Review: Ghostbusters - Awesomesauce!

Okay, so I may have revealed my opinion in the title of the post, but let me explain why I loved Ghostbusters (2016).

Now, I have been a fan of the original two movies since I was young, in fact, after seeing the new movie, I went back and re-watched the original Ghostbusters just for old times' sake :). Still good! But, ever since I first saw the trailers for the new movie, I have been waiting with excited anticipation for the reboot.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a big paranormal fan - give me a movie or show with a ghost in it, and I'm there. Give me a movie with four kick-arse ghosthunters in it as well and you just made it a certainty I'm going to at least give it a visit at the cinema. However, that doesn't mean I wasn't nervous about this movie: there's been so much controversy about it, much more than other reboots that have slipped onto the scene, or blasted in some cases, I mean, Spider-man is about to launch into it's third since 2002 and no-one seems to mind, but Ghostbusters has drawn some vitriol.

So, I toddled off to the cinema with my sister, eagerly anticipating this reboot and hoping that it was going to reinforce my love of the original while giving me something new to love about this franchise. I have to say, in the first 15 to 20 minutes, I wasn't so sure. The jokes were cliched and dull, with only a few moments of excellence; the opening section in the Aldridge Mansion is classic Ghostbusters, but after that, I would say to everyone, give the movie time to start properly.

Once the movie did launch, about the time that the gals start ghostbusting and Patty enters their lives, then there was no let up, I laughed, giggled, and snorted my way through the rest of the movie. It was AWESOME!

These ladies here, as much a bunch of misfits as Egon, Ray, Venkman and Winston, had me smiling like a loon. I loved them all. Patty Tolan is a no nonsense, sassy woman who knows all there is to know about the history of the city of New York. Abby Yates has never wavered from her conviction that the paranormal is real and her one-liners are genius. Erin Gilbert tried to leave the paranormal behind, but in the end, has to embrace her inner ghostbuster; she's dorky, intelligent and I love her. And Jillian Holtzman - she has to be my favourite special little snowflake, who's into particle physics and engineering and doesn't give two hoots what anyone else thinks.

This quartet of lovable nerds yank the Ghostbusters franchise very firmly into the 21st Century.

The story is not a remake of the original Ghostbusters, although it gives a lot of nods to its predecessor. This is a good thing. This story picks up the legacy of the original films and runs with it into a new space. There is a new bad guy, new tricks and tools in the Ghostbusters' arsenal, and a fun twist on the modern need for governmental cover-ups. Plus, there's Kevin.

Kevin is not a gender-swapped Janine Melnitz. Just like all the other characters, he owes his existence to the original movie, i.e. there was a secretary in the original, but Kevin is his own little bundle of laughs - and yes, I'm understating it, some of the jokes linked to Kevin had me crying with laughter. I will say no more, you have to see him to believe him.

You may have gathered that I thought the acting in Ghostbusters 2016 is excellent. The effects are fantastic too. Like everything else, the ghosts take their inspiration from the look of the originals, but then 21st Century computer graphics up the ante. The interactions with the ghosts are much more visually sophisticated and make the fights scenes at the end stupendous. Friends of mine have mentioned they might have been cheering out loud during the movie, and I can guess where. All I will say is, these ladies kick arse!

So, I'll stop now with a final word: ignore all the controversy and hype, go see this movie as a fun Summer reboot and you won't be disappointed.

Review: Horns (Daniel Radcliffe)

I just finished watching Horns, and I have to say, I was really impressed. I'm a Dan Radcliffe fan, so I'll give most of his movies a watch, but I was not expecting to like this one as much as I did. It is a great, great movie, a study of character and desperation in the surreal setting of a young man who suddenly finds himself growing horns.

A quick summary of the plot: accused of his girlfriend's murder, Ig Perrish is pursued by the press and hated by everyone in the small town where he lives. When, one morning, he wakes up and sprouts horns.

