences. Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom is not a triumph of cinema because, paradoxically, it is too cinematic, too polished and too referential.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom is released nationwide on 3rd January 2014 

Top Five Films of 2013

Unlike previous years, I'm afraid (or should that be glad) that there won't be a “Worst Five” films of 2013, simply because, I haven't seen that many bad ones! This is partly due to my absence over the summer when I was gallivanting around the world and partly due to the fact that 2013 has been a stunning year for cinema. Testament to this are the films which didn't make it into my list: Les Misérables, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Saving Mr Banks and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. It has been difficult to pick my Top Five but I have done it. Disagreements on the back of a postcard please...

5) Philomena

“Fantastic”, “affecting”, “poignant” and “potent” were some of the words I used to describe Philomena, the true story of Irish seventy-something Philomena Lee (Judi Dench) who, with the help of journalist Martin Sixsmith (Coogan), sets out to find her child who was put up for adoption by Catholic nuns in 1950's Ireland. The film balances wit with emotion and has two superb performances from Dench and Coogan (who is at his very best in this film). Some suggested that the film was an attack on the Catholic church: something which is patently untrue. But Philomena wasn't reluctant to address hard-hitting issues. A gem of a film which will pull at the heart strings.

 

4) Prisoners

If a film can be judged on levels of tension, then Prisoners is a sure-fire hit. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Hugh Jackman, Prisoners starts out with a fairly standard kidnap narrative but soon becomes dark, suffocating and very, very intense. Despite its 153 minute running time, the level of tension is sustained throughout and Gyllenhaal and Jackman give very assured performances. A word of warning though: you might just need to watch something with fluffy bunnies in it after seeing Prisoners.

3) The Place Beyond the Pines

In many ways, this film would make an interesting double-bill with Prisoners. Hollywood heartthrob Ryan Gosling plays a bike stunt rider who is constantly moving from one town to the next. He discovers he is father to a son and is determined to provide for both the child and its mother, Romina (Eva Mendes). The way in which he does this has fateful and far-reaching consequences for both him, his son and for Avery, an ambitious cop played by Bradley Cooper. Directed by Derek Cianfrance, The Place Beyond the Pines is epic, in all meanings of the word. Its frenetic changes in tone may jar with some viewers and its ending is a little too neat, but it is a film which speaks with dramatic lyricism and uninhibited ambition. It is unnerving, emotive and reassuringly human: all things which you want from a trip to the cinema.

2) Zero Dark Thirty

Creating more controversy than Miley Cyrus popping down to the local supermarket, Zero Dark Thirty surprised many in taking subject matter which we all thought we knew (the killing of Osama Bin Laden) and making it exciting and unsettling in equal measure. Jessica Chastain, as a CIA operative determined to track down Bin Laden, is fantastic and Katherine Bigelow's direction mixes espionage, action and drama together to create an intelligent film about intelligence gathering. Fantastic.

1) Gravity

And here it is: the Number One film of the year is Gravity – the only film that I think has to be seen in 3D. Its B-movie feel, short running time and immersive visual effects create a film which will have you gripping the edge of the seat from the very beginning. Sandra Bullock is at the top of her game and, despite the high-tech, wondrous special effects (which are ground-breaking), Gravity feels like a very personal, intimate film which will mean different things to each individual. It will make you fall in love with cinema all over again. 

Happy New Year from Clapperboard Film Reviews!

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

At some point over the festive period, many of you will watch Will Ferrell in Elf, the Christmas comedy which has become a family favourite in recent years. If, however, you're something of a Scrooge or simply have no desire to watch a man prance about in an over-sized elf costume, you can also catch Will Ferrell in Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (albeit in a rather different role). The original Anchorman was released nine years ago and secured broad praise from both critics and audiences. Anchorman 2 follows much the same format, and here lies both its successes and its biggest flaw.

Anchorman 2 sees Ron Burgundy (Ferrell), the famous 1970s news anchor and infamous chauvinist, being dropped from his news show in favour of his wife (played by Christina Applegate). Washed up and disillusioned with the world, Ron receives an unexpected offer to feature on the world's first 24-hour news channel and the old gang from the first film is reunited. This set-up plays well for the laughs and gives enough of a reason for a sequel to be made.

Ferrell is most certainly the moustachioed glue for the film and his dead-pan delivery of lines, coupled with Steve Carell's rather simple Brick Tamland, was very entertaining and Ferrell's writing credits are clear to see. Kristen Wiig as Brick's love interest was a great new addition to the gang and her scenes with Carell managed to be awkward and hilarious at the same time. The off-the-wall, slightly bizarre humour seen in the first film continues and when it works, it is really rather funny. The issue, however, is that the film is what I would call “securely funny”: it has enough laughs in it to keep its head above water but it is never outrageously, raucously funny. Indeed, the chuckles are well-paced and are sustained throughout the rather too-long 119 minute running time, but I think I just wanted the wit and satire to be that little more biting.

