CLASSIC COMEDY - Derek?

Unusually, unlike other pieces featured in this CLASSIC COMEDY section which has become kind of a recurring theme on this blog, I am this time not looking at something that is well established or aged when it comes to typical ideas of TV comedy, nor am I definitively saying it should be hailed as "classic comedy". Instead I am continually debating with myself on this one - should Ricky Gervais' Derek go on to be, or has it already become a classic piece of comedy? Ricky Gervais I know is a figure of renown and, depending on who you talk to, huge popularity or loud-mouthed scandal. Before Derek however, I hadn't really seen or engaged in anything he had done. Oh I enjoyed the Night at the Museum films which he appears in and things of that ilk, but in terms of his massively popular comedy giants of previous years, such as The Office and Extras; I never really got into those. No, for me Derek is the key area of focus here, and if Ricky Gervais is known and remembered for nothing else but this, then I would say he has done very well indeed.

The second series of this Channel 4 bittersweet mock-umentary has just finished its run, and it has resulted in a lot of conflicting ideas and opinions, and quite a few pros and cons for me when it comes to looking at the show as a whole.
In essence, I adored the Pilot of 2012, and the first series last year. It did receive some criticism, but for me it had just the right amounts of laugh-out-loud hilarity, down to earth drama, and sweet poignancy. And what's more, don't get me wrong, I was very pleased to hear it was returning for a second series. However, it soon became apparent that in some key areas, they had decided to fiddle with and brashly embellish it, which I did not appreciate at all, and moreover offered me a new and slightly more negative perspective on a show that initially could do no wrong for me.

A few key series 2 areas that I feel shouldn't have been included the Hannah/Tom relationship, which apparently was evolving from series 1 but I didn't see it. On the one hand I love the character of Hannah, played by Kerry Godliman, in both series. To me she is just the right amount of charismatic, humerous, erstwhile and heartening. I think it was good she got a love interest, but I really didn't like the character of Tom; shady, two-dimensional and predictable in all the wrong areas. In series 2, whilst apparently "progressing" their story, Ricky Gervais in essence has taken us on a multi-episode run-around with these two with the odd smattering of drama here and there, without taking it anywhere really so we end up back where we started. What's more this relationship was just done in a way that jarred resonantly with all the positive and charming elements of Derek. 
Other series 2 negatives for me include David Earl's Kev being even more gross and horrifically coarse, yet this time just for the sake of being so, and also for some reason the nemesis-like influences of the outside world (which came into play brilliantly in series 1) just seemed so tired and clichéd second time around. Yet for me, one of the biggest affronts came early on in Derek's return.

One element in series 1 I loved was the incomparable Karl Pilkington as caretaker Dougie, and thus I was utterly aghast when he was quickly written out of the second series, during the first episode. Apparently this was due to Pilkington's crippling nerves when doing the first series, and him not wanting to carry on. Fine I can accept that; I think it's a shame but fine. However when discussing Pilkington's departure, Gervais said that he was "not integral" to the show. I feel he was proven horribly wrong, especially when he brought in the character of Geoff, who is an incredibly poor and negative imitation, to replace him. In the show, Geoff is basically an "arsehole", and thus that is what he is to me, with no redeeming features at all. Not funny, not dramatic, not a good actor, not a good character, not watchable; all going to show in my view, what a total cock up Gervais made in axing Dougie.

Finally, for many viewers and critics, Gervais' conception and performance in Derek has been a problem from day one. Initially I either didn't see this, or quickly brushed it away because I was so enamored with the show and the character. Now though in series 2, possibly because of the a fore-mentioned negatives, there were a few times when I could see through the seemingly perfect character of Derek, which for me was not a pleasant experience. A few times this series, there were moments when Gervais' character didn't seem to be a character at all, it was just Gervais mooching about in a cardigan with a bad fringe pretending to be simple. What's more, it was Gervais mooching about with a very abrasive and arrogant attitude that did not bode well for me as a viewer.

And yet, and yet... There were still plenty of hilarious, beautifully crafted and hugely sweet moments in series 2 of Derek that kept you watching and kept you coming back for more. Admittedly to me they did seem to come towards the end, some of the best moments (comedy, tragedy and just plain 'awww') indeed arriving in the final episode (maybe that was their plan all along!). Yes, for whatever reasons, I did skeptically see a few chinks in Derek's armor this time, and yes perhaps the show is suffering a tad from second album syndrome. However I will by no means abolish it from my viewing nor encourage anyone else to do the same. It is still for me the best thing Gervais has done, and is simply just a wonderfully warm, lovely and genius piece of TV. I definitely want to see more of Derek, and I maintain what I said at the start - I do feel that Derek certainly still has the potential to become a classic piece of comedy.

