The Hobbit, An unexpected journey (2012)

The Hobbit: An unexpected journey (2012)

 

Actors: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, James Nesbitt, Elijah Wood, Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett etc

Director: Peter Jackson

Few movies has been so eagerly awaited. The likes of Star Wars episode 1 which indeed flopped in its majesty was in my mind when entering the cinema theatre. How would this film stand? 

It is true that it felt a bit hyped and bloated. Indeed this film is not without some serious flaws. My immediate thought is how Jackson will be able to carry this film split in three. Even this one felt at times way too long. Will the story hold? I suppose one must watch all of the movies and then compare. 

I will start with the flaws to end on a more positive note. Firstly it lacks the depth of the Lord of the ring trilogy (LOTRT). Hobbits and dwarfs in all its glory cannot compare with all the other characters.
The story is more simple so at close to three hours of the first instalment this feels a bit stretched and convoluted. Mind you dear audience this all might also be a very elegant way of actually developing both characters and storyline. Perhaps we have all got so used to tight films and time slots that we have little or no patience for this kind of development of film.

Now to the positive note.
This film is such a joy of proper adventure to watch that it just fly bye. The use of High frame rate with glorious 3D really makes this so elegant viewing.
This is so unusual as a great adventure film in great porpotions. Not too much effort on the viewer is actually required. The battle scenes is great and entertaining. However it lacks a great villain as in LOTR as of now. It has some funny bits as in the scene with the giants trying to cook the gang. Easily saved by the Hobbit himself in the end.
The film does marry in bits from LOTR with very little explanation which is a shame.
The best part of the movie the meeting with Gollum. The following great scene is cleaver and greatly shot. The scene with the riddles is truly greatly entertaining and well executed.

Overall this film is very enjoyable and the close to three hours felt welt spent. Perhaps a bit too hyped and not enough depth and the remaining question is if it will manage to carry over three films. Still this one was truly entertaining and of great value. Best watched on the big screen and in 3D.

Rating: 3.75 of 5

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Actors: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Kathy Bates, Kurt Fuller, Michael Sheen, Carla Bruni etc
Director: Woody Allen

This piece of cinema is about nostalgia and exploring yourself. Perhaps not the finest piece that Allen has directed but a good effort.
Gil (Owen Wilson) is an successful Hollywood writer who is in Paris with his girlfriend Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her parents on a trip. Gil wants to become a serious author but is not having much success in this department. He is searching for himself. There is some amusing and really funny scenes when the couple spend time with some long lost friends and the pompous Paul brilliantly played by Michael Sheen drives Gil to despair. He is also reminded that perhaps it is not all that rosy in his relationship with Inez. Gil is also obsessed with the 1920's intellectual Paris.
Unexplained one night at the stroke of midnight a grand old car stops and picks Gil up. He is transported to the very era and gets a chance to meet Gertrude Stein, Salvador Dali, Pablo Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, Cole Porter to name a few. This happens night after night and he even gets critique of his novel by Gertrude Stein.
Gil is transformed and takes all his impressions in. Naturally is his girlfriend convinced that he has an affair. The aspect of time travel is never explored but just happens which is refreshing and is not needed.

Is nostalgia necessary? Would it be better to live in a different era? How can I make the most of my own time? Allen tries hard to address these issues and sadly it is mostly felt like a half bake cake. He never really manage to answer any of theses potentially interesting questions nor to show any resolve in the story.
Perhaps the answer that is indeed answered is to make the most of the time we live in now and that each era has its own merits. Our main character is faced with a dilemma when he with a girl is transported back to Moulin Rouge during "La Belle Epoque". She is from the 1920's but is longing to another era. According to her that is the best era. This makes the main character to think about his own situation and eventually break up with his most unsympathetic girlfriend. Eventually he meets a girl who shares his beliefs that Paris is at its most beautiful when it is raining.
This film have some funny moments and some interesting thoughts. However it at times become almost tedious when the main character bumps into yet another intellectual legend never seemingly learning anything. He is only impressed and shows how one dimensional he sadly is.
The outcome of the film is probably to make the most of the time we live in. It is great to have a notion of nostalgia but you only think about a fraction of the aspects of the time.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Tremors (1990)

Actors: Kevin Bacon, Fred Ward and Finn Carter

Director: Ron Underwood

What can beat an underground blind prehistoric hungry monster that responds to vibration?

Not very much. This is a fun action movie before CGI. The monster is this slimy snake like being that moves fast under the surface and likes to eat people. 

