Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crisis (2021) in Movies
Feb 19, 2021
Worth it just for Oldman
Crisis is a 2021 film from write, director and producer Nicholas Jarecki, who previously brought us 2012's Arbitrage starring Richard Gere. Crisis is a story about drugs, namely opioids, and follows three separate yet related narratives about opioids and their impact on US society. There's an undercover DEA agent posing as a drug trafficker arranging a Fentanyl smuggling operation between Canada and the US (Armie Hammer), a recovering addict architect determined to track down those responsible for her son's involvement in narcotics (Evangeline Lilly), and a university professor (Gary Oldman) who's research laboratory uncovers dangerous revelations about a new drug that they've been paid to research by a very influential drug company and their executives (Luke Evans).
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 7, 2022
Originally set to release in December of 2019; the long-delayed cinematic retelling of Agatha Christie’s “Death on the Nile” has finally arrived in cinemas. The last cinematic version of the classic book arrived in 1978 and this time; Director and star Kenneth Branagh beings his version of Master Detective Hercule Poirot to Egypt after a chance encounter with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) while on vacation; Poirot attends the wedding of wealthy socialite Linette Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and notices that she has married a man named Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer).
The wedding is a bit of a shock to many as just six weeks prior Doyle was engaged to Jacqueline de Bellefort (Emma Mackey), and Poirot observed the two of them in a London club and how Ridgeway was introduced to Simon by her friend Jacqueline.
The wedding reception is disrupted by the arrival of Jacqueline and Linette and Simon confides in Poirot that she has been following them around the world and asks the Detective to encourage her to leave them alone so they can get on with their life.
Jacqueline is highly disturbed and pleads her love for Simon and shows a gun which leads Poirot to encourage the newlyweds to abandon their overseas plans and go home. Simon and Linette press on and decide to take their wedding party on a cruise of the Nile in an attempt to get away from Jacqueline.
The plan seems to be working well until Jacqueline shows up as a ticketed passenger at a stop along the way. When a near-fatal accident occurs followed by a murder; Poirot must investigate the guests to find the killer. Naturally, there is plenty of motivation to go around, and as the deaths mount; Poirot must use his genius to find the killer.
The movie takes its time getting started but the CGI-enhanced scenery and the strong cast are very compelling and set the pieces in place very well. While I was able to solve the mystery about halfway into the film, some of the details around it were cleverly concealed and there were plenty of twists that had me consider other possible suspects.
Some may find the film a bit slow but that is the nature of a good mystery as time is given to developing the characters and their motives which adds to the suspense of the film.
In the end, the film is an engaging mystery that recalls the classic movie mysteries of old and it will be very interesting to see if audiences will embrace the film in the same way as they did with “Murder on the Orient Express” and audiences will get more Poirot adventures from Branagh in the near future.
4 stars out of 5.
The wedding is a bit of a shock to many as just six weeks prior Doyle was engaged to Jacqueline de Bellefort (Emma Mackey), and Poirot observed the two of them in a London club and how Ridgeway was introduced to Simon by her friend Jacqueline.
The wedding reception is disrupted by the arrival of Jacqueline and Linette and Simon confides in Poirot that she has been following them around the world and asks the Detective to encourage her to leave them alone so they can get on with their life.
Jacqueline is highly disturbed and pleads her love for Simon and shows a gun which leads Poirot to encourage the newlyweds to abandon their overseas plans and go home. Simon and Linette press on and decide to take their wedding party on a cruise of the Nile in an attempt to get away from Jacqueline.
The plan seems to be working well until Jacqueline shows up as a ticketed passenger at a stop along the way. When a near-fatal accident occurs followed by a murder; Poirot must investigate the guests to find the killer. Naturally, there is plenty of motivation to go around, and as the deaths mount; Poirot must use his genius to find the killer.
The movie takes its time getting started but the CGI-enhanced scenery and the strong cast are very compelling and set the pieces in place very well. While I was able to solve the mystery about halfway into the film, some of the details around it were cleverly concealed and there were plenty of twists that had me consider other possible suspects.
Some may find the film a bit slow but that is the nature of a good mystery as time is given to developing the characters and their motives which adds to the suspense of the film.
In the end, the film is an engaging mystery that recalls the classic movie mysteries of old and it will be very interesting to see if audiences will embrace the film in the same way as they did with “Murder on the Orient Express” and audiences will get more Poirot adventures from Branagh in the near future.
4 stars out of 5.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
I think this film is wonderfully made. I love the story, the characters, the plot, the setting, all of it. I almost wish they didn't set it in time though. It's supposed to be 1983, but what I loved so much about the book is how timeless the story felt. It didn't feel like it belonged to any one decade, it felt like something that could withstand the tests of time and I wish they would've let that play in the movie too.