The horns: a sign of a guilty man, or of a desperate one? That is the beauty of this story - to begin with, we don't know. I won't spoil the movie for anyone by saying which it is, but I will say that Ig's journey through the film is heartbreaking at the same time as being compulsive viewing. When we meet him, Ig is already broken, traumatised by the death of his girlfriend, Merrin, played brilliantly in flashback by Juno Temple, but, on the surface, defiant against the people who hate him. He denies his involvement in the murder, but even his own parents think he did it.

Ig is a man destroyed by love, a love that possibly led to murder, and then he grows horns. Hell of a left field thing that, could have destroyed the film played differently, but, although this movie is sometimes listed as a dark comedy, I didn't laugh, in fact, I thought the whole thing was played straight and that meant we stepped from murder mystery into surreal horror without skipping a beat. Brilliantly done, just brilliant.

The horns turn Ig into a strange kind of confessor, where everyone tells him their darkest secrets, even acting many of them out. It's unsettling and dark, but the characters still felt genuine. I recommend the scene where Ig talks to his mother.

I was glued to the film the whole way through, there wasn't actually a boring moment, even the flashbacks, which in some movies I have found tedious, slotted in to the flow of the film perfectly. Horns is an expertly crafted story and a polished film.

Separation Anxiety (and Dracula Untold Review)

Well, I logged in this morning to write a review of Dracula Unbound, but what I got was a dose of separation anxiety! I couldn't get into my blogger account, because Google+ was temporarily down, to which my blog is linked. It showed me just how attached I am to my blog, because I was initially a bit peeved that I couldn't do what I wanted, and then I really began to worry - how long would it be down, was it just me, had I been hacked?

I felt a bit better on checking twitter and finding out there was a global problem, but it still left me feeling twitchy for the half hour or so I was waiting for the boffins at Google to fix things. I think part of it is that this blog and my Google+ are not just social for me, they're part of my work, my writing, they're how I reach my readers as well as my friends, but that wasn't all. Since the error was also affected my gmail contacts, I was also really worried I was losing them, all my friends, all the people I talk to, and some that I don't very often.

All I can say is, I'm glad it's been fixed!

Anyway - on to my thoughts about Dracula Untold.

'As his kingdom is being threatened by the Turks, young prince Vlad Tepes must become a monster feared by his own kingdom in order to obtain the power needed to protect his own family, and the families of his kingdom.' - IMDB

I enjoyed this movie, it played to my expectations, there were no surprises, but it was an enjoyable fantasy. I would hesitate to call it an adventure movie, because it was on the dark side for that, but I did get the feeling they were trying for a 12A certificate at times, because, although it ended up with a 15 rating in the UK, the action was fairly close in and there was not much gore. I expect it got the 15 rating for the unavoidable impalings that went along with Dracula's historical character. Compared to some of the 12A movies out there, though, e.g. James Bond and the Bourne movies, I did think the violence was more fantastical and therefore this might have deserved a 12A rating.

The plot itself, well, it's a fair attempt at an origin story. I mean, we know what has to happen by the end before we start, so, if you were expecting Dracula not to end up as King of the Night, then you're going to be disappointed ;P. I was slightly concerned before I went to see this movie that we'd have this long, long, angsty build up to the whole vampire thing with a bit of vampirism at the end, and for a few minutes at the beginning there, I was still worried, but actually, they paced the film about right.

There's a build up of tension in the first half hour, setting the scene, giving you Prince Vlad's background as a child warrior for the Turks and his continued servitude to them to maintain a peace which is very one-sided in favour of the Turks. And the concept that he already knew what it meant to be a monster while fighting for the Turks before becoming a vampire was underplayed, but in a good way, only really coming out in the climax at the end.

The cast is a who's who of British Character actors, and I mean actors in the male sense, because if you want to watch female roles, don't go near this movie. Only one woman has a speaking part (as far as I remember) - that is Sarah Gadon as Vlad's wife, Mirena, and her role is a typical male catalyst role, I won't say what happens to her, but can you guess? I won't say the movie has any stellar performances in it, it's more about the plot than the characters, even the Turks, who, as bad guys, might have had more gutsy parts, are actually quite bland. Vlad is angsty and brooding, as expected, Mirena is loving and supportive, but they're all a bit remote. In fact, I think Art Parkinson, who played Vlad's son, Ingeras, probably did the best job of emoting and making contact with the audience - his performance in the scene where Vlad is being forced to hand him over to the Turks as a royal hostage is very well done.