The sleepy village of Perfection gets invaded. The heroes are the two overgrown handy men of the village. They try to get out and into the big world. 

Obviously nothing is explained and in the end a happy ending. All of a sudden people start to get eaten. The scenario is a remote part of USA surrounded by mountains and only one road out. Of course the road gets blocked and the good people of Perfection is stuck. 

There is some wonderful characters in this film. The couple who have built their own fortress with a basement full of all sorts of fire arms. The elephant rifle is proving to be very useful in the end. 

The two main characters are the epitome of how americans like to see themselves. Resourceful and in the end without any external support they save the towns people. Or at least the once that survives. 

One could find so many flaws in the film but that is beside the point. It is sheer good old action. No real thought is required and one can simply rest and just enjoy the film. 

Stable one knows that in the end it will be a happy ending.

This is before CGI so the special effects is a full size monster built up. It is great fun. No trying to even remotely look realistic and one can almost see the seams in the costume. As an added bonus when the monsters get blown up it is sheer orange gunk that is splashed all over.

I hope anyone that watches this good piece of action will enjoy it as much as I do.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Edge of seventeen (1998)

Actors: Chris Stafford, Tina Holmes, Andersen Gabrysh and Stephanine McVay
Director: David Moreton

This near perfect coming out movie is wonderful. It is set in 1984 Ohioo and it gets everything right.
The era, music, props and plot.
It is one of the most realistic and tender films. It does not offer a sweet ending and that is just one of the many strength of the film.
Confusion, sex, love, orientation, pivotal moments and wanting to please all and no-one.

Eric is a high school student who is dreaming to get to New York. He and his best friend Mag take a summer job at a restaurant at the local fair ground. The other guy is there. Amongst confusion and the shake of some whipped cream it is soon official.
Who am I this film oozes and never really answers. Some amazing acting and pivotal moments stays and one only wants to jump in and say; Hold on, do the right thing.
They do not do the right thing.
The confusion that enters everyone is so real and not to be forgotten.
Who am I, who are your, who are we?
Questions that is in all families of teenage kids growing up to fast. The thrill of finding one self is evident and so steeped in a sense of loss.
One of the strength is that it captures the mid 1980's so perfectly. Music, fashion and social attitudes all combined.
Is the main character a hero? Not sure about this. However he breaks a woman's heart so hard it will give him nightmares for a long time. He has just convinced to consummate the so call relationship. No words except him repeating "I am sorry" manifest how she has gulled both of them to think this is it. She is betrayed and he knows he has done this.
Once he has come out to his mother more hardship. He gets a hug however no love from his mother. The movie is wonderful. Full of spot on music and fashion. The storyline is with depth and integrity. A must see.
Rating 4.5 out of 5

The dark knight rises (2012)

SPOILER ALERT


Actors: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cottilard, Morgan Freeman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Director: Christopher Nolan

Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned or revenge is a dish served painfully slow and cold. That in a nutshell can summarise this cinematic even.
So far the biggest cinematic anticipation of 2012 by all means. The cinema was almost sold out despite being the earliest screening of the day. That is a good sign and this film did not disappoint. Even though it is close to three hours long it flew by and was well presented. A good balance of stunning action scenes, philosophical questions, emotions and parallels to modern day society.
Batman is buried and have disappeared from a peaceful city. Bruce Wayne is the recluse billionaire who is living in an emotional void and have retired from as it seems life itself. He lives in his massive mansion and his only interaction is with his butler who is wonderfully played by Michael Caine.
Dark times are lurking and building up. Soon enough Bruce Wayne is waking up to again protect Gotham City and its inhabitants. A rather good parallel to what a civilised society is. What do we want to protect? What is the rule of law? Do we want complete freedom which as it is showed here equates to anarchy and summary rule of the mob. A pardon is the same as the alternative the death sentence.
Batman takes more than one battering and true to the original he is seriously wounded and again almost killed. Ironically even though he eventually saves Gotham City (The world) he is saved by Selina.
So many philosophical themes is put together and if this was not a shameless action movie it would feel rather preposterous. This is not the kind of film to read to much into these matters and one should simply enjoy its magnificence. Not many good action films are made these days so relish in this one.

The twist is the villain. It is not the muscles this time even if it is the muscles that almost break Batman in an epic fight that will put him into his hell hole. One must suppose that the director have had influence from the classics and inspired by Dante. However since Batman eventually manage to save the day he manages to literally climb his way out of his Inferno. The real villain puts true the saying that one should keep ones enemy closest. Batman is betrayed by what seems to be a supporter. She is seeking revenge from wrongdoings to her mother so you can see how Freudian it is.

