Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day Sixty: Anyone fancy an Indian? Well how about a trip to France?

A bit of globe-trotting now as we journey to India and then to France. First off is the Lives of a Bengal Lancer which was nominated for Best Picture at the 1936 ceremony. Its hard to describe the film as it isn't really a war film although it does feature scenes of conflict. It is set during the days of the British Raj where Lt. McGregor is stationed and welcomes two new Lieutenants the cocksure Forsythe and Tom Stone the son of the unit's commander Donald. It is this relationship between father and son that is the backbone of the film, as Tom is captured following being tempted by a woman working for the villainous Mohammed Kahn. Despite being told by Donald not to go after his son, Forsythe and McGregor journey to the enemy camp where they are captued and all three are tortured. Tom eventually gives out sensitive information to Kahn but before he can use it Donald and his men burst in and in the ensuing battle Tom kills Kahn but McGregor dies. Tom and Forsythe are given medals of honor and McGregor is posthmously awarded the Victoria Cross. Although not exactly packed full of action, The Lives of a Bengal Lancer was still a very accomplished picture. This was mainly due to the screenplay, which was nominated for the Oscar, which gave opportunties for all the central characters chances to grow and develop and also develop some laddish banter, especially that between Forsythe and McGregor. The acting is also very good with Gary Cooper giving his best performance so far on this quest and Richard Cromwell was also very stoic as Donald the man who wanted to get to know his son but his life as a soldier and almost stunted his emotions. The film was nominted for eight Oscars in total but only one two Oscars for its assistant directors, which is a shame as I really enjoyed this one.

After looking at Charles Dickens adaptations the other day, we have another adaptation this time of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, now much better known as a musical than from its source text. In this version it is Frederic Marsh who plays Frenchman Jean Valjean the man who is imprisoned and after escaping is treated almost like a beggar but is able to rehabilitated by a kindly priest. He then transforms himself into Monsieur Madelaine a factory owner and later mayor however he encounters Inspector Javert, played by Charles Laughton, the head of the police who he remembers from his time in prison. At the same time Madeline takes in the woman-of-questionable-morals Fantine and her daughter Cossette. Javert reveals that a man is being tried under the name of Valjean, as he is about to be imprisoned the real Valjean reveals himself. Just before Javert is able to bring him to justice he escapes along with Cossette. Valjean is then able to work as a gardener and make enough money to enrol Cossette into a fancy school. During this final part of the story there is an uprising in France as groups start to rebel against the harsh nature of the police. Cossette falls for the leader of the group, who themselves start to attract police attention. This means that Javert comes back into Valjean's life, although Javert is captured by Valjean he reconsiders and lets him go. Javert continues to pursue Valjean but in the end commits suicide by jumping in the river and Valjean and Cossette are reunited. Having only been faintly familiar with the story I think Richard Boleslawski did a good job of bringing it to life. The scenes at the end of the film involving Javert and Valjean are incredibly startling as our Valjean's life following him leaving prison. Like with a star is born, Frederic march is able to dispaly a full range of emotions as Valjean while Charles Laughton steals the show as the villainous and despicable Javert. The film doesn't outstay its welcome and hits all the main plot points without lingering on any one character for too long. However it lost to another Laughton film, Mutiny on The Bounty.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day Fifty-Nine: Two Different Houses

Back to the serious stuff once again with two films that have nothing in common apart from the word house in the title. First of we have The House of Rothschild which was nominated for the Oscar in 1935. The film is basically a propaganda film bigging up the Jews in response to the start of the Anti-Semetic movement coming from Hitler's Germany. At a time when most of the heads of the major studios were Jewish they decided to fight back in film form. It basically looks at the Rothschild family who grew up on 'Jew Street' a place where the Jews had to stay and keep in from 6 in the evening till 6 in the morning. The family is headed by patriach Meyer who convinces his five sons to each start banks in Europe's major cities but to always consult each other on major matters. Later on the Rothschild boys are all grown-up and together helped finance the fight against Napoelon, however once Napoleon is captured, because of the Rothschilds being Jewish, their contribution to the success of the war is glossed over and they are once again ignored. When Napoeleon escapes the brothers retreat back to see their mother on Jew Street they think about allying themselves with Napoeleon but in the end they decide to stay on the side of the allies this portrays the Rothschilds as caring as they help the people who wouldn't help them. The final scene of the film, for some reason, is presented in three-strip technicolour and sees Nathan Rothschild meet the Duke of Wellington who finally congratulates him on his help during the war-effort. Personally I didn't really 'get' The House of Rothscild, I thought the performances were perfectly adequate especialy George Arliss in the duel role of Nathan and Meyer Rothschild. But the story itself was weak there was a horrible subplot in which Nathan's daughter wanted to marry a non-Jew which was just insipid. Also although I got the point in the films which promoted the goodness of the Jews I felt it wasn't really strong enough to constitue being considered as propaganda. I also found the three-strip technicolour a little gimmicky and I really didn't see the point in it. This was never going to be a match for that year's winner, It Happened One Night.

