Before Dawn and the Multitude of Ideas

By

-

2015-02-01

Eight years ago I had an idea for a zombie film that was a little different from the usual apocalypse in that the focus was on a couple who were on holiday when the zombie apocalypse takes place. I was on holiday in France at the time, stopping in a Gite that was in the middle of nowhere. Looking outside all you could see were the stars in the sky, and that was it. The absolute darkness outside inspired me, making me wonder what it would be like if a couple were on holiday in a similar location, looking out into the darkness and seeing the undead shambling towards them. What would they do in that situation? Furthermore, my idea was to have neither of them speak French, another barrier towards getting home safely.

Then I found out that the basic outline of my idea was made into a film in 2012 by Dominic Brunt, better known as Paddy in Emmerdale.

Having now seen their film, it’s clear that the core idea is the same, but the execution and direction of their story is completely different from my own. In fact, the only thing that links the two is that there is a couple away on holiday looking at repairing their relationship. Without wanting to sound too egotistical, I think my original idea is better than the one portrayed in Before Dawn. For a start, my plan was to feature way more zombies, which is usually a good thing in any zombie feature if done well. I would also argue that my idea has a much more solid emotional centre to the plot – although as I have yet to release it out into the world it would be remiss if I were to give it all away here.

On the other hand, I know full well that if I were to try and make my idea film myself it would be possibly much worse than Before Dawn for reasons of budget and cast availability. There wouldn’t be the need for a huge budget – six speaking cast and a shedload of zombies, and some countryside to stand in for France if shooting there isn’t an option. I just know that, at this current time, putting together a schedule for such a project would be entirely beyond my capabilities due to my various commitments. Hence, I’ll probably look at selling it on and have someone else make it.

Thankfully, Before Dawn hasn’t made me consider dropping my script, or even making any changes to it at this stage. There’s this ongoing thing in cinema where you can have two very similar ideas (Antz and A Bug’s Life, Armageddon and Deep Impact, etc) and still go off in completely opposite directions. I admit that my plans have barely escaped the design stage at this point whilst Before Dawn has been written, produced and released into the wild, but I will still press on with writing it and then see what can be done with it. You never know, I might get a Hollywood-sized offer for it. But then, it’s also just as likely that the zombie apocalypse will actually take place before then. We shall see.

An American Werewolf in Paris (1997)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-01-31

0

He was starting to wonder why the locals were staring at him.

Twitter Plot Summary: The American Werewolf franchise(?!) gets a belated sequel, this time set in Paris and with more werewolves. Yay.

Almost twenty years after John Landis provided a thoroughly brilliant update of the werewolf film, a sequel was provided in 1997 starring Julie Delpy, Tom Everett Scott and an early film appearance from Julie Bowen. Was this a good idea? There’s only one way to find out…

The original is of course a classic and stands on its own. It does therefore lead to the question of why this much belated sequel was considered and put into production in the first place. There would be a built-in audience from the original, sure, but after nearly 20 years it would make sense to either attempt a reboot (sadly common in the current market) or do something original that doesn’t have direct links to the Landis film. In this instance, providing a direct sequel was perhaps a bad move. Much like the bungee jump from the Eiffel Tower that opens proceedings – whoever thought that was a good way of starting the movie needs to be shot.

Replicating many of the story beats of the original – American traveller is bitten by a werewolf and becomes one, and is haunted by the undead form of one of his travelling companions. The twist here is that some years have passed since David had his lycanthropic encounter. Following those events in London, there are now several werewolves and the action has made the transition from England to Paris. In what is an ill-advised move, much of this story focuses on finding a potential cure for the lycanthrope affliction, dumping it firmly into science fiction territory and away from the horror genre. In some instances this can work, but here it gets lost amongst the CGI carnage.