One should not pay too much attention to all of this. If one did the film actually do not make sense and would fail miserably. However the film is so well directed despite its flaws in story that it is a joy to watch and enjoy. Even the ending is ok and slightly nauseating. However it is on knifes edge and Batman finally saves Gotham and all is returned to normal. The only worrying aspect is the final ending. Is the Director building up to another sequel? It certainly looks that way. For a moment one wonders have Batman perished in order to save Gotham? Of course not. After a mock funeral all is revealed and even Robin is identified and is brought to the Batcave. Only time will tell if there will be a follow up and if it can pull it all off......

Overall this is a return to very good action with good and bad guys. Despite flaws this cinema experience is fantastic and on so many levels flawless. Please enjoy..

Rating: 4 out of 5

My aim is not to write down movies. I love cinema and have watched a very fair number of films. It makes me distressed that a number of my reviews have been negative. It is just a reflection of the state of cinema at the moment. The last thing I want is to come across as a grumpy cinema hater. I am not.

I have decided that I will mix reviews of new movie together with my DVD collection. Hopefully this will give some balance.
Cinema is an amazing art form and gives us so much. I wish it well and want generations after next to experience the greatness of this medium of versatile and emotional art.

I hope that you will continue to follow me in my quest of giving you reviews of the art of cinema.....

Julie/Julia (2009)
Director: Nora Ephron
Actors: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Chris Messina and Stanley Tucci

What a joy to watch. Here I am feeling that I only review in a grumpy way. That is not true. It is just that films lately have been so bad.
This wonderful film is an exception. A reminder that even in present day good films are being made. That is a revelation, even though it should not have to be.
The film is a parallel story that is finely moved together. It is of course about the great Julia Child and her modern day counterpart who decides to recreate all the cooking during one year.
So far so easy.
Julia Child is of course the master and legend of bringing French cooking to the American audience. Julie has no purpose.
The iconic first scene of the film is a one of joy. Julia Child in a French restaurant in Rouen in 1947 and her first taste of sublime cooking; Sole meuniere.
One of the best scenes describing the joy of tasting something great for the first time. The sensual joy, pleasure and again joy of a taste sensation is marvellous to watch.
The film never reverts to sad melancholy which is a great thing. The story of the lives of Julia and Julie unfolds both as it should and showing the bond Julie has with her non present mentor. The fact that they never meet is a great fact and would have ruined this great film.
Meryl Streep as always show why she is an masterful actress. She is truly wonderful and master both the body language and voice of Julia Child to perfection. It is like one star playing each other.
The film has depth and language and speaks volume.
I feel that I have been seen as a grumpy reviewer and that is no fun. It is just a lack of good films.
This is a great way of entertain yourself and to be inspired. Everything is possible and lets go cooking.
As Julia always said: "Bon appetite"

Rating: 4 out of 5

Prometheus (2012)

Director: Ridley Scott
Actors: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Guy Pearce, Sean Harris

I was very excited when booking this movie. In the cinema they said it was fully booked. I had felt a buzz for a while and perhaps this was it. A great director coming back to his original genre. 3D.
Could it get any better?
They guy in the cinema asked if I needed 3d glasses which I declined. Prudent enough I have saved my original pair of spectacles. The auditorium was close to full and the adverts closing. I was so in for a treat.
How wrong I was.
Fair enough the 3D effect was stunning. The added effect put on post production had really paid off. Stunning. Not to much and just right.
So this is the good part. The rest of the film was mediocre to say the least. Visually stunning, bravo for minimising CGI and some profound questions. It should work but sadly not. It is all about questions and no answers. However the suspense from the original never turns up. Perhaps one should never tamper with an original. It feels greatly that there is no suspense whatsoever and only weird creatures that digest humans and the others alike.
The Freudian undertone is not beneficial and adds nothing. How is it that the crew knows about the founder of the company but not as it turns out about his daughter as it later turns out??
There is no struggle and no element of fear. Just weird creatures and a strange but visually landscape. Is this about biological warfare gone wrong, civilisation or the quest of ageing? No one knows.
This film could have been so much more if Ridley Scott had committed himself. It could pose so many moral, ethical and profound philosophical questions. It fails to answer any of them.
We are left with a stunning visual feast with slimy creature and no substance. I rather would have waited for the DVD.

