I never caught the stage production of "The History Boys," and so my full knowledge of the Tony-winning play comes from my viewing of the film Sunday night. Now, my guess is the film is pretty much the play on celluloid, so I'm confident in commenting on Alan Bennett's work on all levels. So...this story - I must reside in some minority - is potentially more full of excrement than anything I've come across this year. Maybe I just don't "get" what's being done here, but aside from the whole mess being a tiresome bore, I can't believe something so empty, however apt at posing as though it had something of substance to offer, became the film to tie "Death of a Salesman"'s record for most Tony wins. But that's neither here nor there.

As a film, the thing really just sits there, flat and impotent. I don't know what could have been done cinematically to something like this to engage a viewer and exist as an exmplary - or at least acceptable - piece of filmmaking. Nonetheless, it's a filmed play, nothing more. And the use of instrumental intros of tunes from The Smiths, The Clash, The Cure, etc., is more annoying than anything on those segues. Just my personal take.

I really have nothing positive to say about this film...

Anyway, moving on, Roger Michell's "Venus" is another snooze on a number of levels. Peter O'Toole's performance is fine, but what is there to gain from watching an old, withering legend simply playing an old, withering legend? It's an interesting role I suppose, especially when you toss in the random bits of lust and sexual intrigue that lie at the heart of a character hoping to feel something in his waning years, but I just can't say I cared all that much. I guess this the one that will finally secure O'toole a proper Oscar, but it's just a bit dry, and confined by a plodding, sluggish film with no real sense of itself or its aspirations.

I tend to take similar umbrage with most of Michell's work, to be quite honest. His sense of filmmaking is all about ambiguity, with nothing lying underneath, and therefore, no sense of subtext. It seems as though there might be the intention of working on some other level, but it's never there. It's out of touch, and Michell ultimately seems to be making his films for an audience of one.

In any case, sorry for the somber report on two rough film-going experiences this week. But I guess it's only one guy's opinion...