Film Review: THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980)

Director: David Lynch
Writers: Christopher De Vore, Eric Bergren & David Lynch (screenplay), Frederick Treves (book “The Elephant Man and Other Reminiscences”), Ashley Montagu (in part on the book “The Elephant Man: A Study in Human Dignity”)
Running time: 124 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): AA

Genre: Biography/Drama
USA Release date: 10^th October 1980

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 23^rd March 2013.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE UNINTENTIONAL SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I first saw this film many years ago and since then it’s become quite iconic. There have been many comedy sketches based on the character of John Merrick (The Elephant Man in question); or rather John Hurt’s superb portrayal I should say. There have also been several documentaries about the life of John Merrick and those that shaped his life. Needless to say I thought it about time I gave it another look when it appeared in the TV listings this week. Here’s a very brief summary before I give you my thoughts.

John Merrick (John Hurt) is a man who has a disfiguring condition that leaves him at the whim of the unscrupulous. These include Bytes (Freddie Jones), who makes money by showing him off to the public as ‘The Elephant Man’. But when surgeon Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins) comes across him in a travelling show, he takes pity on him and takes him in. He lives at the hospital where Treves works, where he learns to speak and is soon turns out that he is actually quite intelligent. The head of the hospital, Carr Gomm (John Gielgud) agrees to let him stay and even see’s off Bytes when he comes around looking for his ‘golden goose’. Merrick continues to improve and even has visits from the great and the good; including actress, Mrs. Kendall (Anne Bancroft). But we haven’t heard the last of Bytes quite yet, and with the unwitting assistance of the night porter (Michael Elphick), he gets back into the hospital… and it’s on that cliff-hanger I’ll leave it.

Filmed entirely in black and white I found this quite an interesting take on John Merrick’s story. Of course a lot of poetic license is used, but the essence of the man and his story are there. I have to admit I love John Hurt’s performance; I can’t imagine anyone else getting that much emotion through so many prosthetics! Of the other performers, I thought Freddie Jones as the side-show entrepreneur was excellent also. Over all, although it does have its faults, I did enjoy this one; it’s quite poignant in places and you find yourself really touched by John Merrick; a little over-long, but well worth a look.

SteelMonster’s verdict: RECOMMENDED

My score: 8.1/10.

IMDb Score: 8.3/10 (based on 98,714 votes when this review was written).
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0080678/

MetaScore: No Data: (Based on 0 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Tomatometer’ Score: 91/100 (based on 34 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Audience’ Score: 90/100 (based on 61,440 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1006527-elephant_man/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

FAVOURITE QUOTES:
Bytes: Life!... is full of surprises. Consider the fate of this creature's poor mother, struck down in the fourth month of her maternal condition by an elephant, a wild elephant. Struck down!... on an uncharted African isle. The result is plain to see... Ladies and gentlemen... The terrible... Elephant... Man...

Carr Gomm: Can you imagine the kind of life he must have had?
Dr. Frederick Treves: Yes, I think I can.
Carr Gomm: I don't think so. No one could possibly imagine it! I don't believe any of us can!

Mothershead: Sir! I don't quite... I don't quite understand why it is you allow that sort of people in there.
Dr. Frederick Treves: Why? Because he enjoys it, and I think it's very good for him.
Mothershead: Yes, but, sir, you saw the expression on their faces. They didn't hide their disgust. They don't care anything about John! They only want to impress their friends!
Dr. Frederick Treves: I think you're being rather harsh on them, don't you, Mrs. Mothershead?
Mothershead: I beg your pardon!
Dr. Frederick Treves: You yourself hardly showed him much loving kindness when he first arrived, did you?
Mothershead: I bathed him, I fed him, and I cleaned up after him, didn't I? And I see that my nurses do the same. And if loving kindness can be called care and practical concern, then I did show him loving kindness, and I am not ashamed to admit it!

John Merrick: There's something I've been meaning to ask you for some time now.
Dr. Frederick Treves: What's that?
John Merrick: Can you cure me?
Dr. Frederick Treves: No. We can care for you, but we can't cure you.
John Merrick: [matter-of-factly] No. I thought not.

John Merrick: I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!

LINKS:
(Note: All were working at the time of going to press)
Trailer:

Film Review: THOR (2011) - Revisited

Director: Kenneth Branagh
Writers (screenplay): Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz & Don Payne
Writers (story): J. Michael Straczynski & Mark Protosevich
Writers (comic book): Stan Lee, Larry Lieber & Jack Kirby
Running Time: 114 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12A

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy
UK Release Date: 27th April 2011

Watched on Sky+ Friday 6^th April 2012.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

Having seen this one at the cinema when it was released, I was interested to give it a second viewing when it aired on TV recently. Although it didn’t quite have the visual impact it did on the big screen, I still quite enjoyed it, the humour still comes through as does the drama of the piece. I will give you my thoughts after this brief summary.