Rating: 2.5 of 5

Hunger Games (2012)

Director: Gary Ross
Actors: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woddy Harrelson, Donald Sutherland


I must confess that was quite unsure what to expect. I had only very scant knowledge of the story and had not read the novels. I went almost entirely on seeing the trailer and it is refreshing that this film was not too hyped up as for example the newly released massive turkey flop of "John Carter". I was pleasantly surprised and left the cinema very satisfied after watching this accomplished and at points philosophical piece of cinema. It is the kind of film that one can watch on several layers and will appeal to both the target teenage group and adults alike.


The plot revolves around the annual "Hunger Games" staged as a punishment by the Capitol district as a result of a revolt some 78 years ago. This dystopia of a vision of a post collapsed USA shows the now renamed country Panem. This is interesting as it is a reference to the ancient Roman dogma of Panem et circenses, bread and circus, to keep the people happy. The country is divided in 12 districts that all serve the purpose of ensuring that the decadence of the Capitol is made possible. Two tributes, one boy and one girl aged 12 - 20, is selected to fight to the death in the Hunger Games. The games are aired on live television and is of course a satire of modern day reality TV shows. One "Victor" remains and is crowned by the President/Dictator of this fascist state. 
The main character played by the wonderful Jennifer Lawrence volunteers in lieu of her younger sister. The two tributes are taken to the Capitol and is groomed and trained by a team. The games is set in completely controlled forest environment that can induce everything from fires to lethal beasts. The struggle of survival is evident and is in contrast to the excitement of the TV audience. The film feels like a mixture of the sentiment of "Lord of the flies" and modern day thirst for new and ever increasing TV shocks. The ending of the movie is interesting and well worth a closer look. I do not want to spoil the ending but it has both political and emotional implications. I would have welcomed a more expanded ending to make this a truly great film. The end of the film leaves at least me feeling a bit flat as it could have been so much more to expand on.


The juxtaposition between the poverty stricken district and the decadent and colourful decadence of the Capitol is powerful. The districts are illustrated as grey, flat and people without hope or even a will to revolt to such conditions. The Capitol is to great effect shown as the centre of decadence. The inhabitance is dressed in colourful and often outrageously camp outfits, men and women alike. The sleazy TV host is a brilliant character that shows the brashness underneath his whiter than white smile and it is clear it is part of a political game. As the President, masterfully played by Sutherland, describes the only thing more powerful than fear is hope. A small controlled amount of hope keeps the districts under control. That is the reason the hunger games exist and one tribute survives. 
It is interesting when the games start no one seem to have any moral objections that teenagers and children are pitted against each other and in the most brutal way slaughter each other. It only shows in a perfectly executed way how thin the layer of veneer is that we call civilisation and morality really is. It reminds the viewer that it can so easily be removed. 


This is a successful film and well worth watching on the big screen. It flows well and have many interesting aspects. Well done.


Rating 4 out of 5

21 Jump street (2012)

Director: Phil Lord and Chris Miller
Actors:  Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum and Ice Cube

This cinema experience should not work but it does. It is so funny and so out of line that it is a joy to watch.

The story is about two not very cleaver police officers that get sent to be undercover in a high school to unravel a drug gang. High school have changed and the looser becomes the cool kid on the block. Of course in the end they manage to solve the problem and squash the drug dealers once and for all.
The film is not deep nor any pretence that it has any intention to do so. However it works due to a high level of very funny side. It is slap stick, it is pre puberty, and it is silly. It works on so many levels.
Sheer joy and fun and on a deep level how it would be to be able to re-live those important high school years. The Channing character pour out his wisdom saying that the less interest you show the more popular you get proves wrong. When he finally embrase learning and the chemistry class he is in it actually pays off in the end.
The telling off they both get as the parents return home finding the home turned into a party scene is priceless. I am glad my parents never did the same.
It is not by any means Shakespeare but for some truly funny bits that will make you laugh out loud this is brilliant.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Raging sun, racing sky (2010)

Director: Julian Hernandez
Actors: Jorge Becerra, Javier Olivan, Guillermo Villegas, Giovanna Zacarias