So, in summary, not a stunner of a movie, but worth a watch, just don't expect too much, it is an origin movie after all. If they make #2, which they set up at the end of the movie, I think it will be much more interesting, because they won't have to stay within so many boundaries. Charles Dance's evil Master Vampire, who doesn't even have a name yet, has made promises of machinations and plots, which could ignore the Dracula story altogether, and I would look forward to that kind of movie :).

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit - A Review (and a little rant about 12A ratings)

Well, went to the cinema to see Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit last night and, um, yes, how do I put this - that was two hours I'll never get back. Apart from bringing Jack Ryan kicking and screaming, or was that the audience that was screaming, into the 21st Century, the whole film came off rather pompous, melodramatic and, ironically, out of time. Tom Clancy must be turning in his grave.

So where do I begin to explain why I feel the way I do? Well, I think it really is at the beginning, where we are given a nice run down of Jack's background right before the titles. Never before have I considered Jack Ryan a Marty Stu (i.e. Mr Perfect), but after the heroic volunteering for the marines after 9/11, and fighting his way back from near death (after having dragged both his comrades out of a burning helicopter while he is suffering from a broken back), and, of course, meeting the girl of his dreams who helps him rehabilitate - I was already feeling slightly nauseous.

THEN we leap forward 10 years, Jack is an analyst for a Wall Street bank and is working secretly for 'dun dun dun' the CIA (again, this feels rather dated as far as shadowy 'can't tell the girlfriend what I do' organisations go, but this might just be my jaded opinion). Jack notices something hinky with some Russian accounts. 'Ok', I think, so we're into economic espionage, something new for the 21st Century. However, then we meet the 'bad guy', and boy is he bad! I usually like watching Ken Branagh, but when we meet his character, Viktor Cherevin, he is being given an injection by a male nurse, who can't get the injection right and so Viktor beats the guy up. This was way over the top, underlining in neon that we've met our villain of the piece and just made me cringe in embarrassment for whoever had written this character. He had the depth of a small puddle!

Our hero was not much better - Mr Perfect, after being an analyst for 10 years, suddenly finds himself in the field as a spy. Ten years since he was a marine, ten years after a back injury where he had to learn to walk again, and Mr Perfect doesn't put a foot wrong. Jack's happily sneaking into buildings (and typing complete nonsense into laptops, but, hey, it's a spy thriller, I was willing to let that bit go), chasing after fleeing trucks with his girlfriend in them and hand to hand fighting huge great guys and DROWNING them in the bath tub.

Now this is where I have my little rant about 12A ratings - 12A means that anyone 12 and over can go see this film unaccompanied, and anyone younger than 12 can go and see it accompanied. In my opinion, seeing one man drown another is not suitable viewing for a 12 year old, let alone anyone under 12, and Viktor would have given me nightmares at that age as well. The UK really needs to think long and hard about 12A rating - that film should have been a 15.

So anyway, here you have it, a story of Russians wanting to destroy the capitalist US, sleeper agents and daring CIA operatives trying to stop them. Despite the attempt to modernise Jack Ryan, it all felt slightly dated and pretty derivative. There was no proper dramatic tension, the action was improbable and the characters were caricatures. Ultimately, the film was trying to create drama from action, but when the characters were so shallow, frankly, I just didn't care. I loved The Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games, but Shadow Recruit left me slightly bored. I suppose I should have known it was going to be a melodrama when they thought it necessary to add a subtitle to the movie poster.

Evil Dead Remake - My Thoughts

I wanted to go and see this remake of Sam Raimi's Evil Dead in the cinema, but I never made it. However, since I first saw Evil Dead II on VHS when I was a teenager, I suppose seeing it on DVD is a fair comparison. Evil Dead II was the first ever 'proper' horror I saw in my early teens and it scared the pants off me (believe me the comedy elements did not make it any less scary), so did Evil Dead when I finally got to see that, so this remake had a lot to live up to.