The X-Men Archive

X-Men: Days of Future Past is upon us! That's right, the seventh film in this mega-successful (and in my humble opinion the best) Marvel film franchise has been released and is already set to be hugely popular and of course deliver massively on the epic scale. Rest assured I shall surely endeavor to see it, and to thus write a review for you lovely people. But first, as this is a series of films that has spanned 14 years to date, I thought I would take a quick trip down mutant memory lane, and offer a brief compendium, looking in turn at each of the X-Men films gone before, as part of my own build up to the latest barn-storming outing - enjoy!

NB. This blog post is looking at each individual X-Men film featuring the marvelous team of mutants, and not the two Wolverine spin-offs. That is not to say these are not fantastic too, in fact for my review of the latest Wolverine film, see my blog archive!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X-MEN

The original, and to a lot of Marvel/X-Men connoisseurs, the best. This film was released way back in 2000 and for me as well as legions of others, surely launched the first golden age of movies not just for Marvel, but for the X-Men.

We were introduced of course to a stellar core cast of characters portrayed beautifully in each case by a fantastic collection of acting talent; in this film as well as the sequels, you will never hear me say any actor or actress was not suited to their own mutant alter-ego, the casting really was and is superb. These characters of course featured the hugely popular Wolverine AKA Hugh Jackman who was in turn introduced to Charles Xavier (the legendary Sir Patrick Stewart) and his X-Men, and thus their first clash with Magneto (the equally legendary Sir Ian Mckellen) and his evil brotherhood of mutants. Suitably restrained for a first outing, yet certainly delivering just the right amounts of comic book action and human moments abound, yet also this first X-Men sort of feels to me to be a Marvel thriller in many ways. Very gritty, very set in what Marvel has always tried to portray as "the real world" to their credit. As I say, this film was a great precedent for all the greatness to come, yet it could have been a total flop. Happily however, under the leadership of director Bryan Singer, the X-Men adventures got off to a very solid and very pleasing start.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X-2

Even after a good start 2003's sequel, like any other sequel, could still have been a poor anti-climax. Yet I am pleased to say that I feel the opposite occurred. The second on-screen X-Men adventure excelled beyond anyone's expectations. Not only was the many and varied cast expanded brilliantly even further into a truly blistering ensemble (notable highlights for me included the great Brian Cox as villainous William Stryker and Alan Cummings as the iconic Nightcrawler) but the story of the second film worked to exaggerate and highlight the great intricacies of each character, both individually and together.

The result was a film that was ram-jam packed full of fantastic chemistry between characters, oodles of action, and the developments of classic X-sagas that were highly recognizable to comic fans. Whilst the first film has its staunch supporters, for many X-2 remains the all time great, and I can certainly see why.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X-MEN: THE LAST STAND

For a lot of people X-Men: The Last Stand of 2009 was the definite low-point in the series, yet for my part I struggle to see why. Yes OK, there were a few bits and pieces that just didn't look and feel right (for me these included the character of Callisto and the acting/lack of it when it came to the characters of Warren Worthington II/Angel and Dr. Kavita Rao) and whilst the "Cure" and "Dark Phoenix" antagonistic plot devices are brilliant individually, the way they were brought together in this film could have been better.

That being said, this film still produced some absolutely fantastic action, some incredibly energized sequences and real curve-ball moments and character developments, all culminating in an epic final battle that to me was brilliant, even by Marvel standards. Despite a couple of negatives, I do feel that this film was an incredibly fitting end to the original trilogy, and certainly a worthy X-Men film in its own right.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS

After the huge and richly deserved success of the first three X-Men films (and the first Wolverine spin-off) I think it would have been very easy, and perhaps sorely tempting to simply carry on with the same sort of formula, but no. 2011 saw a brand new image and a brand new take on the X-Men, with a rebooted revamp that surprised many, but by the end had everyone staggered. Essentially a prequel to the films before it, X-Men: First Class focused on the beginnings of Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr, as well as a few other choice mutants of X-men legend, and their progression from nervous outcasts into all-powerful superheros and villains. 

Despite being totally new in many ways, this film had all the right amounts of classic X-Men nuance and magic. Still a stellar cast, still a great concept and story, and still all the right amounts of intertwining humanity and comic book action. Best of all, it gave us a second generation of X-Men to enjoy alongside the first; two factions that are set to come together magnificently in the eagerly awaited Days of Future Past...