This is an artistic film of many aspects. I am still not sure what the film is about. It is visually stunning playing with long shot scenes, music, black and white shots that gradually turns into colour and virtually no dialogue.
This obvious ambitious project of a film intrigues the viewer as well as due to the slow pace together with the music is mesmerising and with some meditative and messmerising effects. I had this on my Lovefilm list and did not know what to expect when starting the film. There is simply no dialogue but occasional exclamations by a woman dressed as an Inca Indian that is a spirit being. The film is shot in Mexico and alters between urban setting and the forest.
The film is about love, soul mate, bonds and how love conquers all. The bond of the lovers are tested following an abduction. There is some truly stunning visual aspects that is pleasing. The film starts in black and white. During the film occasional bouts of colours appear. It is pale pastel like colours that later intensifies.
The film have a slow pace and is slightly over three and half hours long allowing it to explore the subject and lure in the viewer.
I suspect that some people would view this arty bound to oblivion. However one must applaud the courage that the director chose to create a film with artistic integrity. I could not help but draw parallels to Fellini's film "Satyricon" who likewise lack much dialogue and relies on a more visual experience.
There is some very good acting. It is a challenge in today's overhyped CGI film world of a challenging piece of work which makes the viewer think and reflect.
This film is not for everyone and certainly when watching one has to be in the mood and have the time.

Rating: 3.5 of 5

Project X (2012)

Director: Nima Nourizadeh
Actors: Thomas Mann, Oliver Cooper and Jonathan Daniel Brown

This is film is a great joy to watch. It leaves you feeling warm, glad, life affirming and a reminder of those late teenage years.
The main character Thomas is turning 17. His parents are going away for the weekend. His two friends decide it is time for a party to remember. They certainly achieve their goal with gusto. Based on true events in Pasadena, USA. The three friends are a joy to watch. They are not the most popular kids in high school and leaning towards the nerdy side. With the use of social media, sms's and even a phone in to a radio station the word is out.
They go to the local drug dealer and buy some weed and on the way out steals a garden gnome which it later turns out is full of a massive stash of ecstasy pills.
The friends even go around informing the neighbours about the plans for a small birthday soiree. The dj is in place, two guys as security. The inside of the house is off limits. So far so good.
Guests start to arrive in droves until the party swells to over a 1000. Thomas initially struggles to have a good time because he worries about the amount of people coming and the house. During the film it gets more and more out of hand.
There is a very funny scene with a very small dwarf who gets put inside the owen. Needless to say he is furious when finally released and start punching guys in the more private parts.
As an epilogue after the riot police have dispersed of the revellers there is a wonderful scene where Thomas and his father looks at the utter destruction. With mixed emotions the father is actually quite proud that his son actually managed to be so popular.

This film is manic and really enjoyable. Not much of deep thoughts but a wonderful sense of innocence, joy, friends and the way teenagers develops. Teenage angst, wanting to be popular and having a good time. It leaves you warm and happy. It has some great scenes of how things just gets so out of hand you can not stop it. The more destruction the more obvious that the only solution is just to let completely go and make the most of it. The three friends are good actors. This cinema experience have the possibility to become a classic teenage high school film of the 2010's as Ferris Bueller day off was for the 1980's.

Rating: 3.7 of 5

I. Robot (2004)

Director: Alex Proyas
Main actors: Will Smith, Bridget Moynaham, James Cromwell, Alan Tudyk

The film is around a technophobe police officer who is investigating the death of the founder of a robotic company. It is set in the future where mankind is helped out by an army of robot servants. The robots are all ruled by the three laws. The laws is there to protect any human from being injured or harmed by the robots. On examining the death of the inventor a different kind of robot is found. The robot is called Sonny and as it is later discovered in the film have been fitted with added software which allows the robot to make own decisions.
All robots are controlled by "Viki" who is the "mother"computer or framework. Viki it is later discovered have evolved and in order to protect mankind have decided that humans are like children and needs to be detained.
Will Smith character Del who appears to be a paranoid police officer is proven right in the end. Together with the character Susan they get to the core of the malfunctioning robots and in the end save mankind.
There is some awesome action scenes in the film and on the whole it is enjoyable. Nothing out of the ordinary for a standard action movie from Hollywood. It tries to pose questions about intelligence, individuality, humanity and the soul. However in the scope of an ordinary action movie this get lost in order to give time for great CGI effects and action. Of course our hero eventually manage to corrupt and kill off Viki in the end. This makes all the evil robots to become placid and again drones to mankind. There is even a battle between the old robots and the new ones where the older version tries to protect mankind but fails.