The move away from Rick Baker’s practical transformation sequences towards the more modern use of CGI is one that takes some getting used to, especially when you consider that CGI wasn’t all that impressive looking back in the 90s. They all still look very much like that original design, but despite being capable of much more extravagant manoeuvres now that they’re not a man in a suit they are a generic bunch when transformed. Not so much when in human form – everyone has a very specific look – even if that look is that of someone who clearly turns into a werewolf when there’s a full moon.

"Tis but a scratch." — “Tis but a scratch.”

Problems in the tone also show up, again attempting to replicate the black comedy of the Landis film but generally misfiring. Humour is provided by the undead visiting Andy (Everett Scott) and slowly decomposing, but the charm just isn’t there. There are a couple of moments that prove to be slightly amusing, although again because they’re augmented by CGI the effect is muted. At least we can take some solace in the presence of Julie Delpy – it would be a much worse film without her.

It’s best to ignore the partly scary, partly ridiculous final shot of the film, which is equally as ill-judged as the final scene in Aliens VS Predator. Much like that particular film, An American Werewolf in Paris has a few good moments but is ultimately nothing more than a poor homage to the source material.

Score: 2/5

Foxcatcher (2015)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-01-30

0

"What did you say about my nose?" — “What did you say about my nose?”

Twitter Plot Summary: Based on a true story, the relationship between rich guy John du Pont and Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz.

There will always apparently be an issue with wrestling, quite unfortunately, that it all appears to be quite a homo-erotic exercise. That of course is taken to an all new level in Foxcatcher, the story of Olympic wrestling champion Mark Schultz (Tatum) and his brother David (Ruffalo) as they deal with prospective wrestling coach John du Pont (Carell), a rich, near-friendless man who has no concept of standard societal norms. His reasons for setting up his wrestling foundation are designed primarily to rebel against his mother and her love of horses. She considers wrestling to be a lowly sport, which he bristles against, and so he sets up his Foxcatcher training ranch, a place for budding Olympic wrestlers to learn the skills of the trade. For those of you who are not fans of the sport, don’t worry – it’s not the focus of the story. This is all about the relationships between the characters.

Awkwardness abounds at every point as du Pont attempts to ingratiate himself in the lives of the two brothers and essentially feed off their success. Revelations that du Pont’s mother paid for him to have a friend in his childhood come as no surprise as he shows up to speak with Mark in the dead of night, carries guns around with him and has an obsession with military weaponry. His desire to be known as Eagle clearly places him in Arnold Rimmer territory, an insidious and confusing personality who has far more money than worldly sense.

"You're not making me dress like this because of what I said about your nose, are you?" — “You’re not making me dress like this because of what I said about your nose, are you?”

Despite the wild praise aimed at Steve Carell and Channing Tatum (although it is much deserved), it’s Mark Ruffalo that runs away with the best performance as older brother Dave. He’s an easy going and affable family man, oblivious to the shadow his younger brother feels is being cast over him. It is this that forces Mark to move to Foxcatcher in an attempt at breaking out on his own and to establish his own identity away from Dave. Their relationship is clearly defined with no need for expository dialogue, and proves to be a highlight of the film – especially when compared against the one between du Pont and Mark.

Yet despite its quiet intensity – one that is punctuated by an extreme and surprisingly loud act of violence in the final act – it’s almost a little too staid for its own good. Those events at the end are all the more shocking given the tense build-up and more so if you are not aware of the real life story, but a greater sense of narrative drive earlier on would have helped push things along. Instead we get some decent character development but no incentive for the audience to really invest in them.

The story does take some liberties with the timing of events, condensing everything into the late 1980s rather than over a period of several years as in reality, but from a dramatic perspective this is in the story’s favour. Without this it no doubt would have meandered even more than it does. That’s not to say it isn’t a strong film, just that in this case it is supported more by great performances than a gripping thriller narrative.

Score: 3.5/5

The Theory of Everything (2015)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-01-29

0

"Eureka! Oh wait, wrong scientist." — “Eureka! Oh wait, wrong scientist.”