FAIR WARNING - THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW!

Doesn't she remind you of  Regan from The Exorcist?

I will just say that Evil Dead II no longer scares me and I'm not sure if it would if I saw it now (being old and cynical that I am ;P), although the giggling she-demon in Evil Dead always, always gives me the creeps. Still, Evil Dead II (not Evil Dead so much, because Sam developed his directorial talents between the two IMO) is a brilliantly choreographed piece of film, it has tension, shocks and a pace that catches the watcher at the beginning and pulls you all the way through till the end. the original evil Dead also has moments of brilliance that make me keep coming back to it, I mentioned the giggling demon already, didn't I! The new Evil Dead...well, not so much.

It starts with a 'bang' a young girl, teenager probably, wandering in the woods gets thumped by a couple of hill billies. She ends up tied to a pillar and her father sets fire to her to rid her of the evil inside her. We see the demon swearing and cursing and then, bam, we're into the main story. The man in glasses setting fire to his daughter is the only nod to the archaeologist and his wife from original ED that we get in this story, we are only left with the book and the aftermath of the witchery that freed the girl of the demon. I'm not sure if I'd miss him if it wasn't for knowing the originals, but I think I would. The use of another character fiddling around with the book and managing to read out the significant incantation, which is one of the few that has been helpfully translated for him, I found a bit far fetched (yeah, I know, demons and magic spells and I'm finding that point far fetched, but I've suspended my disbelief about the demons for the movie, not my ability to assimilate coincidence). I will also add that, because there is no history to the book, I don't find it as prominent in the story as it was in the originals. It's there, it flashes us a few pictures of what is going to happen (annoying by the way, because it gives away the shock when the nurse is possessed), but it's just a run of the mill plot device.

OK, enough about the prologue that barely impinges on the rest of the story (unless you take the rather clumsy flash-back reminder to inform the audience if we hadn't spotted it that the burnt wooden pillar in the cellar of the cabin is where daddy burnt his daughter to save her soul). On to the main story, and it's far more ponderous than either of the two originals (I'm including these together, because EDII is, more or less, a remake of EDI in the first half hour or so and then branches into more of its own story, but they are essentially the same premise and the same story). We are introduced to David and Mia, brother and sister, and their friends through some rather heavy post-teen angst. Mia and David have a dysfunctional past, Mummy was mad and David left home, Mia is a drug addict wanting to quit. She's going to go cold turkey in this deserted cabin in the woods with her friends to help her. Can you guess what is going to happen next? ;P

It's an interesting premise, more complex than some friends just heading out to a cabin for the weekend, which is how the original is set up, and if you can't see the parallels between drug detox and demon possession, then you're blind. However, because of this parallel and the set up of Mia slowly dissolving into a desperate addict, the story took a while to get going and there wasn't a lot of creepiness in the first 45 minutes. However, when it did get going, it brought the first of two really creepy moments in the movie (yes, I said 2). After Mia is attacked by the trees (and the demon, which we see as some kind of future reflection, I think), sorry, I digress, after Mia is attacked, the others take her back to the cabin, believing she is just raving with withdrawal (didn't see that coming at all, no siree). David goes to talk to her in her room and she tries to convince him that something bad is happening - and boy does she come off as intensely creepy - I take my hat off to the actress, she had me convinced she was terrified and infected and on the crazy train in her whispers and movements. This was let down somewhat by David not being able to act his way out of a paper bag, but never mind, she was fantastic and gave me chills. Plus the shot in the mirror at the end of the that scene was inspired cinematography.

Thereafter, as one by one, they get infected by the demon and end up dead, while Mia is in the cellar cheerleading proceedings, I was left slightly bored. I think it was because the main story had started out too 'gritty', I use the term loosely, for me to really get into the demons. The effects from the originals might seem cheesy in today's standards, but the sheer madness of the demons and their frenetic activity produced shock value. The directing of the demons in this one was much slower, they were murderous, nasty, but they went about it at a pace that was supposed to engender suspense, but which left me waiting for the conflicts to end.