Sonny the robot have been programmed to dream or as Del describe it hide messages draws a futuristic yet messianic picture of a man/robot uniting the drones. This is where the movie is out of its depth. It does not have the time or energy to explore this further. It leaves the audience dry by asking questions. Is the suggestion that a new species of beings have been created? Will the robots unite and either live alongside human beings or indeed get rid of them been created? The ending leaves the audience to feel that this movie just drops everything and the hero couple rides off in the sunset whilst the hero robot is left standing on the hill and the other robots look up and stops. They have found the robot leader. With the right directions this movie could have been so much more than just a action movie with a week ending. However as a action movie it is well made with great visual effects and well worth watching.

Rating: 3 of 5

Barbarian (2003 version)

Director: Henry Crum
Main actors: Michael O'Hearn, Irina Grigoryvea and Svetlana Metkina


The sword and sorcery genre is a category that can be fun to watch. They do not carry a deep meaning and have no pretence. There is something satisfying with primal scenes. Manly men who grunt and fight on an epic scale against the evil ruler. They always get the beautiful woman in the end after winning the last epic battle. As an extra ingredient it always has quest to find some magic item that will make the owner the ruler of the world. Those are the basic but yet working ingredients of the genre. The classic films is undoubtedly the brilliant "Conan the Barbarian" (1982) with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the really cool "The Barbarian Brothers" (1987) with the Paul brothers.

I would like to point out that I watched this version of Barbarian by mistake. And what a mistake it was. It is probably one of the worst films in existence. The plot is the classical one of the genre with our hero to rescue a captured princess as well as the three magical items. He who possess all three items will be immortal and rule the world. The evil ruler have called for a competition to the death by warriors and the price will be to become the general of the army. On the outset all is well even for a B movie.
However the script makes you cringe beyond belief. Even for a B movie this is so rubbish. The acting is awful. The "star" is Michael O'Hearn who is trying something but fails. All he manages is trying to look manly and flex his muscular physique. The movie also try to salvage itself presumably to appease the audience by having plenty of very scantily dressed women that all live in the harem of the evil ruler. There is a subplot with an Amazon warrior who is some sort of feminist lesbian champion of the harem. Of course she manages to free all the women using only kitchen utensils. Perhaps something for Gordon Ramsay to think about.
The poor barbarian is not a very good one. He doesn't even manage to win the final fight. The evil ruler is finally killed by the now freed and presumably emancipated Princess who finally kills the ruler and saves the viewer from this truly awful movie.

Rating: 0.5 of 5

The best exotic Marigold Hotel

This is a confused piece of cinema. It tries so hard to make everyone happy and it fails so miserable. A fantastic cast, feel good plot and a great location should be a recipe of success. Sadly it is not.
The story of a group of retired English people due to financial reasons decide to move to the Marigold hotel in Jaipur, India. What unravels is a story that does not make sense. There is moments of brilliant performances that is great. However as movie it does not work.
There is for example a "Brokeback mountain" moment where the former high court judge have found his long lost lover. After a night of talking with the now married former lover he dies of a heart attack. Nothing more comes out of this. This in itself could make the stuff of an entire movie.

Judie Dench plays a widow who has discovered that her late husband have amassed debts and is forced to sell her apartment. However she is forced to get a job in a call centre to make ends meet. There is never any explanation to the character nor any deeper exploration of her love for the Bill Nighy character.

The sub plot is around Dev Patel an his passion for the disaster that is the Marigold Hotel. It is in financial ruin but he has passion that the hotel will work. Just as his father did. It is a classical story that he will in the end make his mother and the world understand that his passion is greater than reason. This hapless character is almost a parody of itself. A young man trying to find himself and eventually does. It turns out that his mother ones was the girl that was not good enough to marry his father. It is almost sickening to watch.

The entire movie is saved by the fantastic performance of Maggie Smith. She is formidable as the former housekeeper who can not abide anything foreign that travels to India to have a hip replacement. Her search for rich tea biscuits is funny. It is obvious that she has a past that have been squashed. Eventually she bonds with a female servant of the untouchable class. There is some touching moments and once again we are reminded of how great of an actress she is. Her character eventually save the entire Marigold hotel and movie.

This movie had so much promise but it was predictable, uneventful and one was wondering when the movie actually would start. It is such a shame that it did not work. The script was jut to sloppy, to thin and did not know its own direction.

Rating: 2.5 of 5

First blog

Dear Reader,
I have just started this blog in order to express my passion for film.
The aim of this blog is to review as many movies that I can. I have an ecclestic taste in movies and will review all sorts of cinematic experiences.

Any appropriate and relevant comments are most welcome as the reviews will be my own.