Blog

By Robert Mann.

With the summer moviegoing season now in swing and the first action blockbuster of the period now on release, it’s time for the customary counterprogramming provided in the form of a Hollywood romantic comedy, this year that film being Something Borrowed, the first of several wedding themed comedies to be released this year, others being Bridesmaids and Jumping the Broom (the latter actually opening on the exact same weekend as this film in the states). Unlike a lot of Hollywood romantic comedies that are written directly for the screen, Something Borrowed finds its inspiration in the pages of a best-selling novel – something that it shares in common with He’s Just Not That Into You, another film that boasts Something Borrowed star Ginnifer Goodwin as part of its cast – that novel being the 2005 chic lit novel Something Borrowed by author Emily Giffin, a book which was placed on the New York Times Best Seller List and that spawned a sequel entitled Something Blue – which, if this film performs well at the box office, will presumably also be adapted as a film. The presence of Hilary Swank as a producer – this being the first film that she is not starring in that she has produced in five years – certainly seems to give this film a slightly higher level of prestige than other romantic comedies but the other behind the camera credits are pretty much romcom business as usual.

Writer Jennie Snyder Urman has no previous experience in writing features although her past credits in television do highlight a focus towards female orientated fare, her having written for shows like Gilmore Girls, Lipstick Jungle and 90210 and, while, unlike many romantic comedies that are directed by filmmakers who often seem to direct little other than romantic comedies, this film’s director, Luke Greenfield, has not directed a romantic comedy before (even though he has directed comedies with an element of romance in them), his previous directorial credits 2001 Rob Schneider comedy The Animal and 2004 Emile Hirsch/Elisha Cuthbert sex comedy The Girl Next Door, his past work hardly suggests anything truly remarkable from his filmmaking skills. In front of the camera, meanwhile, while it’s great to see the truly delightful and too little seen Ginnifer Goodwin taking on a leading role again, her most notable role previously being in romantic comedy He’s Just Not that Into You, and fresh face Colin Egglesfield offers a change to the same leading men that seem to appear in romantic comedies over and over again, anyone who has a dislike for Kate Hudson, who is here making her second romantic comedy appearance of 2011 after A Little Bit of Heaven and who seems to be trying to outdo her How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days co-star Matthew McConaughey for number of romantic comedies starred in, may well find that this isn’t a film for them.

Anyone who has seen the trailer for this film will also have already come to the impression that this is not a film that can claim originality to be one of its virtues, the film certainly living up to its title Something Borrowed – in fact, in terms of all the ideas in the film that are so clearly lifted from other romantic comedies, you could perhaps even call it “Everything Borrowed”. As has been demonstrated many times before, though, when it comes to romantic comedies, a lack of originality isn’t necessarily a problem.

What really matters is whether the film is sweet, charming and romantic enough and sweetness but does Something Borrowed actually embody these things and after walking up to the ticket counter at your cinema will you be saying “I do”?

Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin), a talented attorney at a New York law firm, is a single woman who has just thirty and who has had a long standing crush on the handsome and likeminded Dex (Colin Egglesfield) who she met in law school and immediately hit it off. There’s a problem however – Dex is about to marry Darcy (Kate Hudson), Rachel’s best friend with whom she has been virtually inseparable since childhood. In fact, on one terrible night just after Rachel and Dex had finished law school together, a fatal hesitation from Rachel led to Dex and Darcy getting together in the first place. Rachel has always managed to hide her feelings but, after drinking too much with Dex following her 30th birthday party, she inadvertently reveals that she used to have a crush on him and one thing leads to another leading to her waking up the following morning to find that she has slept with him.

What follows is a major life crisis for Rachel as she must choose between her long hidden love for Dex, a love it seems he may just reciprocate, and her loyalty to Darcy, the friend who has always been there for her. Meanwhile, Rachel’s long-time confidant Ethan (John Krasinski) is harbouring a few secrets of his own and becomes entangled in the increasingly complicated situation that arises between Rachel, Darcy and Dex. Can Rachel finally find true love with the man she has long been in love with and can she do so without ruining her friendship with Darcy?

If what you look for in a romantic comedy is originality or ingenuity you will find that Something Borrowed, a film that borrows (by which I mean blatantly rips off) ideas from virtually every mainstream Hollywood romantic comedy that has come before it, will completely fail to satisfy you. No cliché goes unplundered, from the New York setting, with the film failing to do anything even remotely new or different from the countless other romance movies set there, to the rain soaked climax and the happy ending that could only happen in a Hollywood movie or a literary fairy tale, the film propagating a largely fantastical view of love and relationships where everything works out for those most deserving despite purporting to deal with real life issues relating to love and relationships, and the storyline is entirely predictable, right down to the revelation that another character has feelings for Rachel – something which most viewers will likely see coming a mile off – even if the film just barely defies standard romcom expectations by not having her end up with him.

