You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger

Tags

2010's, Anthony Hopkins, Antonio Banderas, Comedy, Drama, Freida Pinto, Gemma Jones, Josh Brolin, Lucy Punch, Naomi Watts, Pauline Collins, Woody Allen, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger

Film Title

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger

Director

Woody Allen

Starring

• Anthony Hopkins as Alfie
• Gemma Jones as Helena
• Naomi Watts as Sally
• Josh Brolin as Roy
• Antonio Banderas as Greg
• Lucy Punch as Charmaine
• Freida Pinto as Dia
• Pauline Collins as Cristal

Although there is wit and drama to be found, when watching You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, you can’t help but feel that Woody Allen has done better movies over the years. Sure he knows how to write some great characters and situations, but unfortunately this movie isn’t a shining example of his talent.

The film focuses on the tangled love lives and questions of fate within a family living in London. Firstly, we have Alfie who has had an epiphany that time is not on his side and that he needs to relive some of his lost youth. The first step to do this is to divorce his shocked wife Helena, who because of this becomes friendly with fake fortune-teller Cristal, who she begins to trust almost completely. Life then becomes besotted with the much younger Charmaine, who is a former call girl and gold digger. Alfie quickly marries her, but soon enough he looks like he may regret it as her money spending gets out of control and his bank balance plummets. Alfie and Helena’s daughter Sally works in an art gallery, hoping one day to open one of her own yet blighted by the fact that her husband Roy is a washed-up writer. Roy wallows in misery at a lack of inspiration because his first novel was a success, but he has failed to replicate it in the following years. He is currently awaiting the response to his latest submission, but the arrival of Helena talking of cosmic energy does nothing to quell his fears. He finds some form of solace in a growing attraction to Dia, a beautiful music student who lives in the apartment opposite. Sally has grown tired of Roy’s lack of success, moping around and wants to start her own family, which seems out of the question as Roy has no intention. While at work, she begins to develop feelings for her new boss Greg, yet she doesn’t know whether to act on them or not. Let’s just say, entanglements ensue.

While it must be said that Woody Allen still has the ear for dialogue, he isn’t on his finest form here leaving many of the stories feeling tired and exhausted. You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger isn’t completely terrible, it is actually quite good in parts. But I can’t help have the nagging feeling that Woody Allen can do so much better than this. One major problem I had with the film was that as certain stories seemed to get going, they were shoved to the back and not focused on a lot. This in turn made You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger a disjointed film, because some stories work a lot better than others and certain characters were more engaging than others. There are positives to the film to be found, despite the flaws that riddle the piece and make it one of his less accomplished efforts. I liked how the theme whether fates holds sway over lives and loves was presented, in the form of a charlatan fortune-teller whose predictions are often quite close to the truth. As is typical with a multi layered film, some parts of You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger work better than others. When it does work, the film has a gleefully ironic tone to it that is hard to miss. This is best summed up in the narration that has a mordant view of events and takes swipes at the misfortunes and romantic entanglements the characters find themselves in. A jaunty jazz soundtrack is used well enough to signify the changes in love that everyone goes through.

Anthony Hopkins is on good form(yet again, when he is not anything but excellent?) as Alfie, who thinks the grass is greener on the other side and is in for a rude awakening as it turns out to be not the bed of roses he expected. The delightful Gemma Jones is by turns funny and touching as his former wife, who takes to consulting supposedly clairvoyant forces for answers on her directions in life. Naomi Watts is splendidly overwrought as the frustrated Sally, while Josh Brolin, all scraggly hair and hangdog appearances is suitably pathetic and engulfed in self-pity as the washed-up Roy, desperately wanting success. The main standout within the cast for me is Lucy Punch as the trashy gold digger Charmaine. She helps provide some outrageous humour and crude appeal as Charmaine begins to fleece Alfie for every penny he’s got, despite not being the brightest person there is. Punch just has the necessary humour and attitude for the part that she clearly makes the most of. I myself found that Antonio Banderas and Freida Pinto were shortchanged with the material they were given. Both are talented stars, but the script just didn’t have enough flesh on the bones of either character for them to register with me. At least Pauline Collins, despite being only seen sporadically, is very amusing in the part of the fortune-teller who may actually be telling the truth.

With too many loose ends not tied up and some actors wasted in their respective parts, You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger just lacks that extra spark that a lot of Allen’s work has. In the end, it resembles something akin to a mess that had potential but somehow squandered it.

