(no subject)
Jan. 4th, 2008 11:59 pmSonic and I went to see the new St. Trinians. I did not expect to post a review tonight, nor to write quite so much, but since I did write so much just jotting notes, I might as well post it now, before I feeled compelled to edit it down into something more considered and coherent, *that* would be more time spent analysing a comedy than I can justify :)
It was pretty good. It's not perfect, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who dislikes silly films, but it was pretty funny in lots of places (which is very high praise from me). I think sonic found it more funny than I did, but I laughed a lot, which always makes me consider a film well worthwhile. I had feared it might be cringeworthy where it wasn't funny, but was pleasantly surprised to discover it wasn't. Not everything worked, but none was painful to watch. I was very glad I went.
Sonic will tell you how close it was to the original, but I could tell it was taking the ideas and making them modern and larger than life, which often produces films that work very well, whether or not they're really true to the original. I gather Misters Everett and Firth had genuine affection for the original and wanted to do it well.
There were several famous actors. Rupert Everett as siblings Mr. and Mrs. Fritton. Mrs Fritton was supposed to be inspired by Camilla Parker Bowles, and I don't know whether she was supposed to be sympathetic (or if we were supposed to laugh at her) but she wa sympathetic to me.
The Bridget Jones film obviously represents some sort of drippy-to-weasel treadmill of hunks, Hugh Grant having played the villain in *that* after a lifetime of mostly lost sweet men, and now Colin Firth playing the villain in *this*, with many glorious references to his other roles.
Stephen Fry played Stephen Fry. OK, the character had a different name I can't remember, and Stephen Fry is a good actor who can portray lots of roles, but it was the genial expansive sort of bloke he excels at.
Does anyone else know Celia Imrie? Other than rcv1. She played the matron. She crops up in lots of pleasant British films and comedies and really quite famous films. She's always lovely, or rather, she *looks* like she's lovely.
The film was a little obvious at times. Firstly, for instance, in showcasing the various groups of girls, described as the chavs, the goths, the posh totty, the first years, the geeks and so on. However, only a litte, the groups didn't have the diversity they might really have, but they looked like they could be real girls. There was no group of normal girls and a series of outcasts, you fell into one group or another.
And some people in prereviews felt the film was a bit mean, but to me it seemed to suggest that all these antisocial people really got on with each other. The pupils and teachers were mad in lots of ways, but on the other hand, they genuinely seemed to enjoy what they were doing and care about each other, which isn't such a bad message as antisocial comedies go. And yet, that wasn't driven into the ground.
Secondly, some of the jokes were a bit obvious, as in a longer run in where you can see what's going to happen (after all, in pretty much every comedy ever made, no-one ever says "Something is blah-blah-blah-bad-blah" and pauses unless the next line is a joke that no, themselves/the owner not the dog/their friend rather than a historical character, is what they meant, haha!). However, not painfully so. It just mean it was a good comedy rather than an excellent comedy.
This is probably not relevant but the questions for the inter-school quiz seemed very well chosen, in that I could nearly, but not quite guess the answers. Presumably someone actually paid some attention to that detail! Or they copied them from somewhere good. Or had someone with approximately my depth of knowledge deciding them. Or cribbed them from high-school classes. Or something.
I've got a feeling there must be lots of objections to this film, but hopefully someone will come and provide them for me. I still think I was right about ghost rider too :)
It was pretty good. It's not perfect, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who dislikes silly films, but it was pretty funny in lots of places (which is very high praise from me). I think sonic found it more funny than I did, but I laughed a lot, which always makes me consider a film well worthwhile. I had feared it might be cringeworthy where it wasn't funny, but was pleasantly surprised to discover it wasn't. Not everything worked, but none was painful to watch. I was very glad I went.
Sonic will tell you how close it was to the original, but I could tell it was taking the ideas and making them modern and larger than life, which often produces films that work very well, whether or not they're really true to the original. I gather Misters Everett and Firth had genuine affection for the original and wanted to do it well.
There were several famous actors. Rupert Everett as siblings Mr. and Mrs. Fritton. Mrs Fritton was supposed to be inspired by Camilla Parker Bowles, and I don't know whether she was supposed to be sympathetic (or if we were supposed to laugh at her) but she wa sympathetic to me.
The Bridget Jones film obviously represents some sort of drippy-to-weasel treadmill of hunks, Hugh Grant having played the villain in *that* after a lifetime of mostly lost sweet men, and now Colin Firth playing the villain in *this*, with many glorious references to his other roles.
Stephen Fry played Stephen Fry. OK, the character had a different name I can't remember, and Stephen Fry is a good actor who can portray lots of roles, but it was the genial expansive sort of bloke he excels at.
Does anyone else know Celia Imrie? Other than rcv1. She played the matron. She crops up in lots of pleasant British films and comedies and really quite famous films. She's always lovely, or rather, she *looks* like she's lovely.
The film was a little obvious at times. Firstly, for instance, in showcasing the various groups of girls, described as the chavs, the goths, the posh totty, the first years, the geeks and so on. However, only a litte, the groups didn't have the diversity they might really have, but they looked like they could be real girls. There was no group of normal girls and a series of outcasts, you fell into one group or another.
And some people in prereviews felt the film was a bit mean, but to me it seemed to suggest that all these antisocial people really got on with each other. The pupils and teachers were mad in lots of ways, but on the other hand, they genuinely seemed to enjoy what they were doing and care about each other, which isn't such a bad message as antisocial comedies go. And yet, that wasn't driven into the ground.
Secondly, some of the jokes were a bit obvious, as in a longer run in where you can see what's going to happen (after all, in pretty much every comedy ever made, no-one ever says "Something is blah-blah-blah-bad-blah" and pauses unless the next line is a joke that no, themselves/the owner not the dog/their friend rather than a historical character, is what they meant, haha!). However, not painfully so. It just mean it was a good comedy rather than an excellent comedy.
This is probably not relevant but the questions for the inter-school quiz seemed very well chosen, in that I could nearly, but not quite guess the answers. Presumably someone actually paid some attention to that detail! Or they copied them from somewhere good. Or had someone with approximately my depth of knowledge deciding them. Or cribbed them from high-school classes. Or something.
I've got a feeling there must be lots of objections to this film, but hopefully someone will come and provide them for me. I still think I was right about ghost rider too :)