Twitter Plot Summary: The life story of Professor Stephen Hawking, as told from the perspective of his ex-wife. Sort of.

If you’re a fan of Stephen Hawking’s scientific work and want to see it explored in detail on the big screen, then The Theory of Everything is not the film for you. Focusing instead on the relationship between Hawking and his future wife (and now ex-wife) Jane as the film covers 25-odd years of their lives, beginning at Cambridge in 1963 where Hawking receives the diagnosis that would change the rest of his life. Hawking was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease, a condition which gradually takes away all control over your muscles and essentially locked inside your own mind. Given just two years to live at that time, Hawking has since gone on to confound all expectations and continues to make significant contributions to the world of science despite his debilitating illness.

And much of this works thanks to the performances of Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, the former putting in a completely transformative appearance as Stephen Hawking as he transitions from able-bodied student to completely immobile and almost incapable of communicating with the outside world. For much of the film you easily forget that you are watching an actor portray the person, such is the quality of the performance and the work of the makeup department. There’s an inevitable quote from Tropic Thunder that may be slightly relevant here as there is a fine line between depicting an illness and being offensive. Unlike Tropic Thunder, there’s no such worries here.

Jones meanwhile excels as Jane, the young woman who decides to stay with Stephen when he receives his 2 year survival diagnosis, then conveys the growing weariness and anguish as they have three children, but the years roll on and Stephen doesn’t succumb to the Motor Neuron Disease that has slowly taken away everything except for his mind.

Those stairs will cause a problem in a few years time... — Those stairs will cause a problem in a few years time…

Cue the introduction of Jonathan (Charlie Cox), a church man who initially offers to help Jane with caring for Stephen and soon descends into him and Jane having feelings for one another – in other words, an obligatory albeit slightly off-kilter standard romance drama narrative, which are ten a penny across the genre. This would be less appealing if the direction hadn’t been handled competently and sensitively by James Marsh, complemented by some stunning cinematography from Benoit Delhomme, known most recently for his work on Boy In The Striped Pyjamas and Lawless.

As a story about triumphing over adversity and a sub-textual discussion about discovering and creating beauty in what is ostensibly a cold, dark, barren and practically empty universe (and the potential absence of God, a discussion not worth entering into here), The Theory of Everything is a triumph. If considered from the perspective of Hawking’s professional career or even as a compelling romance story then it’s sadly lacking, and it is the balance between these two counterpoints that will determine whether you fully enjoy the story or not. In any case, it is successful simply for making you forget that you are watching a performance and for the script so effectively tugging at the heartstrings.

Score: 4/5

A Good Day To Die Hard (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-01-28

0

The guy on the right knows had awful the next action sequence is going to be.

Twitter Plot Summary: John McClane is back (again) and causing all sorts of trouble. Gone is the subtext, the fun, the banter. In its place: mind-numbing awfulness.

It’s difficult to review this fifth Die Hard film without it sounding like a complete character assassination, such are its many problems and logical inconsistencies. Suffice to say, if you are a fan of any of the previous four Die Hard films – yes, even Die Hard 4.0 – then prepare yourself for a massive, massive disappointment.

While Die Hard 4.0 covered John McClane’s relationship with his estranged daughter, A Good Day To… sees McClane heading over to Russia to help his estranged son who appears to have gone off the beaten path a little. Of course, it’s never as simple as that, especially as young Jack McClane is played by Jai Courtney – and also happens to be an undercover CIA operative. What should have followed was an enjoyable romp through Russia as father and son team up to defeat the bad guys, but instead it’s curtailed by constant attempts by John to bond with his son, often at the most inopportune of moments. Bad guys shooting at you? Then try having a heart to heart with your kid! About to walk into Chernobyl and expose yourself to vast amounts of radiation? Tell your boy you’re proud of him.

