Films of the Month: May

 J. J. Abrams performed a rare feat with his reboot of the Star Trek series back in 2009, by managing to make a film that appealed to both the traditional fans of the original series and broaden it's horizons amongst the average movie goer. His greatest achievements were both his ability to reboot the franchise using a far fetched but believable plot device that both didn't affect the past story lines, but also opened up brand new avenues for the new cast. His other success was manage to cast a group of actors to play the much revered characters of the original series so seamlessly. Credit must of course also go to the actors, whose interpretations of these stalwarts is both their own, yet in line with the characters the fans have grown up with.
 The much anticipated sequel Star Trek: Into the Darkness reminds the audience just how good these actors are in these roles, as they ease back into the SS Enterprise. Naturally there is the addition of a new antagonist for this film, menacingly and flamboyantly played by the talented Benedict Cumberbatch, who portrays a subordinate terrorist from within Starfleet. The film again contains the action packed sequences, interspersed with the quieter moments to aid quieter development, and again these scenes are what make these films quite endearing. The film also again touches on past instalments of the franchise, which are well executed and act as nice pastiches for the more avid "Trekkie".
 I think come the end of the film people will be satisfied with the end product, and this blockbuster will undoubtedly be one of the year's biggest earners. It isn't however without it's flaws, the main problem being the plot devices used to progress the story early on, don't seem to make sense come the end of the movie. It's this kind of sloppy written that ends up niggling the mind upon reflection, and one can't help but feel a bit frustrated. It is certainly enjoyable and an adequate sequel, but it falls both short of expectation based on both the previews and the fantastic previous installment.

 Having watched a couple of previous Harold Lloyd films before, I went into The Freshman (aka College Days) and Why Worry? with a certain level of expectation. Both films paired Lloyd with one of his most famous leading ladies Jobyna Ralston whose first appearance on screen with Lloyd was in Why Worry?.
 The Freshman is really one of Lloyd's sweeter films with elements of it's predecessor Girl Shy in terms of themes and sentiment. Lloyd's character watches a movie about a popular College student, just before enrolling in college himself. When he arrives at college he tries to emulate his onscreen hero and is manipulated by his peers, who use him for their own amusement and freebies. Of course Lloyd is ignorant of their ulterior motives, and plays the hapless nerd to both great comedic and endearing effect. There are also some very amusing scenes continuously through the movie, not withstanding the way Lloyd's character introduces himself, which leads to a wonderful final scene that brings the film full circle.
 Why Worry? is even more hysterical than College Days though maybe lacking some of the consistency story wise. This time Lloyd's character plays a more aloof invalid, but is just as hapless, as he arrives in a warmer climate country to convalesce in the midst of a revolution. There are a few scenes in this that are nothing short of hilarious, and Lloyd's art is creating these great moments of comic relief with great build ups, that more than deliver on the anticipation. Despite not being as known as Lloyd's most revered work, Why Worry? suggests that I'm only just scratching the surface of Lloyd's prolific genius
 Whilst Lloyd may lack some of the refinement of Chaplin, his character is up there with The Tramp and perhaps his slapstick is even more suited to today than some of Chaplin's.
                                         

 Staying with the silent era, I also watched one of Hitchcock's earliest movies The Lodger. Set in London, as serial killer, known as 'The Avenger', is on the loose around London. Soon a mysterious man lodges with an elderly couple, where their daughter's policeman boyfriend, becomes suspicious of the stranger.
 The film contains a lot of early trademarks from Hitchcock, and the methods of creating suspense appear early on in this film as 'The Avenger' rampages through London. When the stranger turns up in the boarding house, played by the multi-talented Ivor Novello, his behaviour begins to arouse suspicion.
 The film is somewhat let down, by some overracting and substandard plot points, especially with the studio's control on how their star Novello was portrayed. Despite this it is a solid enough thriller, that probably owes it's preservation to the later success of Hitchcock.
                                           

 Immortal Beloved is so far the only Hollywood production that has attempted to make a biopic of great composer Ludwig Van Beethoven's life. The story centres on Beethoven's close friend trying to identify the late composer's 'Immortal Beloved', who he wrote an infamous love letter to 20 years earlier. This technique of retroactively looking at the life of the movie's main protagonist, was of course most famously done in 1942's Citizen Kane, as well as the similarly themed Amadeus. Whilst this device is probably most suitable to this biopic, it feels a bit to close to it's predecessors and unfortunately makes it prone to unfavourable comparisons.
 Understandably, the film centres mainly on the social side of Beethoven's life; but it's a shame that more isn't given to his great work composing. However there is plenty of airplay given to his music throughout the film, and all his most notable pieces are given their fair share of screen time, even if some Rossini does creep in at one point. The main highlight expectedly being his 'Ode to Joy', but this sequence acted as a microcosm for the movie as a whole, whilst enjoyable, it came across as a bit too disjointed and a slight anti-climax. Even Gary Oldman's performance was a slight let down, even though he portrayed the bitterness and inner turmoil of the great irony of this deaf composer's life; it wasn't quite up to the exceptionally high standards of the actor's other work.
 All in all it's a film that will appease both fans of Beethoven and the average movie goer. However, neither of these demographics will be blown away by the film, and will still be anticipating a more grandiose biopic, befitting of arguably the greatest composer of them all. It's impossible not to compare it to Amadeus, which put simply was both superior in writing and direction.