Gravity

Yet another major blockbuster film of 2013 I did not see at the flicks, and now yet another one I have finally got around to seeing on DVD. However, unlike other instances of cinema miss-hits, I did not actively want to see Gravity, despite the considerable hype surrounding its release and its subsequent critical praise, and nor was I that dissapointed when it transpired I had missed out on seeing it on the big screen. This is partly due to my personal taste, and the fact that whilst intrigued it was not fired up enough to want to see Gravity at the cinema (make of that what you will ) but mostly it is because I rejected the fuss a lot of people seemed to be making. I make no secret of the fact that broadly speaking I do not like nor agree with 3D films. a. because they send me eyes funny, b. because I don't think it is actually that impressive, and c. because I do think it is essentially another way for the film industry to squeeze yet another few quid out of the public when they want to go and see a film, which I heartily and angrily disagree with. Whilst I freely agree with the fact that the way Gravity was made might have endeared it above other films to being seen in 3D, as I say I am still not too miffed that I didn't get to. What's more, having now watched it on DVD, I am still content with not having seen it at the cinemas. But, to get away from all this waffling about cinema releases and 3D, I do feel Gravity itself to be a great film indeed.

Focusing chiefly upon two US astronauts, veteran George Clooney and new-comer Sandra Bullock, and how they are  flung into a disastrous situation when their shuttle mission goes horribly wrong, Gravity is a tale of survival, encased in a very novel and uniquely presented concept, highly stylized yet gritty and real; giving us some idea of what life in space is truly like.

First and foremost, it is well worth saying that as predicted, the visuals are simply stunning. Whilst they are not enough to sway me on 3D (I promise I shall try and stop ranting about this particular topic) director Alfonso Cuarón has certainly treated audiences to a cinematographic experience that is unlike any I have ever seen, and quite possibly unlike anything that has gone before. As 'space movies' go, Gravity is up there with the best of them, and in terms of the graphics, CGI, lighting and raw power of each shot, it is probably the best 'space movie' to date. It is very rare that I see a film where the imagery and CGI elements actually induce various states of emotion within me, as normally they are often just part of the overall tapestry of a film. However, the way in which they have been so intricately and efficiently woven into the story of Gravity, certainly led to a roller-coaster of reactions for me, ranging from genuine fear and panic, to sheer admiration and poignant reflection. 

You'd be forgiven for thinking that the visuals of Gravity are the stars of the show, and you would probably be right. Yet on top of this we are given two powerhouse characters played by two powerhouse star names - namely Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Critics and audiences alike have praised Bullock's performance throughout the film to the highest degree, and broadly speaking I would definitely concur. However, whilst many claim her performance was pretty much perfect, there were a couple of moments for me where I felt she ventured a tad into the two-dimensional, which slightly tarred an otherwise wonderfully layered performance. I also think they missed a trick with George Clooney; without wanting to give to much away, he is not in the film as much as expected, which I think is a shame as I think he takes to Gravity very well, and whilst occasionally drifting into the arrogant and clichéd, I feel he delivers one of the best performances I've seen from him in a while. In fact the highlight of the film for me is a scene in which Clooney quickly "returns" to Bullock in a time of pure desperation. This scene is wonderfully paced, visualized, human and original to me, and serves as a prime example of the chemistry that is possible between these two actors. I just feel it's a slight shame they weren't together that often on screen for it to be actualized. 

Just a quick point upon the story itself as well. Yes, it is highly original and for the most part, very well executed. However if I were to be critical, I would have to say that whilst from beginning to end we are presented with a very unique perspective of a very unique character journey, it is at times a bit drawn out, the more fast-paced action sequences feeling a tad stylized and forced for the sake of the audience's attention. Again the visuals of the film may come into play here, as it could be said that at times every other aspect of the film takes a hit and is sacrificed slightly for the sake of it looking great.

Yes, in my opinion there are a few issues present, but I still maintain that all in all Gravity is a spectacular film to behold. Within the genre and out of it, I do feel that it has broken a couple of molds, and will go on to become a very stylish, uniquely imagined, conceptualized and eventually realized modern classic of a film.

The Village of Haworth ~ 1940s Weekend 2014

Last Christmas (I gave you my heart!...sorry) I wrote upon this here blog about the whole festive experience of the wonderfully charming, and now probably quite iconic Yorkshire village of Haworth, and broadly speaking I rather loved it. However that was a new experience; the first time I had experienced that particular chestnut of the Haworth calendar. This though; this is how I first discovered Haworth years ago, this was a key factor in me falling in love with the place, this is what I have been re-visiting annually for some time; this is the renowned and now hugely popular 1940s weekend. Thus I thought I would give you a quick run down of my experience this year.

In a nutshell - it is a great day out, well and truly. I know almost every place wishing to attract tourists says that, but in this case it really is so. What the people and establishments of Haworth have got so right, i.e the feel, the scale, the intricacy and authenticity of this event, they strive to maintain, whilst always looking to expand. As I say I have been attending this event for several years now, and it never ceases to amaze me, nor to put a huge smile on my face. The many great staples are there; decked-out decorations, vintage vehicles abound, Glen Miller in the background, oodles of patriotic pomp and circumstance, and of course the masses of ladies and gents in period dress of one form or another (I keep saying I need to give that bit a go!). Yet this year, as with all the years gone by, there are noticeably new factors as well as a note-worthy and valiant attempt to increase the scale and feel of the whole thing. For me, the highlights of these newly discovered aspects were various Alan Turing exhibits, as well as a life-sized Spitfire boldly and proudly standing in a small square off the main street.