Many of these flaws might well be possible to overlook but for the fact that the film is also greatly lacking in other key areas. For starters, the writing is extremely subpar, Jennie Snyder Urman failing to get much charm or wit out of the obvious and clichéd script and delivering dialogue that is bland and forgettable. The plot she delivers also fails to hold the interest for long, the trials and tribulations of Rachel and Dex’s affair growing rather tiresome after a while and the film as a whole running out of steam some time before it reaches its finale. What’s more the film also proves extremely underwhelming in the comedy department. There are a few mild giggles to be had, mostly courtesy of largely superfluous supporting characters Claire (Ashley Williams) and Marcus (Steve Howey) – when the latter isn’t really irritating that is – and a subplot involving Ethan pretending to be gay in an attempt to fend off the unwanted affections of Claire, but there are absolutely no laugh out loud moments to be found in the lacklustre dialogue, the poorly constructed gags or the humour devoid situations. The film does at least fare moderately better as a romance than it does as a comedy. A key reason for this is that, if nothing else, the chemistry does work.

A flashback scene – one of several flashbacks portraying a sort of internal monologue from the perspective of Rachel which also show us how Rachel inadvertently sets Dex up with Darcy – shows us the moment that Rachel and Dex first meet and there really is a sense that they click straight away and really go together and throughout the movie the chemistry between Ginnifer Goodwin and Colin Egglesfield makes it genuinely believable that these two characters actually belong together. Conversely, the chemistry between Egglesfield and Kate Hudson never convinces, perhaps because it is quite clear that the two characters really don’t go together, it being abundantly obvious that it is Rachel who Dex really wants to be with. Of course, the differences in the individual characters are also a major contributing factor to this, Rachel and Darcy having two contrasting personalities, the former being shy, lacking in self confidence and used to not getting everything she wants in life, while the latter is bold, outgoing and used to things always going her way, their differences making for a perhaps unusual friendship dynamic but also one that mostly seems to work.

Apart from one another, our sympathies are constantly drawn towards the warm and caring Rachel, who, from the outset, is the kind of character we just want to see things work out for, while Darcy, despite not exactly being a bad person, is someone we seem to be encouraged to not like, it being hard to really feel much about what happens to her. Rachel may be presented as the plainer of the two characters but she is also by far the most likable. The chemistry on screen makes it entirely plausible that certain characters would end up with each other and is the main driving force for the romance, the writing really failing to offer up much of anything and thus giving the cast little to work with. While both Kate Hudson and Ginnifer Goodwin generally convince in their roles, their performances seem far too similar to past roles they have played, Hudson just going through the motions of a role she has played many times before in other romantic comedies while Goodwin’s role seems to just be a variation on her character in He’s Just Not That Into You.

Hudson fails to stand out here but the film really belongs to Ginnifer Goodwin whose sweetness and adorability make it virtually impossible not to be won over by her character, even as she is having an affair with her best friend’s fiancée. She is a delightful and totally lovable screen presence – and also an incredibly cute one, both in the present day scenes and the flashbacks in which we see a slightly geekier version of her complete with glasses – but sadly this film is a waste of her talent. The men don’t fare that well either, Colin Egglesfield being a competent leading man and providing plenty of eye candy for the ladies but not really having enough charisma for the role he is playing while John Krasinski’s role proves rather pointless for the most part. So, Something Borrowed is a romantic comedy that is hugely underwhelming. Lacking the kind of sparkle that could have made it more than just another mediocre by the numbers Hollywood romantic comedy, so much more could clearly have been made of it if the filmmakers had just tried to do something a bit different to the norm. As it is, this is a film that has something missing and if a friend asks you whether or not you want to see it you might as well answer with these two words: “I don’t”.

Well, what can I say? I was gobsmacked when I put this DVD on and at first I thought I may have been given the wrong DVD. Surely I wouldn’t have been given soft-core pornography to review? It seems I have.

Straight out of 1973 this ‘vampire porn’ film directed by Joseph W Sarno hits you in the face with lashings of lesbian masturbation scenes. All very well if that’s your bag, but I generally like to be eased into this, instead of it being the introduction, middle and also end. The beginning is bizarre, the storyline is absurd and the accents down right laughable. Stilted acting, awkward stares and lots of boobs. Now don’t get me wrong, I like boobs, I’m sure everyone does, however this is based in Germany in what looks like winter time, I doubt beautiful young maidens would be walking around a castle with their wabs on display if it’s -10 degrees outside!

To be honest, in my reviews I always try to put actors names in and also what characters they play, but for this film I don’t think it really matters. All you need to know is that a German Vampire Baroness (who was also a lesbian) was murdered 400 years ago and she is really really pissed about this. Luckily 2 of her ancestors (who also seem to have lesbian tendencies) are on their way to read her will. The housekeeper of the castle and her helpers (all also lesbians) spots the opportunity and sets to work enchanting the pair to resurrect the dead Baroness. Yet it seems to be scuppered when a brother/sister team show up (elements of incest but suprisingly no lesbian tendencies) to try to stop them.