Puss in Boots

Tags

2010's, Adventure, Amy Sedaris, Animated, Antonio Banderas, Billy Bob Thornton, Chris Miller, Comedy, Fantasy, Puss in Boots, Salma Hayek, Zach Galifianakis

Film Title

Puss in Boots

Director

Chris Miller

Voice Cast

• Antonio Banderas as Puss in Boots
• Salma Hayek as Kitty Softpaws
• Zach Galifianakis as Humpty Dumpty
• Billy Bob Thornton as Jack
• Amy Sedaris as Jill

An excellently animated and witty spin-off with the lovable rogue feline that proved so popular in the Shrek movies, Puss in Boots is proof that not all spin offs are a bad things. It becomes a bit bogged down at times when establishing some of the origins, but that doesn’t make it any less entertaining due to the mixing of humour, fantasy and animation.

Years before encountering Shrek, Puss is a fugitive who while being a bandit, has his own sense of code and honour. Travelling from place to place, he becomes aware of the mythical beans that lead to the clouds, promising a Golden Goose. The beans are currently in the possession of murderous outlaws Jack and Jill. Our smooth talking furry feline makes it his mission to recover them, but something gets in the way on his first attempt. A sleek and slinky feline by the name of Kitty Softpaws intervenes and distracts him in her own mission to get the magical beans. After giving chase, Puss discovers that Kitty is in fact in league with someone from his past. The person in question is the talking egg Humpty Dumpty. As children, him and Puss were like brothers, but Humpty out of spite and jealousy, betrayed Puss during a robbery that left Puss an outcast from his town. Initially reluctant to help Humpty in his quest to get the beans, Puss eventually comes around to the idea because of his quest to rebuild his reputation, but is still unsure of whether Humpty is plotting something. There’s no time to think though as he, along with the unusual Humpty and the gifted thief Kitty, are plunged into a full-on adventure of the highest order with excitement and twists along the way, closely linked with Jack and Jill who they must commandeer the beans off.

I will admit that I was skeptical at the idea of a Puss in Boots spin-off, because I often find spin-offs tend to be lesser than the films that they are originally linked too. So I was really surprised that Puss in Boots was in fact a very accomplished film. Chris Miller and his set of animators really gave it their all here, bringing verve and colour to the proceedings. From scene to scene, the lively animation brought life to the adventure and was spectacular. And while the visuals were a clear highlight, the various gags and send ups to western movies and pop culture was really amusing to watch. I’ve always been a fan of giving old fairy tales a makeover, and Puss in Boots does it with an abundance of heart and style. Now the main flaw I found with Puss in Boots was the overindulgence of flashbacks. I know they were meant to establish the origin story of Puss and many were good, it just felt a bit much. It could have been tightened a lot more in my view. Yet that is the only real thing I can pick at in the movie because it is immensely enjoyable and fresh. A Latin accented score is the perfect accompaniment to the rip-roaring and hysterical adventure that Puss finds himself dragged into.

Antonio Banderas with his thickly accented and suave voice is magnetic as the thieving feline on the adventure of a lifetime. Equal parts humour and pathos, Banderas uses his masterful vocal talent to give stunning life to the lovable Puss. Salma Hayek is an ideal choice for the voice of the slinky Kitty, who can match Puss with her fighting skill and thieving expertise. Hayek and Banderas, having worked together before, clearly have a good sense of camaraderie, chemistry and banter that feeds into the characters they voice here. Zach Galifianakis masterfully keeps us on edge with his contribution as Humpty, whose capricious changes in character are called into question. Is he leading Puss on or is he genuinely trying to reestablish a friendship again? That mystery is given life by the talented Galifianakis. As the revamped and very dangerous Jack and Jill, Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris display the right amount of villainy suited to the film with their long drawl.

Colourful, funny and with stellar animation, Puss in Boots emerges as a spin-off that is hugely charming and proves that when done right, these kinds of movies can work really well.

Interview with the Vampire

Tags

1990's, Anne Rice, Antonio Banderas, Brad Pitt, Christian Slater, Horror, Interview with the Vampire, Kirsten Dunst, Neil Jordan, Stephen Rea, Tom Cruise

Film Title

Interview with the Vampire

Director

Neil Jordan

Starring

• Tom Cruise as Lestat de Lioncourt
• Brad Pitt as Louis de Pointe du Lac
• Kirsten Dunst as Claudia
• Antonio Banderas as Armand
• Christian Slater as Daniel Molloy
• Stephen Rea as Santiago

Accorded a mixed reception upon its release, Interview with the Vampire is a mature, Gothic and well-mounted tale soaked in both sadness and blood from director Neil Jordan and scripted by Anne Rice, from her own novel. I personally have never really had a problem with the film and have felt it has been underrated over the years since its release. Anyway, back to my review of it.