It would be virtually impossible to go into all the avid detail of the Howarth 1940s experience, and to show you all the larvely pictures I took (there were a great deal more than this - I struggled to cut it down to the essentials!). I also feel it would be wrong of me to try, as this truly is, again clichéd as it may sound, a marvelous feat that one should really experience for one's self. The only slight negative is that the event now seems to have garnered so much popularity, that parking in and exploring the village has become quite a hectic, labored and slightly claustrophobic task. In essence this is me just being pedantic, and is really not much to moan about, not when you consider the massive positives, which believe me there surely are when one visits Howarth, particularly when it is time for the 1940s to be remembered and celebrated.

About Time

Before I had even watched 2013's About Time, newly bought on DVD, from what I had heard and read about it alone, I thought I might quite like it. I was wrong - I loved it. To me it was, in a word - perfect. A perfect film for me. Not least because it is a film written, directed and produced by the supremely prolific and talented Richard Curtis (who is not only one of the greatest writers/directors/producers of his generation but in my opinion of all time). Not least because it has an ingeniously sublime core concept (that of a young man who learns at the age of 21 that he, like his father before him can travel in time, and must then discover what that means for his life and the love of his life). No...these are all initially great things you can read about in a blurb. The magic happens when these great pre-cursors and provisos to a film go on to produce something that is supremely charming, funny, touching, poignant, dramatic, heart-warming and beautiful to behold.

I know I make a big deal out of the cast of most things I review on this blog...and I am sticking to that. Even more so with this film, as the cast of About Time is phenomenal; every single one of them. The central protagonist Tim, is played by Domhnall Gleeson who I, as I'm sure like many others, have seen make very solid appearences in a few things over the last couple of years, but this is the film that I feel really allows him to get into his stride to great comedic and dramatic affect. It is certainly a film he will be remembered for, and if I were him I would be perfectly happy with that. 

Opposite him is the character of Mary, played by the lovely, endearingly cute, deliciously beautiful, incredibly charismatic Rachel McAdams, whose star has been on the ever-climactic rise for years now, and About Time is certainly a glorious performance jewel in her crown.

Individually they are both great in their own uniquely individual ways, but together they present a gorgeous pair with resounding, endearing and boundless amounts of chemistry that really lights up the film, the likes of which I have rarely, if at all seen before. This pair are truly remarkable, as talented and watchable together as they are individually, and in the realms of "the romantic comedy", this duo is surely a cut above the rest.

Yet Rachel McAdams and Domhnall Gleeson are not the only brilliant About Time cast members, oh no. The whole cast make up a resoundingly awesome ensemble, brimming full of talent, magnetism and endearing love-ability. We are treated to great performances by prolific staples like Lindsay Duncan and Tom Hollander, as well as equally brilliant and very welcome "cameos" of sorts from Richard E. Grant and the now tragically departed Richard Griffiths (sadly About Time was to be his last film appearance). 

Along side all of those great actors and characters however, I must also mention the great Bill Nighy. I have been a long time fan of Bill Nighy for many years now, as I believe him to be a ginormous talent, great in pretty much everything he does, and he is now not just recognised for it in Britain but globally, and rightly so. This is not even the first time he has joined forces with Richard Curtis, as he starred fantastically in the now modern classic Love Actually. Billed as simply Dad in About Time, he is simply amazing (I really am going to run out of synonyms for really very very very good in this review I can tell, so apologies for any repetition!) Like his on screen son Gleeson, I very much think that this is a film and performance that will be a great defining point in Bill Nighy's career (though for him it really is a case of being one of a great many). He is wonderfully approachable, supremely believable (even with the notion of time travel free-flowing through this film and his character) each and every one of his character relationships, indeed almost every second of his screen time in About Time is simply lovely and powerfully majestic to watch.

 As you can most likely tell, I loved this film, and it easily goes into the rosta of my all time favourite films and will undoubtedly stay there. The iconic Curtis has done it again, rather predictably perhaps, but no less astonishingly at the same time, and the results are simply masterful. Everything is right about this film for me. Gorgeous locations and cinematography, wonderful music, superb cast; anything and everything to give a truly wonderful story. It is possible that, I might be just embracing my taste in film and am thus a bit biased, but I highly doubt it. I think if you even have an ounce of humanity, soul and openness to a wonderful cinematic story, than you will love, adore and enjoy About Time just as much as I do.