:00:19. > :00:21.Hello and welcome to The Film Review on BBC News.
:00:22. > :00:24.To take us through this week's cinema releases is Mark Kermode.
:00:25. > :00:40.A very mixed bag this week. We have Florence Foster Jenkins with Meryl
:00:41. > :00:46.Streep. Knight of Cups, the new movie by Terrence Malick. And
:00:47. > :00:54.evolution, one of the strangest films I have seen in many a year.
:00:55. > :00:58.And you have seen a few. Let's start with Meryl Streep. What is not to
:00:59. > :01:05.like? Is it worth going to see it just for her? Well yes, but there is
:01:06. > :01:09.so much more. It is based on true story of a New York socialite,
:01:10. > :01:14.patron of the arts, somebody who loved opera. But she could not hear
:01:15. > :01:19.her own singing voice. She loved to sing opera, but she was way off the
:01:20. > :01:25.note. She was surrounded by people who told her she was fabulous, for
:01:26. > :01:29.reasons both emotional and financial. They told her she sounded
:01:30. > :01:33.wonderful. This was great until she decided she wanted to sing on stage
:01:34. > :01:40.at Carnegie Hall. Then it became much harder to keep a lid on the
:01:41. > :01:42.naysayers. Here is a clip of her doing her vocal lessons, getting
:01:43. > :02:10.Maestro, it is true a lot of singers my age are
:02:11. > :02:12.on a decline, but I seem to get better and better.
:02:13. > :02:37.You were laughing all the way through that. But I think we are
:02:38. > :02:43.laughing with her and not at her and that is crucial. Cosme McMoon is on
:02:44. > :02:47.the piano and hearing her for the first time and he suddenly realises
:02:48. > :02:51.what he has to do. There have been several stage plays and there was a
:02:52. > :02:58.recent French film which won several awards. In this case Stephen Frears
:02:59. > :03:04.directed in a way which is often funnier, but I think crucially it is
:03:05. > :03:07.affectionate. Hugh Grant plays St Clair Bayfield, her partner and
:03:08. > :03:13.manager, who is basically the person who constructs this world around her
:03:14. > :03:18.in which she is able to believe in the sound of her own voice. The film
:03:19. > :03:23.is generous not only to her, but also to him. You do believe he
:03:24. > :03:29.actually does love her. He does want the very best for her. The film
:03:30. > :03:34.walks a very fine line between very comedic, and it is funny, but also
:03:35. > :03:41.having a real sense of pathos. It is a film in the end which turned the
:03:42. > :03:46.central character into a heroic figure. Meryl Streep gives Florence
:03:47. > :03:50.Foster is Jenkins real strength, somebody who believes in the
:03:51. > :03:54.transformative power of music, regardless of which notes she is
:03:55. > :03:59.hitting. During the course of the movie you come to love her as much
:04:00. > :04:03.as the film-makers do. You see her as somebody who you want to applaud
:04:04. > :04:10.and who is basically good-hearted. That is Florence Foster Jenkins.
:04:11. > :04:15.Knight of Cups, can you explain the title? Tarot cards and the story of
:04:16. > :04:22.looking for the Pearl and drinking from the cup and forgetting. This is
:04:23. > :04:29.Terrence Malick. He is an extraordinary film-maker and it is a
:04:30. > :04:34.stellar cast with Christian Bale, Christian Bale, who plays a creative
:04:35. > :04:36.type who is wandering through a landscape of fabulous wealth and
:04:37. > :04:42.extraordinary privilege and complaining about how it is that his
:04:43. > :04:52.life has gone wrong. The film drifts in and out of focus. It reminded me
:04:53. > :04:58.of the most expensive advert for Infinity by Calvin Klein that I have
:04:59. > :05:03.ever seen. There is more than a hint of truth in that assessment. It is a
:05:04. > :05:07.shame because it is a film that falls over into terrible indulgence.
:05:08. > :05:13.You do not end up sympathising or engaging with the characters. You
:05:14. > :05:17.end up thinking, which part of this am I meant to care about? Terrence
:05:18. > :05:23.Malick is a brilliant film-maker, but this is a film that has lost its
:05:24. > :05:29.way and lost its audience. I ended up being bored and that is the worst
:05:30. > :05:35.possible thing. How do somebody like Cate Blanchett get involved in it?
