I really haven't seen many films at all, recently[1], but I did just have my first visit to a cinema in... 2¼ years? Someone I know wanted to see The Railway Children Return, and I was happy enough to accompany her (having the advantage of transport, and having actually been to the cinema myself at times within the last 20 years[2]).
Several thoughts, and one or two comments passed on.
Not sure how well it'll work outside the (nostalgic) UK audience. Makes several big digs at the 'Merkins and their various peculiarities, and I'd be interested to know if it
has been seen and understood over in Leftpondia. If you don't know the original Railway Children, to which this is an incidental sequel (it establishes its continuity), that's one thing, but the "trousers/pants" lines may be the least awkward parts of that, given it (rightfully) points out both their tardiness and institutional racism . Much appreciated in my particular set of fellow audience-members, of course.
No big surprises in the plot. Most plot-driving-points were fully telegraphed (one off-screen situation, excepting), details alone were a minor mystery. Did not spoil things too much, though as it is at times a tear-jerker, I actually found myself welling up
in advance of the various emotional reveals, in some form of antipation. By the time the 'realisation' hit, I had peaked already, though I noticed that my (trope-naive?) accompanying guest was reaching for the tissues more at those later times. Having said that, I don't know how I'd do it better, especially as it's not my usual Big Screen fare.
Era-depiction (1944, late-war on the Home Front) seemed very good! Having an eyewitness to the era at hand, they seemed to do a good job with most things. One character's choice of clothing was queried ("girls didn't wear that kind of thing"), but it was a central character-trait for her and maybe just no girl known
to this person did. Or it was a modernist nod (but no so lazy as to fold it into the other girl who dressed more normally but had learnt to
behave unladylike... no complaints about that, and logical enough given the last year or three of her life).
One start-of-film shot was of a train departing from a bombed-out city. The comment I received at that point was "How did they find a view without all the modern buildings?", effectively. I had to point out that they'd probably just added the smoking and ruined scenery over anything that wasn't the train and the track, in CGI/overlay post-processing, so that really wasn't an issue.
Though I have myself been a crowd-scene member in a film set in a 1930s(ish) railway yard, which used a heritage location without much need to establish an additional fake background from low-level shots, in that section of the movie at least. For 'my' movie they did fake an old-style carriage interior by severely retrofitting some defunct rolling stock/packing it to the gunnels with us extras to obscure most remaining giveaway features, and some practical effects to make it 'realistically' move, but that was back in the '90s before much digital manipulation...
Redone today and doubtless huge swathes of green would be part of my memory, if they even needed an actual full cohort of costumed characters rather than "do a Gladiator" from a smaller handful of replicated incidental stand-ins.
Apart from the general plot-arc (reminiscent of the
Children's Film Foundation œuvre, by the end, but I won't say why), it seemed to employ its fair share of idiot-balls along with its not infrequent canny character-insights. Perhaps I'm a bit jaded about that sort of thing. It did surprise me, though, when a couple of highly obvious Chekhov's Guns
were left hanging on the wall (metaphorically), making me wonder if there were bits of the screenplay orphaned from the original need to have them. Not detracting. Perhaps made it better for my expectations to be played with.
I liked the actors (young and old). Courtney was a bit more doddery than I'd have liked (clearly a practiced intelligence within his character, but do people he liaises with (in-universe) appreciate that, or does he culture the misapprehension for killer diplomatic blows later? ...another possible Chekhovian weapon, perhaps), if it's not perhaps the veteran actor himself, though it works either way. Agutter is very much the lynchpin (on the adult side of the equation). Smith does it well enough (having first knowingly experienced her in Doctor Who audio episodes, I always expect her to talk to one or other of the Doctors (McGann, I think) when I hear her speak in any part...), though her character clearly cannot run a school, not knowing where her (literal, guest and/or scholarly) children are at various times. The youngsters are, IMO, flawless and a credit to whatever stage-school or local auditions (crowd-scene members) put them into their roles (CFF comment, aside). The military gentlemen are mostly anonymously blending in (with one notable exception, plus of course the other) in the manner of mooks and/or plot-fodder that you generally have no reason to care individually about (though I'm sure at least one White-Helmet must have been a notable character, in theory, I didn't catch or recognise any name involved).
The (real) scenery was a good find by the Location peeps. I don't know if all the green-covered stuff was all within shouting distance of the Keighley & Worth Valley corridor or not, but they certainly found enough bits of bygone landscape to steam through, trundle around or run across, and I certainly didn't notice any satellite dishes or contrails...
Not really my thing, as I said, and I'm in no rush to see it again. But (despite what I might say, above) I would not
discourage you from seeing it, if the opportunity arises (between Super Pets and whatever else you might want to see, or wait for it to be on the (comparatively) small screen in some form or another). I still wonder if it'll work in general for US audiences (some will hate it, others may overly appreciate its moralising commentary and not worry too much about the rest) and not all parts of The Rest Of The World will get it, probably, being just so much quitessentially British in many ways... It might take an anglophile to appreciate anything like I saw it being appreciated, but I can't speak for its curiosity value by those who may not even know the original[3].
(PS. "Bobbie"'s entire family's current surname is identical in both films, I'm fairly sure. That seems like two generations of daughters who passed on their maiden-names entirely intact to their offspring... Somehow/for some reason.)
[1] The nearest I seem to get are the small vignettes advertising a particular anti-zombie management/resource game, as ads viewed on my tablet, which seem to farm a central-casting of thousands to depict everything from parking disputes to slapping contests to love and/or marriage disputes in the light of how much easier it is to play the game having obtained a certain bonus character or three and inputting a promocode or two...
[2] Not an exageration. We went to see a new film together before, probably the last time she went there, and I checked its release date. 2002!
[3] No actual knowledge necessary, the connection between the two films is dealt with in a handful of lines, and is non-essential backstory. Though the strong but emotionally-reversed echo of the emotional end of the original in the emotional flashback/weird-dream-bit of this new one is clearly very much intended.
Author
Topic: The Movie Discussion Thread! (Read 169864 times)