The central problem with some of the gags is less the sexual politics (which were central to the first film) and more its racial politics which just felt like a target for cheap laughs (a scene where Ron meets his lover's family around the dinner table was laughable but, with hindsight, was somewhat misjudged). On a further level, the film's final quarter lacked direction and fell apart. In a mystifying park fight sequence between news readers from different countries, the screenplay seemed to be grasping at straws, hoping that if enough celebrity cameos were shoe-horned in, then the audience may be distracted from the script's shortcomings.

The biggest obstacle for Anchorman 2 is its prequel. The original film was arguably more funny, felt novel and had more of a spark. Anchorman 2, whilst it does have enough jokes to sustain the audience through shots of Will Ferrell wrestling with a shark, the film remains less coherent and more problematic than the first. Securely funny it may be, but sometimes that just isn't enough.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * 

Frozen

Things are getting Christmassy. If television adverts are to be believed, it has been Christmas for about three months but, finally, it's acceptable to be in a festive mood. And what better way to do so than by popping down to your local cinema and enjoying a Yuletide flick. As you may have guessed from the title, Frozen offers the perfect winter wonderland for children and plenty for the grown-ups too.

Disney's animation output has been rather hit-and-miss of late. Cars 2 suffered from a poor storyline, Brave soared with its female protagonist but Monsters University failed to live up to the standards set by its predecessor. Frozen, however, is a genuine and entertaining film, and is one of Disney's best in recent years. Directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, Frozen sees the headstrong Princess Anna (Kristen Bell) team up with ice salesman Kristoff (Jonathan Groff) in search of her sister, Queen Elsa (Idina Menzel), who has banished herself from the city of Arendelle after accidentally causing an eternal winter as a result of her icy magic powers. On the way, we meet the talking snowman Olaf (voiced by Josh Gad) who charms and delights in equal measure. Frozen is most certainly a children's film and has to be judged as such. Disney has always been a leader in children's entertainment and Frozen will certainly enchant younger generations for years to come.

The animation in Frozen is beautifully realised and creates a winter world which will captivate children, as will the characters which are full of personality and appeal. Olaf, the magical snowman, was a personal favourite with his eccentric one-liners and delightful ignorance of just what a summer would mean for him. The two sisters at the centre of the story share a nice chemistry which drives the emotional side of the story, as well as Anna's search for love. This is a film with real heart. I saw the film in 3D (and it was my friend's first experience of the medium – she was, unsurprisingly, not very taken with it) and I'm sure it will look just as beautiful in 2D.

In terms of the screenplay, the whole film is expertly-paced and never drags: indeed, the opening exposition races through Anna and Elsa's childhood at a pace which would make an Olympic bob-sleigh team look sluggish. This is to the film's benefit as it allows the audience time to engage with the central message of the film early on and thus allows a real empathy to emerge with the characters. The film has several musical numbers, all of which will have children dancing along in their seats and adults enjoying the lyrics. At times, the whole thing did begin to feel like a Broadway show (a result of, I think, Idina Menzel's distinct – but powerful – vocals) but the songs were, nevertheless, very catchy.

Frozen is a delightful, captivating and refreshing Disney film which, I believe, will become one of its Christmas classics. It has everything that children will love: trolls, ice palaces, reindeer, princesses and magic (as well as enough material for adults to engage with as well). You'd really have to have a heart of ice to not enjoy it. 

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * 

Saving Mr. Banks

The more cynical amongst you will claim that the release of Saving Mr. Banks is timed to increase DVD sales of Mary Poppins for Christmas and, you'd probably be right. Charting the problematic and protracted gestation of the 1964 Disney classic, Saving Mr. Banks is a wonderfully warm and unapologetically saccharine account of Walt Disney's courting of P. L. Travers for the films rights to her famous children's book. They say that fact is stranger than fiction and, in this case, it really is.

John Lee Hancock (The Blind Side, Snow White and the Huntsman) directs this part-biopic, part-comedy of the pre-production hell of Mary Poppins which saw Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) woo the book's severe English/Australian author, P. L. Travers (Emma Thompson). One of the first things to say about Saving Mr. Banks is that Emma Thompson is absolutely glorious as the brusque Mrs Travers (“It is so discomforting to hear a perfect stranger use my first name”). I have long been a fan of hers (Thompson, that is, not Mrs T), and her performance is captivating and hilarious in equal measure. 

P. L. Travers was very reticent to give her beloved characters away to Walt Disney, a man whom she saw as vulgar and childish and was only prepared to do so should she have the final say in any production matter. The results of this are brilliant rehearsal and production meeting sequences in which Mrs Travers insists on a tape recorder being present to prevent Mr Disney from going back on his word of giving her artistic control. During the end credits, the audience is assured that Thompson's waspish and outspoken portrayal of P. L. Travers is not over-egged when the actual recordings of these meetings are played – a joy to hear in themselves.

Tom Hanks is convincing as Walt (and is actually a distant cousin of Disney) and plays the balance between idealistic entertainer and businessman very effectively. Interestingly, the development of the script for Saving Mr. Banks had no direct input from the Walt Disney Corporation who only intervened to ask that Walt was not shown smoking on-screen. The resulting screenplay (written by Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith) is very funny, insightful and rather moving. Two worlds exist in the film: P. L. Travers in 1960s Los Angeles during the pre-production of Mary Poppins and flashbacks to her early childhood in rural Australia.