We begin with Thor arriving on Earth and immediately being run over by a vehicle owned by storm chaser, Jane Foster. We then get some explanation of how he ended up there… this is quite long and involved, but necessary. In Asgard Thor was war-like and hot headed and, prompted by his brother, Loki, he had defied his father, Odin, and his actions almost caused a war. So Odin took Thor’s powers and banished him to Earth. He also sent his hammer with the proviso that it could only be held by someone worthy. Back with Thor, Jane is interested in the ‘storm’ that brought him to Earth and offers to help him find his hammer if he will tell her about it. Unfortunately, by the time they get to where it’s landed, agents from S.H.I.E.L.D. are already there. Back in Asgard Odin falls into a deep sleep and Loki takes over as king, he has his reasons, but I’m not going to tell you what they are here. Believing Thor to be a greater threat to him, he sends the Guardian, a great warrior entity, to destroy him and all those who would oppose it. Can Thor find the humility his father desires to see in him and regain his powers? Will he get the girl at least? All these questions and more are answered in the film… I’m not telling you here or the Spoiler Police (Marvel Division) will be sending the Guardian after me.

As I said at the beginning, there is an awful lot of humour in this film, a lot more than I expected. Of course, Stan Lee gets his little cameo… it wouldn’t be the same without him. The plot is very complicated and there was an awful lot of dialogue explaining everything which tends to get in the way of the story. Having said that, the visuals are quite stunning, the scenes in Asgard and the other worlds are quite breathtaking, although not quite as stunning on a TV screen.

Performance wise, everybody did a pretty good job, newcomer Chris Hemsworth was pretty good as Thor, his voice matched the character really well and he had the physical presence too. Natalie Portman, although not at all stretched, did a decent job as Jane Foster. Tom Hiddleston was well cast as Loki, as was Anthony Hopkins as Odin. Honourable mentions go to Stellan Skarsgård as Erik Selvig and Kat Dennings as Darcy Lewis.

Over all, although I found it a little over-long and the plot was a little wordy and hard to follow in places, I pretty much enjoyed this film. Given the theatrical background of the director I can see why it ended up like this. What did surprise me was the excellent way he handled the action scenes and the special effects, which were all excellent by the way. There were enough good things about this film for me to deem it still… Recommended.

My Score: 7.0/10

IMDb Score: 7.0/10 (based on 154,789 votes at the time of going to press).
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Tomatometer’ Score: 77/100 (based on 254 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Audience’ Score: 80/100 (based on 120,032 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thor/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

FAVOURITE QUOTES:
Odin: You are a vain, greedy, cruel boy!
Thor: And you are an old man and a fool!
Odin: Yes... I was a fool, to think you were ready.
Loki: Father...
Odin: [to Loki] NAY!
Odin: Thor Odinson... you have betrayed the express command of your king. Through your arrogance and stupidity, you've opened these peaceful realms and innocent lives to the horror and desolation of war! You are unworthy of these realms, you're unworthy of your title, you are unworthy... of the love of those you have betrayed! I now take from you your power! In the name of my father and his father before me, I, Odin Allfather, cast you out!

Jane Foster: Describe exactly what happened to you last night.
Thor: Your ancestors called it magic...
[Thor skims through a book on Norse mythology]
Thor: ...but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one and the same.

Thor: You! What place is this? Elfheim, Nilfheim?
Darcy: [frightened, pulls out a taser] New Mexico?
Thor: You dare threaten the son of Odin with such a puny weapon...?
[Darcy tasers him]
Darcy: [to Jane] What? He was freaking me out!

Agent Cale: [staring at The Destroyer] Is that one of Stark's?
Agent Coulson: I don't know. Guy never tells me anything.

Clint Barton: Do you want me to take him down or would you rather send in more guys for him to beat up?

LINKS:
(Note: All were working at the time of going to press)
Official Site: http://thor.marvel.com/
Trailer:

Film Review: THOR (2011)

Director: Kenneth Branagh
Running Time: 114 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12A

Genre: Drama/Action/Adventure
UK Release Date: 27th April 2011

Watched at the Cinema Saturday 7th May 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I had heard one or two good things about this one before seeing it and so I was looking forward to a nice afternoon’s entertainment on a wet Saturday in Yorkshire. It was good, but didn’t quite live up to my initial expectations. Instead, I got something with a lot more humour than expected and a lot more drama too, but I guess when you’re dealing with the Gods, drama is obligatory.