Early on, John and Jack McClane engage in an expensive vehicle chase through Moscow that within the realms of the story clearly caused a huge loss of life, yet this isn’t mentioned again and nobody seems to bat an eyelid at such an incident. It almost rivals a similar sequence in Fast and Furious 6 where the tank runs rampant across a freeway, so this appears to be the new standard in modern action films. Who cares if lots of innocent people die (in the context of the film story) if the action sequence looks good? Then they manage to travel halfway across Russia in less than one evening and traipse around Chernobyl without radiation suits (admittedly not as necessary as they were 30 years ago) – clearly the McClane’s are made of far sterner stuff than us mere mortals.

"You're supposed to wear a white vest, n00b." — “You’re supposed to wear a white vest, n00b.”

By now John McClane has turned into an angry old man, the sarcasm and dry wit of bygone years replaced by the inherent grumpiness of the elderly. He may still be able to fire a weapon and beat people up, but more often than not in this instance he is less a man in the wrong place at the wrong time than someone who needlessly interferes in events and causes such a stupid amount of death, destruction and carnage that it’s a wonder the Russian government didn’t arrange for him to be immediately locked up.

The sad thing is, the trailer seemed to promise that this would be a classic Die Hard tale – McClane and son up against a Russian businessman, a battle of wits and big guns, a film that could rival the twists and turns of the film that started it all in 1988. Instead, besides highlighting that a lot appears to have been cut from the final edit, it plays on your appreciation of the original Die Hard in order to get people to see a film that is barely worthy of being an entry in the series. And if this proves to be the final entry in the series, it is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good because there won’t be any further reasons to drag the Die Hard name through the dirt, and bad because it’s tarnishing the first four (yes, again, even Die Hard 4.0) just by existing.

Score: 2/5

The Jungle Book (1967)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-01-27

0

Twitter Plot Summary: Mowgli, the man cub, tries to find his place in the world, all the while trying to avoid the machinations of Shere Khan, King Louie and Kaa.

Adapted from Rudyard Kipling’s novel, The Jungle Book is the story of “man cub” Mowgli, a human boy abandoned in the jungle and raised by a family of wolves. As he grows up he is befriended by panther Bagheera and the carefree bear Baloo. Undergoing a few adventures as he crosses the jungle, Mowgli has to contend with snakes, orangutans, vultures, a parade of elephants and a vengeful tiger.

While The Jungle Book is entertaining, it does feel like a transitional period for the Disney animation studio, reusing frames of animation (although not to the same extent as The Sword in the Stone) and lacking some of the magic that defined their output throughout the previous era. It also didn’t help that this was the first of their animated classics to be released following the death of Walt Disney himself, although it performed incredibly well at the box office on release. There’s not much of a story either, it’s more an exploration of growing up and finding your true place in the world, all linked by Mowgli’s thematic journey. Suffice to say, wherever he goes in the jungle he is always an outsider, so it’s understandable that Bagheera wants to get him back to his own kind where he might stand a chance of growing up and surviving in this mad, crazy world in which we live.

But despite any concerns about the animation style and relative lack of story, the cast is filled with great voice performances. Phil Harris will forever be known as Baloo, while Sebastian Cabot exudes wit and wisdom as Bagheera. George Sanders proved to be an excellent choice to play Shere Khan, the tiger planning on eating Mowgli. His enunciation is crisp and marks him out as being jungle royalty – whether this is actually the case or not is irrelevant. Then there is Sterling Holloway as Kaa, a duplicitous snake. It might prove to be confusing for those who have also watched Disney’s Winnie The Pooh films as he is also the voice of the titular Pooh. Thankfully, Pooh does not have an Arnold Rimmer style mesmer stare like Kaa, otherwise those films would have been completely different – and not quite so warm and cuddly either.

Shere Khan was not happy about his screen time being reduced.

It is also a film heavily carried by its songs, many of which have since passed into classic territory and feature on almost every Disney song compilation released since. Alongside a significant contribution from the Sherman Brothers (including King Louie’s I Wanna Be Like You), Baloo’s The Bare Necessities never gets old. The vultures are a fun quartet as well, being modelled on The Beatles, although sadly the Fab Four didn’t provide their voices.