:05:36. > :05:39.It is a film which is finding its way and is trying to find a new
:05:40. > :05:47.language, it is trying. It is very trying. Evolution on the other hand,
:05:48. > :05:52.I was trying from what I have read to understand the story. I am not
:05:53. > :06:00.clear whether there is a coherent one. There is. It is surrealist. It
:06:01. > :06:05.is set on a fantastical island which appears to be peopled by young boys
:06:06. > :06:10.and strangely detached women. We begin with a sequence of a young boy
:06:11. > :06:14.swimming in the sea. He thinks he sees something, he rushes out of the
:06:15. > :06:16.sea and Russia is home to tell stories of having seen a dead boy
:06:17. > :07:07.and a starfish. Here is a clip. From there the film becomes stranger
:07:08. > :07:12.and stranger. The boy is fed what looks like worms in spinach, the
:07:13. > :07:19.woman meet on the beach at night to engage in some strange Congress.
:07:20. > :07:28.There was something of the tone of Never Let Me Go which was
:07:29. > :07:32.heartbreaking and strange. It also reminded me of the early films of
:07:33. > :07:36.David Cronenberg, films that are referred to as body horror films,
:07:37. > :07:40.films in which you feel that what they are doing is getting towards
:07:41. > :07:46.some kind of emotional trick even though you do not understand the
:07:47. > :07:50.narrative. But it is a film that has really stayed with me. In the few
:07:51. > :07:55.days after I saw it, some really wanting, visual images. I was
:07:56. > :08:02.sifting through it trying to find out what it may or may not mean, but
:08:03. > :08:05.I did not want to solve its puzzle. It is bewildering, strange, baffling
:08:06. > :08:11.and magical and often a very disturbing tale. I was really moved
:08:12. > :08:15.by it because I did not know where it was going and I found it really
:08:16. > :08:22.arresting and really haunting and those I2 things as a condiment. Take
:08:23. > :08:27.a minute to talk about what is the best thing to see at the moment. I
:08:28. > :08:36.know you feel it is something that I want to see and plan to see, but I
:08:37. > :08:41.am anxious. This is son of soul and it is set in Auschwitz in 1944. From
:08:42. > :08:47.the subject matter you know it will be a difficult film. I think it is
:08:48. > :08:51.an extraordinary piece of work. It manages to find exactly the right
:08:52. > :08:57.visual register to talk about this incredibly difficult subject. It is
:08:58. > :09:00.a film in which watching it is an overpowering and overwhelming
:09:01. > :09:04.experience. Indeed it ought to be. It is a film in which the style and
:09:05. > :09:11.the substance are actually perfectly matched. My own feeling was that it
:09:12. > :09:15.was made with real moral integrity. It was a film that absolutely wanted
:09:16. > :09:19.to find the right way of talking about the subject. I have spoken to
:09:20. > :09:24.many people who have seen it and feel exactly the same, it is an
:09:25. > :09:29.overpowering, overwhelming experience, and that is as it should
:09:30. > :09:38.be. If people want to stay in, let's talk about what might be... This is
:09:39. > :09:43.on DVD and it is not the film you think it might be. It is the story
:09:44. > :09:50.of a mother and child trapped in a room, which sounds like horror
:09:51. > :09:53.story. But it is something completely different. It is a film
:09:54. > :10:00.about the love between a mother and a child and it has wonderful music
:10:01. > :10:05.and a superb central cast. It manages to approach what sounds like
:10:06. > :10:10.an utterly horrible subject matter in a way that is not like that at
:10:11. > :10:15.all. It is one of my favourite films over the last few years. You know
:10:16. > :10:22.that the only thing it is? It is not that film. It is a difficult watch
:10:23. > :10:27.as women, but it has rewards as well and brie lies in one lots of for it.
:10:28. > :10:33.And rightly so because it is extraordinary. I think the director
:10:34. > :10:36.has done a brilliant job of doing it and he has judged it just right. As
:10:37. > :10:41.ever, many thanks. A quick reminder: You'll
:10:42. > :10:43.find more film news and reviews on our website,
:10:44. > :11:06.including all our previous shows. You may want to get out and about
:11:07. > :11:08.and enjoy the