A better film comes from the third ever Oscar ceremony and could possibly be considered the first ever proper prison film. The film follows Kent Marlowe as he is imprisoned, supposedly wrongly, for manslaughter. He is forced to share a cell with Wallace Beery's fearsome Butch as well as Chester Morris' sensible and good-natured thief John Morgan. Kent quickly becomes a snitch and plants a knife on Morgan. Morgan escapes anyway and meets up with Kent's sister who he falls for but the rest of the family ring the police and Morgan gets put in jail once again. He then finds out that Butch is planning a breakout and Kent is thinking of joining him but, after meeting Kent's family, Morgan tries to talk him out of it. In the end Morgan gets involved in the breakout to stop Kent breaking out but in the process also helps out the guards aprehend the escapees and his release is granted as he leaves the prison hoping to reunite with Kent's sister and live on an island. Although the plot is quite slight, The Big House seems like a revolutionary film, the scenes of the prisoners moving from their cells, to the yard, to the dining hall are filmed very well for an early talking picture. Wallace Beery was the star of the show as the menacing Butch but Chester Morris made a pretty good leading man as the likeable Morgan. This well written film was rewarded for an Oscar for its screenplay as well as being the first ever film to win the Best Sound Oscar. It's just a shame that it came up against the realistic war picture All Quiet on The Western Front because this film really did give you a feel for what life must be like in prison from the first shot in which Kent comes into prison up to the riot itself this was a very good film indeed.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day Fifty-Eight: Some Light Relief

After bubonic plagues, evil stepfathers and French revolutions dominating the last three films I watched on the challenge I thought it was time to indulge in a bit of light-hearted relief so here we go with another screwball comedy, bizzarely directed by the guy who directed the Tale of Two Cities adaptation, Libelled Lady. The film sees Connie a millionaire heiress played by Myrna Loy sue a newspaper after a they print a scandalous rumor about her. The newspaper's editor, played by Spencer Tracy, decides to hire ladies' man Bill, played by William Powell, to get Connie to drop the suit. He does this by getting the editor's fiancee Agnes, played by Jean Harlow, to marry him and then manouvere it for Connie to fall for him and Agnes to catch them together. Of course this being a screwball comedy things don't go to plan, and Agnes begins to fall for Bill much to the editor's displeasure. Things come to a head as Connie and Bill get engaged and Agnes reveals that she and Bill are actually married and then Connie and Bill have to convince her that she and the editor belong together.

Unless Frank Capra is involved I find these romantic screwball comedies incredibly lightweight. Not that that is neccesarily a bad thing and this one trots along at a nice pace. William Powell and Myrna Loy have proved that they have great on-screen chemistry and indeed the scenes featuring Connie and Bill are probably the film's best. Despite Powell and Loy's chemistry, it was Powell and Harlow who were involved at the time of the film's release. This is in fact Jean Harlow's first appearance in the challenge, she accounts herself well in quite a small role but she is still strong enough to contend with the other actors while Tracy excels at doing something a bit lighter than what I have usually seen him in. Not really an Oscar contender per se, this is still an amiable enough comedy that wiles away an hour and a half quite easily.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day Fifty-Seven: A Bit of Charlie

In what seems like a lifetime ago I watched two films based on the works of one of Britain's best loved wordsmiths, William Shakespeare, now I'm dipping back into the list and getting two films that follow a similar pattern as both were based on works written by another chap you may have heard of - Charles Dickens.

First off is George Cukor's massive adaptation of David Copperfield, Copperfield is probably one of the better known of Dickens' work and was obviously a good choice to be one of the first of his books to be adapted since the advent of talking movies. Cukor was also responsible for some of the 1930s adaptations that I've already looked at on this list, Little Women and Romeo and Juliet. For those unfamiliar with the story it shows the development of David Copperfield, from being born to being raised by a single mother with the help of Peggorty the maid. Copperfield's mother then remarries and he is sent first to a boarding school (not seen in the film) and then to a factory in London. There he meets the jovial but constantly in debt lanlord Wilkins Micawber but when Micawber is sent to the debter's prison, Copperfield feels like he has nothing to live for and treks from London to Dover to live with his great aunt and her dotty companion Mr. Dick. As David grows up he falls in love with the beautiful Dora while he also works as a trainee clerk alongside the devious Uriah Heap. David's old school friend Steerforth returns and seduces and absconds with Peggoty's niece Emily, this incident gives the film one of its most vivid scenes as Pegggoty's brother searches high and low for Emily in a windswept montage. In the end David married Dora but she dies in childbirth so he remarries the sensible Agnes while the bad guys all get their comeuppance.