Such is the effect of The Jungle Book that Disney effectively transferred the cast and some of the characters over to their adaptation of the Robin Hood legend in 1973 (even going so far as to recycle certain elements as a cost saving measure), so it clearly did something right. It’s a fun romp through the jungle and through its themes and general sense of adventure is something that can be enjoyed by all ages.

Score: 3.5/5

Goal II: Living The Dream (2007)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-01-26

0

"My five bedroom bastard house!" — “My five bedroom bastard house!”

Twitter Plot Summary: Santiago Munez moves away from Newcastle United to Real Madrid – for no apparent reason other than money and success.

Well so much for loyalty to Newcastle United. After they gave him his big break in Goal, Latino footballer Santiago Munez (Kuno Becker) is offered the chance to play for Real Madrid and within five minutes he’s taken them up on their offer and is upping sticks for Spain quicker before you can say “glory chaser”. You can understand why he took the move though – Spain is a lot warmer than the Toon. Plus, in the world of Goal 2, Newcastle get Michael Owen in an exchange deal (rather than a straight sale as happened in reality). Seems like a fair trade.

Stannis Baratheon – sorry, Stephen Dillane – is back as Munez’s agent, as is Anna Friel as Munez’s Geordie bride to be Roz, frequently wearing either her nurse’s uniform or not much else. Nice to know where we stand on that front. Munez is joined by his former Newcastle United teammate Gavin Harris (Alessandro Nivola), who is already established in the Real Madrid squad but is having a run of bad form which may or may not lead to a bit of friction further down the line.

Meanwhile new additions to the cast include Rutger Hauer as the coach/manager of the Real Madrid squad, and Sean Pertwee returns just to give a bit of dramatic weight to proceedings. It’s probably for the best given that we also get to enjoy the acting talents of David Beckham – thankfully limited to a couple of appearances and a daft grin. The old adage of never letting a footballer have dialogue rings true.

"I was dressed as a zombie! I'm Alan Partridge!" — “I was dressed as a zombie! I’m Alan Partridge!”

While the action on the pitch is generally well presented, it is treated in a similar way to the old 90s cartoon The Hurricanes – that is, football interpreted by somebody who doesn’t really understand how the game is played or what the rules involve. That has never been the focal point of the Goal films though, which have always been more interested in the footballer lifestyle, as vacuous and self-absorbed as that often is.

It’s just difficult to care or empathise with someone who seemingly has it all. He may once have been a wannabe footballer, but Munez is in the big leagues here and there’s only so many times you can see him in his massive house before it starts to get slightly annoying. Meanwhile whilst he’s living out his dream he has to deal with the strain on his relationship with Roz, and a reunion with his long lost mother in Spain doesn’t help matters either.

And there lies the biggest problem of all. In Goal, Munez was the underdog, the one we could root for despite its cliché rags to ruins narrative. Now that all of that is out of the way, who cares what he does next? Plus, the story ends here with a “To be continued”, which by all accounts, despite there actually being a Goal 3, it patently wasn’t. Plot threads are left hanging never to be resolved, and that if nothing else is a perfect excuse to not even bother trying to get through all three.

Score: 1.5/5

Ironclad: Battle For Blood (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-01-24

0

ironclad2-1 — Here’s our next song: “Angel of Death!”

Twitter Plot Summary: A castle is besieged by a guy who looks like the guy from Slayer. There’s some blood and pointless romance.

The first Ironclad worked. Not because of its awesome action scenes (because it didn’t really have any), or because of its compelling storyline (because it didn’t have that either), but primarily because somehow they were able to rope in a decent array of big names to appear in it which made up for its many shortcomings.