The only bit that had me on the edge of my seat was at the end when Mia is face to face with 'the abomination', one on one, Mia is being chased by the demon (yes, David managed to un-possess Mia before sacrificing himself for his sis, again, never saw that coming ;P). There is suspense, there is fear, there is the worm turning, there is a chainsaw! If they'd managed to put that kind of tension into the rest of the movie, I would have enjoyed it a lot more.

Now, I'm not saying the original ED, or EDII were perfect, far from it and I was not horrified with this remake as I was with Fright Night, which had me ranting, but if I want to watch ED in the future, I think I'll stick with the originals.

As a modern horror movie in its own right, the new Evil Dead is worth a watch though. 

Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing - A Review

OK, technically, it's not Joss' it's Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, but you can clearly see the director's hand in this version and I think Joss deserves a little credit. :)

I'm not a big Shakespeare fan, in fact, the only version of Much Ado I've seen before, which was a live open-air production was truly awful, so I wasn't in any pains to see this version, until my sister mentioned it was on at our local art house theatre and I thought I'd give it a try. Admittedly, what tipped me over the edge into watching the film in the first place was the fact that I think The Avengers was a stunning movie directorially speaking and I also love quite a lot of the cast from Much Ado.

So, my expectations weren't that high when I sat down to watch, in fact, I was keeping an eye on my phone for the announcement of the new Doctor Who. I did turn the phone off before the titles rolled and then had my first, ugh! moment - the movie was in black and white. I wasn't quite sure what the point of that was, still am not sure, but after the first scene, I'd forgotten about it, so I won't hold it against the movie.

So, about the actual play itself. I mentioned above, the only other version I had seen was dire, a comedy had become a farce due to lack of timing and, IMO, lack of understanding of the text. That is something I can't accuse Joss of, he clearly understood what he was about when he adapted Much Ado to a modern era. There were a few anachronisms, always will be with Shakespeare bumped into the 21st Century. Conrad was as I've never seen him before as well - a woman - but she worked very well in the role - confidante and lover to Don John.

The setting was a large, rich house, the house of Leonato, father of Hero, uncle to Beatrice, played brilliantly by Clark Gregg. In fact, many of the performances were noteworthy without upstaging the other cast members. Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof were fantastic as the quick-witted, acerbic Beatrice and Benedick, both bantering their way through life until the hysterical moments when they are convinced by eavesdropping that the one is in love with the other.

I have to say, I was watching patiently up until this point, mostly interested in the plot, but the wonder of the sheer slapstick comedy of the two scenes where first Benedick is hiding and over hearing his friends talk of Beatrice's love for him and then Beatrice is belied the same way by her friends, had me hooked after that. I belly-laughed my way through those scenes and then chuckled my way through most others.

The exception to the laughter was the whole plot where Don John (boo hiss) trick the lovey dovey Claudio into believing that his true love, Hero, is unfaithful to him with another man. Women fainting and dying because they are accused of being 'not a maid' is, shall we say, a stretch for modern audiences, but this is Shakespeare, one has to accept this kind of thing like light sabres in Star Wars, so I won't dwell. However, that whole scene was played with tension and had me wanting to throttle Don John and smack Claudio up side the head, which I think was the intent :).  And so I was grinning all over my face by the end when everything is resolved. :D

So, some fine performances and some fine directing that actually made me fall in love a little bit with a Shakespeare play (no mean feat, I can now list the ones I actively like on one hand). It was well paced, well acted and well adapted. I laughed, I cried and I left the cinema uplifted by the devoted love of Hero and Claudio and the almost anarchic love of Beatrice and Benedick - two very different pairs of lovers.

Les Miserables - A review

I finally watched the movie version of Les Miserables yesterday. I've been reticent about watching it, because I enjoy the stage musical so much and I knew, out of necessity, it would be different. Also, there have been so many opinions flying round about it that I didn't know which to believe, is it horrendous, or fabulous, or maybe even something in between? So, I decided to see for myself.