Interview with the Vampire begins in modern-day San Francisco. Daniel Molloy is an eager reporter who documents people’s lives. His client this time is Louis de Pointe du Lac, yet Louis is no ordinary client. He is a 200-year-old vampire. Louis wants to tell Daniel the story of his life after he was “born into darkness”, fascinated Daniel begins to listen. The film flashes back to Louis’ life just before he was transformed into a creature of the night. He was an owner of a plantation just south of New Orleans in 1791, who fell into deep depression after his wife died in childbirth. Wanting to be freed from the pain and suffering, Louis was turned into a vampire by the cunning Lestat. Louis later comes to regret wanting death as Lestat has now condemned him to immortality. He finds it hard to live as a vampire because of his good nature and this impacts on the fact that he can’t bring himself to kill humans in order to survive. Lestat on the other hand shows no mercy and enjoys draining the life away from humans. Although commonly at each others throats, the two are bound because of their vampirism. One night the hunger inside Louis causes him to bite the neck of Claudia, a young plague victim. Lestat sees the little girl as an opportunity for company and something to make Louis stay as he knows the guilt Louis suffers from. He transforms Claudia into a vampire and they form a somewhat macabre ‘family’. As the years pass and the family move from place to place, Claudia forms a bond with both Louis and Lestat. Lestat teaches her to be a killer of which Claudia has no problem as she has a thirst for blood that challenges even the brutal Lestat’s, whereas Louis becomes almost a surrogate father to the child he never had. Claudia eventually becomes resentful of Lestat for turning her into a vampire, as she still retains the doll-like appearance of a young girl but has mentally grown up into a woman. Events soon come to a head between the three as power shifts between them and Louis attempts to search for answers regarding vampires. Stunning visuals, gorgeous set decoration and all round great performances populate this melancholy tale of the loneliness of being a vampire and the Gothic horror surrounding it .

The first thing to praise in Interview with the Vampire has to be Neil Jordan’s directing. We get a vampire movie with a sombre heart that is very adult and mature in theme and does not pander to a younger audience. Anne Rice writes the screenplay from her own novel and generally succeeds in being faithful to the source material. The visual design of the film should definitely be praised for the way it captures the various time zones and countries encompassed within the narrative, from Louisiana to Paris. Set decoration is particularly stunning in the scenes of an underground group of vampires that Louis and Claudia find, the various catacombs and chasms glimmering in candlelight with a Gothic splendour. Make-up and effects are also of the highest order in bringing to life the lives of these vampires. Standout scenes include Louis watching his last sunrise before his transformation, Claudia convulsing violently during her metamorphosis as her blonde hair morphs into red curls and a gruesome scene of vampires putting on a play involving the sacrifice of an innocent victim. The score provided makes for an eerie listen that highlights the themes of darkness and sorrow; the opening sound of a single choir boy’s voice singing a lullaby is enough to send chills down the spine. The presence of Louis’ mournful narration adds a certain pathos to the story, as we listen to his experiences and how he feels that being a vampire is a curse, and not a gift. 

Although there was controversy surrounding the casting of Tom Cruise as the flamboyant and sadistic Lestat, Cruise handles the role in an effective enough way. It’s not one of his best performances but he still gives the role his best shot. Brad Pitt is very good as the tortured Louis, bringing sympathy to the role of a man living an endless life of regret and pain. It is Louis who forms the centre of the story as we witness his reluctance to harm in order to survive and his relationship with Claudia. The biggest impression made on the film has to be a very young Kirsten Dunst as Claudia. She plays her role with an astonishing amount of maturity whilst also showing a devilish side to this vampire. Claudia is the most tragic of the trio of main vampires; as an audience we feel her struggle at learning that although her mind has matured, her outward appearance will always be that of a young girl. In many scenes, Kirsten Dunst steals them from her more experienced co-stars with her mix of startling complexity, expressive eyes and sense of entrapment. Fleshing out the supporting players is a seductive and dangerously charming Antonio Banderas as the head of a secret sect of vampires, Christian Slater as the man listening to Louis’ extraordinary story and a menacing Stephen Rea as the deceptive Santiago.

For those who want a sumptuous, blood-soaked tale of regret, Interview with the Vampire is most certainly advised viewing. Bold, melancholy and mature, it is a vampire film that questions the effects of transformation and whether it is as great as it first appears.