Fast forward a couple of years to the sequel, Battle for Blood. Instead, with the exception of Michelle Fairley, most recently known for appearing as Catelyn Stark in Game of Thrones, there are no other well known actors in the cast. That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, but much like the first Ironclad there are still no awesome action scenes and it still lacks a compelling storyline. As it is, we get to watch a group of soap actors (Roxanne McKee, Rosie Day, Danny Webb, et al) having to contend with a siege set in motion by Predrag Bjelac’s Maddog, a man who bears an uncanny resemblance to Slayer’s singer/bass guitarist Tom Araya. This, as it turns out, is a very distracting thing once you’ve noticed it.

Inside the castle, watching over the dying king (serves him right for hacking up some Celts and Tom Araya… sorry, Maddogs’s son), we are treated to much emotional distraught as the castle residents try and figure out how to survive the attack. There’s also a bit of a romance story between the returning cousin and one of the girls (because, why not?) thrown in just to tick off all the boxes. In theory Battle for Blood has all the makings of a film that does everything you’d possibly want it to. In practice, it couldn’t be further away from that ideal.

The location shoot looks nice, although using what is today a ruin of a castle no doubt provided many challenges when shooting. Numerous closeups abound in a desperate bid to avoid the need for CGI replacements (which, when used, look awful), and we’re supposed to believe that the castle is under siege from a vast army of Celts. Ignoring the fact that Bjelac, leader of the hoard is actually from Serbia (and his aforementioned resemblance to Tom Araya – sadly he’s not much of a singer in this), it’s blatantly obvious that there are no more than 50 extras involved in storming the walls.

Despite best intentions, it doesn’t draw you into the action and instead makes you wonder what all the fuss is about – based on screen numbers alone rather than what is implied, there’s clearly no way they’d be able to effectively besiege a donkey, let alone an entire castle. Yet somehow they manage this and the audience’s incredulity increases as time goes on. By the time the film ends you’re no better off than when you started. Aside from the revenge aspect, is there really any point to any of this?

And that brings it down to having to rely on the performances (passable) and the extreme violence (also passable) in order to entertain the masses. It’s lack of star power means it flounders, and there are only so many things you can do with a castle siege storyline before the concept starts to get stale. It seems that all of the possible story points and angles were covered in the first Ironclad and done as well as you could expect, thus rendering this sequel a somewhat pointless endeavour.

Score: 1/5

Stoker (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-01-23

0

Twitter Plot Summary: When her father dies, India Stoker discovers she has an uncle. The uncle moves in, her mother is happy… but something is not quite right.

Dracula fans, step aside, there’s not a bloodsucking vampire in sight. Written by Wentworth Miller (him off’ve Prison Break), Stoker takes place in a nondescript American town where life is sleepy and little of consequence ever happens. Oh how quickly that facade will soon fall by the wayside.

Mia Wasikowska is India Stoker, an odd girl who discovers at her father’s funeral, a man who cared for her deeply, that he had a brother who he had never mentioned before. That brother, Charles (Matthew Goode) turns up out of the blue and moves in with India and her mother, Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) for what is intended to be a short stay, but inevitably extends for longer than expected. India, not exactly a paragon of sanity herself, soon comes to realise that there may be more to her uncle than meets the eye, and quickly develops an obsession with him. He meanwhile has a target lock on Evelyn, a woman who is deeply unstable. It feels like if you were to look up the word dysfunctional in the dictionary you would see a picture of the Stokers.

Direction is provided by Chan-wook Park, the man who brought the original Oldboy to our screens back in 2003. It comes as no surprise then that, given this strange combination of cast and crew, the final output is an exercise in strangeness, an oddity that proves difficult to describe without jumping into the murky depths of spoiling the plot or giving it the entirely insufficient label as being a “family drama”.

Park has a defiantly non-Hollywood approach to directing, creating a slightly disconcerting tone throughout and creating the impression that everything in this world is not quite as it seems. This may in part be due to him not speaking English, in effect separating him from the actors and their performances, subtly enhancing that sense of unspoken disquiet. This is further enhanced by muted colour palettes, mostly blacks enhanced with the odd dash of claret.