We begin with Thor arriving on Earth and immediately being run over by a vehicle owned by storm chaser, Jane Foster. We then get some explanation of how he ended up there… this is quite long and involved, but necessary. In Asgard Thor was war-like and hot headed and, prompted by his brother, Loki, he had defied his father, Odin, and his actions almost caused a war. So Odin took Thor’s powers and banished him to Earth. He also sent his hammer with the proviso that it could only be held by someone worthy. Back with Thor, Jane is interested in the ‘storm’ that brought him to Earth and offers to help him find his hammer if he will tell her about it. Unfortunately, by the time they get to where it’s landed, agents from S.H.I.E.L.D. are already there. Back in Asgard Odin falls into a deep sleep and Loki takes over as king, he has his reasons, but I’m not going to tell you what they are here. Believing Thor to be a greater threat to him, he sends the Guardian, a great warrior entity, to destroy him and all those who would oppose it. Can Thor find the humility his father desires to see in him and regain his powers? Will he get the girl at least? All these questions and more are answered in the film… I’m not telling you here.

As I said at the beginning, there is an awful lot of humour in this film, a lot more than I expected. Of course, Stan Lee gets his little cameo… it wouldn’t be the same without him. Unfortunately, I found the plot very complicated and there was an awful lot of dialogue explaining everything which tended to get in the way of the story. Having said that, the visuals are quite stunning, the scenes in Asgard and the other worlds are quite breathtaking.

Performance wise, everybody did a pretty good job, newcomer Chris Hemsworth was pretty good as Thor, his voice matched the character really well and he had the physical presence too. Natalie Portman, although not at all stretched, did a decent job as Jane Foster. Tom Hiddleston was well cast as Loki, as was Anthony Hopkins as Odin. Honourable mentions go to Stellan Skarsgård as Erik Selvig and Kat Dennings as Darcy Lewis.

Over all, although I found it a little long and the plot was a little wordy and hard to follow in places, I pretty much enjoyed this film. One teenager was heard to announce to the audience as he was leaving the cinema that he thought it was ‘shit’, but I’m not going to listen to this budding ‘critic’. There were enough good things about this film to make me want to watch it again sometime… maybe not for a while, but it certainly wasn’t ‘shit’… Recommended.

My Score: 7.4/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thor/
Official Site: http://thor.marvel.com/
Trailer:

Film Review: PROOF (2005)

Director: John Madden
Running time: 100 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Drama
UK release date 24th February 2006

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 30th January 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This is one of those films that I’ve seen before and remember the beginning, but can never remember the ending. Maybe it’s because I never got to the end before, but this time I did. This appealed to me because I studied mathematics (amongst other things) at university and thought it might strike a chord. It did, but not in the way I was expecting… But more of that later, here’s a brief summary before I give you my thoughts (summary haters please solve a couple of differential equations while I write the next paragraph).

Catherine’s father, Robert, has recently died, he was a great mathematician in his day but insanity had plagued his latter years. She had looked after him for the last five years of his life at their home in Chicago and is now coming to terms with his loss. A former student of his, Harold Dobbs (Hal), is looking through his notebooks hoping to find something of note. As the funeral approaches, Catherine’s sister, Claire, arrives from New York. She is a successful businesswoman and takes her slightly mentally unstable sister in hand. After the funeral a wake is held back at the house and Catherine gets together with Hal. The following day she gives him the key to her father’s desk where he finds just what he’s been looking for, a brilliant mathematical proof. The trouble is, Catherine claims she wrote it… there is a lot of doubt though. Has Catherine inherited her father’s genius, amongst other things, or did he write it in one of his more lucid periods? Well I guess I’d be giving too much away if I told you here.

First off, really great performances from both Gwyneth Paltrow as Catherine and Hope Davis as Claire. Jake Gyllenhaal was adequate as Hal and Anthony Hopkins was as good as ever in the flashbacks of Robert. Now, to the film, it is based on a play by David Auburn, who also co-wrote the screenplay, and I find films based on plays sometimes suffer; they can become a little claustrophobic. This, unfortunately is a case in point. Although an effort is made to broaden the scope of the story by taking parts of it outside, it’s still very much a character driven piece which I’m afraid I found a little dry.

The plot I found a little weak, it all boiled down to a small thing that could so easily have been resolved (I’m sorry I don’t want to say what it is… spoilers). I feel that too much time was taken to set up the characters and the back story and this didn’t quite work on film. So, over all, some great performances in what is essentially a play transferred to the big screen. Although the plot is weak in places and it is pretty slow, I still recommend it (just).

My score: 6.7/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0377107/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/proof/
Trailer (not great quality I’m afraid): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsgyghe-6O8&feature=player_detailpage