Ramblings about books, films, cakes, weight loss and likely some terrible celebrity gossip. Politics is very unlikely.
Thursday, 19 September 2013
About Time
Richard Curtis has a bad rep. It's true that none of his films really have the hallmarks of a cinematic genius and in some manner resemble a feature-length TV drama. The storylines tend to be quite schmaltzy and in some ways entirely predictable: Hugh Grant (or someone much like him) will always get the girl.
About Time is, he claims, the last film he's going to direct/write. His previous films, particularly Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill and Love Actually have become quite seminal rom-coms. Where these are also much like a who's who of British cinema, About Time falls down. There are famous actors involved, most notably Bill Nighy, but for the most part it seems to be younger up-and-coming actors - i.e. the Hugh Grants of the future. However, in so many ways, it completely slams the Curtis' other offerings. I'll explain why.
Firstly, the lead characters and actors are very charming. There was no character in this that I wanted to get off the screen, whereas Andie McDowell and Julia Roberts need to do one in their respective films. Rachel MacAdams is one of my favourite underrated actresses: I have loved her since The Notebook and Mean Girls, yet she's never really come good on the fact that she is a really versatile performer. She's also kookily stunning. Domhnall Gleeson was also utterly delightful as Tim, the main character, even if he does sound identical to Hugh Grant. Billy Nighy was a wonderful dad. They all fit their parts really well.
The plot itself is pretty ridiculous: Tim finds out that the men in his family have always had the ability to time travel back through their own timelines. The science of this was massively glossed over and there were a wealth of paradoxes, so in this respect it was less well-plotted than The Time Traveler's Wife (loved the book, disliked the film, despite Rachel MacAdams - she is better in this). For much of the film, it lacked some conflict as the relationship between Tim and Mary, after a shaky start where he almost missed ever meeting her, trotted along nicely. The sub-plot of Tim's disaster-zone of a sister was a little too underplayed for much of the film and I think potentially she could have been either given more to do or removed entirely. However, I see nothing wrong with sometimes watching a film which is just nice; I really enjoyed watching Tim and Mary together for their relationship alone. In fact, I could have watched an entire film which was just that ordinary and lovely.
However, the lack of conflict for a large chunk of the film means than when the thunderbolt hits, it hits hard. I haven't cried in the cinema for a long time. Tears were rolling down my cheeks during the last twenty minutes of this film. I shan't spoil it for anybody who wishes to see it, but it's enough to say that the ordinariness of everything set against the bonkers world of time travel really works here, much as it does in my long-time love Doctor Who. Indeed, this film shares many of the themes of Curtis' episode from 2010, Vincent and the Doctor which talked a lot about ordinary life being utterly extraordinary if looked at the right way. The pain of life is something addressed by both film and episode, and leads into one of my favourite quotations from the TV show:
About Time is essentially a love story, between a man and a woman, and a son and his father. It talked of an ordinary life and how each day can be wonderful if we let it. If it was saccharine and schmaltzy, I don't care. It may not be the world's greatest film, but it has heart and soul and truisms and was frankly lovely. There are not enough lovely things in the world in my opinion. I adored it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)