On that note, Matthew Goode is unsettling thanks to his quiet intensity. His words and his smile may suggest that he’s being friendly, but his eyes are cold as steel and say he’s anything but friendly. Think of him as Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, constantly looking to exploit any perceived weakness. Wasikowska meanwhile is excellent at portraying damaged characters, and India is no different from her usual output. She is a confused youngster, not entirely sure what she wants from life, be it inappropriate relationships or inappropriate thoughts of a more sinister kind. Then of course there is Nicole Kidman, always reliable and dependable when your production needs big name star power. Evelyn is needy and shallow, liable to having an emotional breakdown at any given moment. Thank goodness for Charles’ arrival, it seems.

It’s a wholeheartedly odd take on family relationships, an odd story presented in an odd fashion. It proves to be a compelling story mostly because it’s so unusual, an off-centre take on life and fractured psyches. To psycho-analyse the characters would potentially take a very long time, and it’s this alongside the oddness that carries it to a pleasing finale.

Score: 4/5

The Book Thief (2014)

By

Simon Prior

-

2015-01-22

0

"This is called a book. You read them, never burn them. Unless you're really cold." — “This is called a book. You read them, never burn them. Unless you’re really cold.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Narrated by Death (that must be disconcerting…), a young girl learns to read and stuff during World War 2.

It always feels slightly awkward seeing, or more specifically hearing, actors putting on horrendous accents, especially when you also have the occasional moments of dialogue in the native German language. Such is the problem with The Book Thief, an adaptation of the novel by Markus Zusak. They either have accented English, or they speak native. Use one by all means, but don’t mix and match because this just doesn’t work. And that is almost exactly how to describe The Book Thief, a film that despite its hefty thematic content and otherwise solid presentation is let down by the occasional inconsistency and a lack of emotional depth.

Taking place from 1938 and into the Second World War, The Book Thief highlights the rise of the Nazi Party, their war on Europe, and their cultural deconstruction and supposed cleansing of the German people by burning books and destroying other supposed threats to the Reich. Stepping into this maelstrom of race hate is Liesel Meminger (Sophie Nelisse), a young girl who sings in the Hitler Youth yet finds it almost impossible to comprehend the events taking place around her. So in the face of destruction she escapes into the world of books, stealing them from the home of a local rich (and sympathetic) lady who seems to be as equally trapped by events as Liesel.

In its favour, The Book Thief is gloriously shot, each frame filled with depth and subtext despite being deliberately washed out and drab in appearance. It is also filled with solid performances, from Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson as the Hubermanns, adoptive parents to Sophie Nelisse’s Liesel. Rush and Watson are, of course, fantastic, but it’s Nelisse who shines in the central role. Learning to read, and then reading classic stories to Max Vandenburg (Ben Schnetzer), a Jewish man hiding in the cellar of the Hubermanns, Liesel gradually develops her understanding of the world and the war that seems to permeate every aspect of her young existence.

The hotel accommodation was less than spectacular.

And there’s also the narration, provided by Death. Topping and tailing the film and also dropping in on occasion to provide his own particular take on words of wisdom, stepping in to provide an omniscient perspective on the war and to provide commentary on things that Liesel herself would not be aware of. It’s an interesting narrative device, albeit one that’s limited by a story that doesn’t translate as well to the screen as it does on the page. This is also where the lack of emotional depth kicks in. The horrors of war are there for all to see, but it’s almost as if we the audience are Death, watching events play out with a detached eye.

Liesel’s joy at discovering her childhood and finding a caring family despite the war never engages, nor do the subsequent twists and turns that occur in each of their lives. Even a key scene, where a Nazi unit inspects everyone’s basements for Jews and/or check their suitability to act as a bomb shelter, is surprisingly lacking in tension. Perhaps stepping away from Death in a narrative context would have made a world of difference. But then, you could just read the book instead.

Score: 3/5

SIMONPRIOR.COM