Firstly, let me say, I bawled my eyes out during a good 50% of the film, and I don't mean sniffed away a tear, I mean full on waterworks. I will admit this may be to do with the fact I do the same in the stage show, but since the film had the same effect on me, it was a notable start. ;) However, there are differences to it as well, one being something I had to get used to: the film is not as emphatically sung as the stage show, which, again, some folks may think would be obvious, since on stage, the actors are projecting to thousands of people, whereas on film, there emoting to camera. 

However, I found this applied to the chorus numbers as well as the intimate solos and duets where the camera was right on the singer most of the time.This meant I didn't get as rousing a feeling around the chorus numbers, but actually, the solo/duet numbers gained something from the intimacy of the camera: I felt the actors had more of a chance to nuance their performances. The best example of this for me was Javert's suicide scene. It's a fabulous, dramatic mess of conflicting emotions on stage, but it has a hard edge on stage (at least in the versions I've seen). In the film, Russell Crowe pulled it back and there were levels of anger and confusion and despair. It also enabled a pause between the song and the suicide, a time for the camera to focus on Javert's conflict, which would not have worked on stage.

I wasn't always happy with the full on close ups for most solos and duets, it began to feel claustrophobic, but it did work sometimes.

Going back to the chorus numbers - maybe my surround sound system was not good enough, but there's a lot of emotion a crowd of people on a stage only yards away from you can convey and I didn't get the same effect from the movie. In fact, for me, these songs came off muted. The only one where it really, really worked, was the funeral of LeMarc, where the song starts small, the camera focusing in on individual faces, and grows through both the music and the action, widening out to a full ensemble scene. This is where the new medium added to the story, because you could not have done this kind of movement of cast on stage. There weren't many places where this scale helped the story, though, since the barricades creation I thought was more impressive on stage, due to the stylising of the barricade. That bit felt as closed in as the stage show, so didn't gain anything.

I thought the performances of the main cast were excellent; Javert was hard and blind to the nuances of life until the very end of his life, when he is so confused; Jean Valjean is beautifully muted about the world until he rescues Cosette; Marius is, well, Marius, school boy on an adventure who falls in love; Cosette was much better than any Cosette I've seen before, maybe because her love for both Marius and Valjean can be shown better close up; Fantine captured hearts as she descended to desperation. One of the best performances, I think, was given by little Gavroche - feisty, defiant and braver than any man, and yes, when he gets shot was one of the moments I bawled my eyes out. Eponine, too, the tragic lover, never to be recognised until it's too late, kept me enthralled during 'a little drop of rain'.

I don't think I can pick out one single performance that beat all the others, though, because this was truly an ensemble cast. No-one was trying to upstage anyone else. They told the story together. So, all in all, I liked the movie. it had depth and gave me a different way of enjoying Les Mis. It may be unfair to compare it to a live performance, because they are very different mediums, but I'm going to anyway - this film was good, I'd recommend people to see it, but the stage is where this musical was born and where it has the most impact.

P.S. Oh, oh, I nearly forgot, Helena Bohnam Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as the dishonourable Thenardiers are just exquisitely nasty. Nothing subtle about those two :)

And P.P.S - Note for my slash-writing friends, who might not have seen the movie - Javert/Valjean, the tension between those two is well filmed and performed and there are so many (little and big) shifts in the power dynamics, especially at the end where Valjean turns away from Javert and Javert lets him go, gun in hand, that there's enough material to keep an army of slashers going for years. ;P

Quartet - A Review

I am going to be brutally honest and sum up my opinion of this film in one word - disappointment.

Now I'll explain why that, sadly, my view is thus.

Quartet is about a home for retired musicians, but more than that, we're talking about divas and maestros all rubbing shoulders together in a rather lovely country house. Perfect basis for comedy with just a touch of bitter-sweet retrospect - at least that is what I thought. And the cast: well, some of Britain's best comedic actors, Dame Maggie Smith, Tom Courtney, Bill Connolly and Pauline Collins play our foursome of the title, plus there's Michael Gambon blustering away in the background and a host of other recognisable faces.

So, when the DVD arrived on my doorstep, I sat down eagerly in a prearranged viewing with my mother and father, who, being big fans of Maggie Smith, have been waiting for this movie since it was announced.