For one of the earliest Dickens adaptations, Cukor has been able to fit in a lot of detail and filmed some rather superb sequences. David's trek from London to Dover is a brilliant sequence as comes ever nearer to his aunt. The scene in which Steerforth and David meet Dora for the first time is also rather cute and as previously mentioned the search for Emily. Its a shame then that the two actors in the lead role almost let the film down Freddie Bartholemew who was annoying in Captain Courageous doesn't change my opinion of him here, while Frank Lawton as the older David is fairly bland. Thankfully the colourful characters are given fitting actors to play them W.C. Fields is witty and warm as Micawber, Lionel Barrymore is as excellent as ever as Mr Peggoty and the Benny Hill-like Lennox Pawle brings the eccentric Mr. Dick to life spectacularly. Although, at well over two hours, the film sometimes drags overall Cukor has done a good job of bringing the world of Copperfield to life.

Although both of these adaptations were released in the same year Copperfield qualified for the 1935 ceremony losing to Mutiny on The Bounty while A Tale of Two Cities had to wait till 1936 to lose to The Great Zigfield. This time Jack Conway, who we've previously met directing Viva Villa!, tries to adapt Dickens' account of the French revolution. The story sees Lucie Manette discover that her father is still alive imprisoned in the Bastille. Lucie brings her father back across the channel and while on the boat meets the charming Darnay who comes from one of France's most tyrinacal aristocratic families. On entrance to England, Darnay is framed for treason, but is released thanks to the efforts of Sydney Carton a lawyer who is able to get a confession out of the men who frame Darnay. Carton falls for Lucie but Lucie has already fallen for Darnay and they marry and have a daughter. We are then taken back to Paris where the French underclasses rebel against the aristocrats but then a certain number of them what revenge against the families that have wronged them including Darnay. He is tricked in going back to Paris only to be arrested despite Lucie and Carton's best efforts he sentenced to be executed but the day before this happens Carton swaps places with Darnay and is able to end his life a hero.

Again a brilliant adaptation this time the scenes that resonate the most are those during the French revolution. A comibnation of dim lighting transposed with large amounts of fire is quite horrifying. Also the scenes in which Carton falls for Lucie are incredibly well done meaning that the terror is transposed with some humor. Ronald Colman as Carton is brilliant here, previously I wasn't sure about his acting ability especially in Arrowsmith, but in A Tale of Two Cities he brings the drunken, smitten and ultimately selfless lawyer to life. Also worth a mention are two actors who appeared in both of these films first of all Basil Rathbone who has played villains in both pieces as Copperfield's evil stepfather in the first film he terrifies every time he comes on screen while here as the heartless Marquisse he is incredibly sinister. Meanwhile Edna May Oliver, who also played the aunt in Little Women and the nurse in Romeo and Juliet, played Copperfield's mad aunt and the loyal and eccentric maid in A Tale of Two Cities, in the latter role she is able to kick-ass and protect Lucie in the final scenes.

I think both of these films deserved their place on the nomination lists as they were able to bring Dickens' stories to an audience who had probably never read them. Although Copperfield probably wasn't a match for Mutiny on The Bounty, A Tale of Two Cities in some way was better than the overly-long specatcular The Great Ziegfeld. But both are examples of how adaptations of classic novels should be done.

Review: Greenberg

Its fair to say that Noah Baumbach is an acquired taste, he seems to direct films about cold upper-class people who are unhappy with their lives. I thought The Squid and The Whale was fairly enjoyable mainly due to the performances from the young actors while I found Margot at The Wedding rather cold thanks to Nicole Kidman's icy performance. For his third feature Baumbach has been able to snag yet another big Hollywood star in Ben Stiller who plays Roger Greenberg the manic depressive who has just come out of psychatric care to houesit for his brother while he and his family are away. However Stiller doesn't appear on screen until at least ten minutes into the film instead we are also asked to follow Florence, the Greenberg's young housekeeper, who we meet in the very first frame of the film following her on her various errands. Predictably Florence and Roger form a kind of self-destructive relationship with both of them incapable of proper feelings this is very on-off. But this is a film about past regrets as Roger returns to L.A. after 15 years in New York he has to meet his old friends some of whom he let down when he decided not to sign a record contract for their band. One friend in particular, Ivan, hasn't quite forgivern him and is now working fixing computers and is currently seperated from his wife. The film then follows Roger's relationships with both Florence and Ivan and will look at the problems behind his instability.