What ensues is absolutely hilarious and can only be described as pornography. The brother has sex with everything that moves (including the dead Baroness who gets resurrected), the sister tries to have sex with the brother but the garlic cross she made brings her to her senses, one of the ancestors turns into the Baroness and people start shoving candles into orifices that probably shouldn’t have candles put there.

I couldn’t help but think that if it had slightly less dialogue and storyline (sparce as it is) it would make a great 70’s soft-core porn film. Or if it had less nudity and more emphasis on storyline it would have made a brilliant vampire thriller. But it was just a bit confused, neither a good porno, or a good film!

Finally, I just can’t take a film seriously if they have candles in the shape of a penis. I’m sorry I just can’t.

When a movie crew invades a small Japanese town, local lumberjack Katsuhiko (Kôji Yakusho) and young filmmaker Koichi (Shun Oguri) form an unlikely bond.

The film is very much a character piece and revolves around the two leads as they slowly learn about each other and themselves. The young learning from the old and vice vera is a story that has been told countless times in many genres and contexts. Here it is the strength of the two central performances combined with a lightness of touch that really elevates the material.

Oguri’s portrayal of the young writer/director, struggling to come to terms with his pressure and responsibility of being the ‘boss’ is at times a little too introverted. However the quiet awkwardness of his early scenes makes the pay off all the more satisfying as the director slowly finds his feet and takes control of his project.

Similarly Katsuhiko’s slow unraveling from grumpy old man to content, almost jovial father figure is played with masterful ease by Yakusho. This is most satisfying in the brief scenes the character shares with his son, as he learns from his relationship with Koichi and creates a closer bond with his own child of a similar age. It would have been easy for the filmmakers to lay this particular element on a bit thick, but in there three scenes together, Katsuhiko and his son communicate their changing relationship with the subtlety and nuance that runs through the rest of the film.

A coming of age story that is beautifully shot (I can image the Japanese tourist board are very pleased that this particular film seems to be traveling well) and superbly acted, The Woodsman And The Rain is a light hearted drama that is easily one of the most accessible foreign language films in recant memory,

Last week I had the pleasure of reviewing the bleak, moving French film Gervaise, by director Réne Clément. Skip forward seven days and I have sat down, black coffee in hand, to watch Oscar-winning Forbidden Games, also by Clément; released four years prior to Gervaise in 1952. Luckily, this turned out to be an equally intimate, heartbreaking – yet at times darkly comic – picture.

The film, set in 1940’s France at the height of the Second World War, revolves around young Paulette (played by an incredible Brigitte Fossey), a six year old girl whose parents are killed in a Nazi air attack whilst fleeing Paris. Stranded in the countryside and ignored by other evacuees, Paulette is eventually rescued by Michel Dollé (Georges Poujouly) and taken in by his poor, country family. The children quickly form a close relationship and we watch them attempt, in their naive, innocent way, to make sense of the death they see around them.

The tagline of Forbidden Games was “War… and how it affects the lives of our children”.  Such a blunt, cursory description gives no indication of the imaginative and unsentimental way with which this topic is dealt. This is no Spielberg-esque sob-fest; we do not see Paulette weeping over the bodies of her parents whilst the Nazi bombers disappear into a blood-red sky (not least because this is a black and white film). Instead, Paulette seems almost unaffected, gently smiling at her dead mother’s face before pulling herself up and grabbing her pet dog. She clambers aboard a nearby cart with an elderly couple, at which point the audience experiences the first moment of black humour, as the woman grabs Paulette’s dog, tells her it is dead, and unceremoniously flings his body over the bridge.

From then on, the context of war is almost forgotten, lingering only in the background as the children try to deal with the constant presence of death: be it of Paulette’s parents, her pet dog, or Michel’s brother. Instead of war between countries, the film focuses on the feud between the Dollé family and their neighbouring Gouards, which leaves the adults obsessed and the children largely ignored. Paulette and Michel, given no guidance on how to come to terms with bereavement, displace their sadness, becoming fixated with building an animal cemetery in an abandoned mill. Michel teaches cosmopolitan Paulette about religion and the role of the cross, and so Paulette begins to covet crucifixes, instructing love-struck Michel to steal them for her. The children experience the symbols with no understanding of their meaning and although this could simply be read as an extension of their immaturity, I also took it as a general critique of religious symbolism and its irrelevance in the face of death and human emotion.

The audience becomes so engrossed with the thieving antics of the children that it forgets the bigger picture of war and Paulette’s orphan status. The end of the film then comes as a shock, with the Dollé adults happily handing Paulette over to the authorities, despite previously seeming so attached to her. The last heart-wrenching scene shows Paulette running through a crowd of adults, calling desperately for Michel, before “Fin” appears, cruelly, on the screen. As with Gervaise, this film adheres to the brutal reality of life, and refuses to provide the happy ending that the audience hope for.

Although at times the pacing felt somewhat slow, on the whole this film is a beautiful, honest and piercingly perceptive reading of the impact of war on young children. Studio Canal recently re-released both Forbidden Games and Gervaise as part of a Réne Clément centenary box-set, and I would highly recommend tracking it down.