It started quite well. We are introduced to three of our four protagonists, Reggie (Tom Courtney), a rather sniffy, once lauded opera singer, Wilf (Billy Connolly), who is what he describes as a jobbing musician (also a rather good operatic singer), who has had a stroke and blames his lecherous activities on not being able to censor himself, and finally Cissy (Pauline Collins), who is a very sweet lady, with great memories of the glory days, but not too many memories of what she had for breakfast. They make an interesting trio, harping at each other, observing their world and, in Wilf''s case, making hell for Cedric (that's pronounced Seedric ;P Michael Gambon's bossy maestro who is taking the credit for organising the concert that is at the heart of the story even when others are doing most of the work).

However, my interest waned within about the first ten minutes. The reason being, I began to find everything about the film was muted, like I was viewing it through some dream that meant no-one could show their emotions. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there was something about the directing, I think, that cut me off from the characters.

Be in no doubt, there was material enough for a good film in there, but let me address the failures in each:

• a home for musical artists - a perfect opportunity for eccentricity and colourful characters, a mainstay of British comedy-drama. Yes, well, we got the odd flourish of colourful characters and the montage at the beginning started very well, but as the film began to concentrate of the four members of the quartet, I think the film lost that background, relying mostly on the buffooning of Michael Gambon and the concert committee with the odd skit from the residents thrown in as they practiced for the concert - it was all a bit remote.
• a concert that has to be a success or the home will close and everyone will have to go into a world that doesn't understand their artistic temperaments.  I got the feeling, although it was just a hint, that the home catered to the needs of musicians in a way that other places didn't, but, like most of the rest of the film, I don't think enough was made of this. Sheridan Smith played Dr Lucy Coleman admirably, but it was all smiles and the occasional roll of eyes, there was no real interaction, nothing that showed us she was really worried about the future of the home, nothing to sink a connection with her character into.
• a diva leaving her home and moving into a new environment. Jean (Maggie Smith), is a famous opera star who has had to leave her London home for the only reason we are told is that she is recovering from a hip op (not really a good reason IMO, I would liked to have known more, what made her decide she needed to go into a home, why did the hip op make her decide she was vulnerable). I love Maggie Smith, my favourite of her roles is in Gosford Park. However, quite frankly, her slightly broken diva was lack-lustre by any standards, again, I feel the hand of the director here. I wasn't looking for OTT temper tantrums and histrionics, but what diva there was visible seemed to have been instructed to under act, which threw away a lot of moments in passing in the film that should have made more of an impact.
• An old romance that has left both parties damaged. Jean and Reggie were once an item, a married
  
  couple, in fact, and they parted on bad terms. Both thinks they made a mistake in leaving the other, but, of course, neither says it, and thus we have the 'drama' part of our comedy. Now, there were some wonderful lines written for Jean and Reggie for this part of the plot, but, and yes, I am repeating myself, they were delivered in such a throw-away tone that it took me a little while to catch up, and I know I was supposed to laugh at some of them, but the timing was all wrong and I just didn't. Even the inevitable ending to this missed romance was played in such a muted way, I had to make an effort to be happy about it.
• trying to persuade Jean to sing in the concert. Jean doesn't want anything to do with the concert. Actually, a poignant bit of the movie that I will give it points for is the moment Jean confesses to Reggie that she gave up singing because she couldn't cope with the pressure of having to be better and  better. Now, this was an important fact, it should have informed much of the action at the end of the film, but, it didn't - there was some mumbling about just get out there and sing, but no tragicomedic moments around self doubt and not wanting to go on - at least, if there were, I missed them.

All in all, Quartet felt like there was a good movie wanting to get out of it somewhere, but opportunities, both dramatic and comedic wandered by without the right timing or emphasis they deserved. And I think the ending summed it up - the quartet the whole movie has been about, the piece of music these four are famous for singing together, was done off screen, in music only. Now, I know actors aren't singers and miming is not always effective and the director was doing it deliberately, but since everything else about the movie had been so muted, I wanted my uplifting moment, thank you very much, and what I got was a view of the country house and the credits.