Ben Stiller has tried films outside his comic safety-zone before especially in the Wes Anderson films, but Greenberg sees him play almost an unlikeable character who is incredibly selfish and often has arguments with people for no reason at all. But Stiller still seems to make him likeable and there are some very funny moments most involving Greenberg writing angry letters to various companies and also through his bonding with his brother's dogs. Rhys Ifans also gives a very low-key performance as the put-upon Ivan still trying to cope with Roger's friendship despite all he has already gone through with him. But it is Greta Gerwig's Florence who is the most relatable and likeable character, Gerwig is an accomplished actress whose performance is realistic and just very cute. Overall Greenberg, like most of Baumbach's films, isn't for everyone in fact five people walked out during the screening but it is quirky without being annoying and features a fine performance from an actress who has a bright future in front of her.

Review: The Disappearance of Alice Creed

These days most people when most people think of thrillers they imagine explosions, tons of CGI and a cast of hundreds. But it is possible to create a thriller with minimal amounts of action, a few sets and only three characters as The Diappearance of Alice Creed proved. To talk too much about the plot would spoil the film but the story basically involves two criminals - Danny and Vic who kidnap Alice Creed, the daughter of a wealthy man, and hold her hostage while they are waiting for the money. Obviously there are twists and turns galore, some you can see but most you can't and there is one in particular that I don't think anyone saw coming. All three characters change slightly throughout the film which adds in a way to the thrilling nature as the climax hits you're never quite sure who will survive. Its not to say that the plotting is perfect there are a few - 'oh come on' moments where the believability is stretched almost to breaking point but overall we get a lot of realistic set pieces which is part of what makes the film feel so real.

The three cast members have to give it their all as the film basically depends on them. Eddie Marsan, who is one of my favourite Brit actors, plays Vic essentially the mastermind of the plan and the one who is seemingly in control of the mission. For the most part he is very intense and threatening and at the same time comes over very level-headed until the whole scheme starts to unravel. Martin Compston, the least well known of the three, has a large task as he is on screen the most and pulls it off really well making the audience flip-flop over who is character really is. While Gemma Arterton as Alice Creed makes sure that she isn't just a trapped scared little rich girl and she has some very emotional scenes. The film does have a lot of violence but. unlike with The Killer Inside Me, it all adds to the feeling of the film. Overall the way it is filmed, the score and the acting all add to up to an intensley creppy and cold kidnapping thriller which will keep you hooked till the very end.

Review: When In Rome

It's true that I am a fan of Kristen Bell, I was one of the few who stuck with her junior detective series Veronica Mars and also enjoyed her performance in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. However my opinon of her has vastly changed after watching the dire When in Rome. Bell plays a workaholic gallery manager, we know she's a workaholic because she puts her career before her relationships (shock horror!!), who goes to Italy for her younger sister's wedding and falls for the Best Man. However after seeing him with another woman she goes to the 'fountain of love' and picks out four random coins and a poker chip. After returning to New York she is pursued by four oddballs who turn out to be the men whose coins she picked out of the fountain. There's Jon 'Napoleon Dynamite' Heder as a weird street magician, Arrested Developmen'ts Will Arnett as a flamboyant artist, Bell's real-life love Dax Shephard as a vain male model and Danny DeVito as the owner of a sausage company. None of these men are given particularly interesting back-stories and are basically one note gags so when they keep turning up you get sick of them after a while. It turns out the reason they are following her is that all the men wished for love when they threw their coins in the fountain and they are now all in love with her. So when the best man shows up again Bell is happy but then she finds out it was his poker chip so the question is he really falling for her or is it just the spell?

The question really is why would anyone watch this? This is supposedly a rom-com but most of the rom is presented as mild stalking or slight witchcraft. While the com is also non-existent despite the comic talent involved only two scenes really made me laugh one involves a date in one of those restaurants-in-the-dark with Flight of the Conchords' Kristen Schaal as the over intrusive waitress and Danny DeVito's line where he tells Bell that encased meat is his life's work. It was also nice to see Heder reunited with the guy who played Pedro in Napoelon Dynamite, here as his magician's assistant. But overall this is just generic overload with a male lead who just does nothing (Josh Dumael) and a female lead who should know better. Why any of the supporting male stars or Angelica Huston (as Bell's boss) would want to get involved is beyond me. Unless you want a night in mocking a really bad film, avoid this.