These flashbacks explain the reasons behind key plot points in Mary Poppins and add a level of emotional depth to the film. Recounting Traver's close relationship to her playfully-imaginative, alcoholic bank manager father and his early death, the flashback sequences work well to explain the roots of Mary Poppins (after her father's death, her distraught mother's sister came to help the family and, in turn, became the inspiration for Mary Poppins herself). Traver's attempts at redemption for her father act as the central theme of the film. The flashbacks are at times, however, rather uneven and their meaning is spelt out too obviously for the audience. Hancock needn't have been so unsubtle in his treatment of Traver's back story. 

I was surprised to learn that the majority of the plot is, indeed, factually-accurate and I'm sure you'll Google the fierce P. L. Travers when you come home from the cinema. Emotionally-manipulative and syrupy as these scenes are, they ultimately work because the film is not ashamed to be supremely idealistic and sweet: everything that Disney was and Travers was not.

Aside from the flashbacks, the film excels in its 1960s sequences which are engaging and very funny. The genesis of the 1964 film's legendary songs is shown to be a tough one: Travers demanded that there were to be no songs in the film and no “silly animations” either. A decision which, obviously, she later had to reverse. Thompson treats these arguments and demands with an immediacy and conviction which was compelling to watch and which produced some very humorous moments. Traver's character transformation is obvious from the outset but this does not make it any less enjoyable or affecting. Indeed, I shed a tear at the end.

Saving Mr. Banks manages to be both funny and emotionally-powerful and recounts a story of film production which is immensely enjoyable to watch. Emma Thompson is undoubtedly the cornerstone of the film, giving a nuanced and enchanting performance in a film which will make you rush out and buy the DVD of Mary Poppins. I loved it, and so will you.

Clapperboard Rating: * * * * *

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

My review of The Hunger Games finished with the conclusion that its strong and dynamic central character bucked the trend of the hapless teenage heroine in need of a man to save her and was, as a result, hugely refreshing. This central character is Katniss Everdeen (again played by the immeasurably wonderful Jennifer Lawrence) and I stand by my original thoughts. The primary reason that The Hunger Games worked so well was because it was grounded by Lawrence's enthralling performance and, to my delight, the same is true for the second instalment of the trilogy.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire has a new director (Francis Lawrence - I Am Legend) and a new set of tributes who must fight it out in the 75^th year of the Games. Every twenty five years, the Hunger Games sees a new twist and, this year, the twist is that previous winners will again be offered as tributes. The hugely-unlucky Katniss has to, once again, enter the arena, although this time she has the support of loyal Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). It is a fairly large plot contrivance but if it produces performances and action as seen in the film, then I'm all for it.

First thing's first: Jennifer Lawrence is captivating as the dark-haired, defiant and beautifully vulnerable Katniss whose determination to protect those she loves is a joy to watch on screen. There is no doubt that Catching Fire succeeds because of Lawrence. Without her, it would be very difficult to imagine how a film such as this – the dystopia of children killing one another – would work in a cinematic context over a series of films. The final shot of the film is a perfect example of this and is, dare I say it, the finest piece of close-up camera acting I have ever seen. Without giving away spoilers, Lawrence is...well, stunning.

When the first film was released, it was accompanied by much debate over the level of violence and whether the film's subject matter was suitable for a 12A certificate. Catching Fire carries on its predecessor's attitude towards violence: it is an intrinsic part of the story and is treated in a careful and appropriate way. Gruesome injury detail is minimal and much of the violence is implied or cut away from. This does not make it less affecting, however, and it was still genuinely disturbing to see (or, sometimes, not see) the violence. To remove any more of it would have weakened the intrinsic value of a film based on moral issues such as repression, fear and aggression. Catching Fire is, perhaps, slightly less shocking than the first film. This is due to the fact that the audience are more aware of the film's ideas and subject matter. Furthermore, the first half of the film is set outside of an arena context and focuses on the PR campaign conducted by the Capitol when Katniss and Peeta embark on the Victor's Tour, aimed at keeping down rebellion. There are still, however, plenty of shocks.

A strong supporting cast, displaying the vivid and extravagant costume design of Trish Summerville, works well and helps to create depth in the world of Panem. Fans will be delighted by the love triangle between Katniss, Peeta, and Gale (Liam Hemsworth) although the whole triangle had be rather confused: can't Katniss just decide who she wants to go out with?! All rather unfair on the boys... Anyway, that's beside the point.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire blends great action with insightful moral commentary and a compelling personal drama. The brutality of the Games and the Capitol once again propels the narrative and results in a film which is, arguably, more accomplished than the first. Jennifer Lawrence is, however, the integral component which holds the film together and is an awesome screen presence. The final book in the trilogy will be split into two films (as with so many adaptations these days) but hey, I don't mind. If it carries on like this, you'll find me at the front of the line...

Clapperboard Rating: * * * *