I love Timothée Chalamet as Elio so much, I think he's perfect. I loved Armie Hammer as Oliver too, there were some points, though, where he definitely seemed older than 24. I loved their chemistry, I think it's obvious that they got along and they had a lot of trust in one another. My favorite character though is Mr. Pearlman. I love his love for Elio and the way that he talks to him, especially after Oliver leaves and he sees that Elio is so obviously heartbroken. I love that he is just accepting and loves him unconditionally but also pushes him to not run from his feelings and to allow them to wash over him. I hope to be that kind of parent when I have kids.
I think this is the type of film that the LGBTQ+ community has been asking for for so long. I love coming out stories and coming of age stories as much as the next person but the stories where it's just comfortable and it's already there and there isn't any need for them to question who they are, those stories are important too. I don't know that this film entirely fits that box, but I think it fits more into that one than the coming of age type. I don't think Elio ever questioned whether or not he liked boys, I think he just questioned whether or not he should if that makes any sense.
I would've loved to see some scenes in the book make it to the screen, but I know that that isn't always possible. Additionally, the only other downside to this film in it's comparison to the book is that the book is written from Elio's perspective so you get all his thoughts and his loves and his assumptions about Oliver as he falls for him and you can only portray so much of that on film without a narration of sorts and if they did that, it would just take away from the story and the things that aren't said.
Lastly, a random side note, in this film, Timothée reminds me a lot of Shia LaBeouf. I have absolutely no idea why, but he does. I wonder if this would be a film Shia would've done if it was made when he was younger.
Anyways, phenomenal film.
I love Timothée Chalamet as Elio so much, I think he's perfect. I loved Armie Hammer as Oliver too, there were some points, though, where he definitely seemed older than 24. I loved their chemistry, I think it's obvious that they got along and they had a lot of trust in one another. My favorite character though is Mr. Pearlman. I love his love for Elio and the way that he talks to him, especially after Oliver leaves and he sees that Elio is so obviously heartbroken. I love that he is just accepting and loves him unconditionally but also pushes him to not run from his feelings and to allow them to wash over him. I hope to be that kind of parent when I have kids.
I think this is the type of film that the LGBTQ+ community has been asking for for so long. I love coming out stories and coming of age stories as much as the next person but the stories where it's just comfortable and it's already there and there isn't any need for them to question who they are, those stories are important too. I don't know that this film entirely fits that box, but I think it fits more into that one than the coming of age type. I don't think Elio ever questioned whether or not he liked boys, I think he just questioned whether or not he should if that makes any sense.
I would've loved to see some scenes in the book make it to the screen, but I know that that isn't always possible. Additionally, the only other downside to this film in it's comparison to the book is that the book is written from Elio's perspective so you get all his thoughts and his loves and his assumptions about Oliver as he falls for him and you can only portray so much of that on film without a narration of sorts and if they did that, it would just take away from the story and the things that aren't said.
Lastly, a random side note, in this film, Timothée reminds me a lot of Shia LaBeouf. I have absolutely no idea why, but he does. I wonder if this would be a film Shia would've done if it was made when he was younger.
Anyways, phenomenal film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Of lazy Italian summer nights.
It took me two sittings on different transatlantic flights to get through Luca Guadagnino’s much vaunted coming of age film. And I accept that this piecemeal approach might not have enhanced my opinion of the movie. Because I’m going to upset some of you who claimed it to be your “film of the year” last year. While I enjoyed it, it certainly didn’t grab me like that.
What I will admit is that the film is gloriously sun-drenched and atmospheric, set as it is in the countryside around Crema in northern Italy. Shut your eyes and you can almost smell the olive trees and the bolognese simmering on the stove.
You have to hand it to them: the film just reeks of Italian class.
The story, set in 1983, concerns the 17 year-old musical prodigy Elio (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird“, “Interstellar“) who, with his good looks, has the opportunity to seduce his fair share of Italian babes, specifically the gorgeous Marzia (Esther Garrel) who has the hots for him. Although not one to look a gift vagina in the mouth, Elio is sexually conflicted and finds himself increasingly drawn, romantically, to the dashing and cock-sure 24-year old American visitor Oliver (Armie Hammer, “Free Fire“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“): a feeling that is, initially, reluctantly returned.
Love unrequited. Lady in red Marzia (Esther Garrel) – will she be eventually told to get on her bike?
The Oscar-winning screenplay by James Ivory (he of Merchant and Ivory production fame) is rich and deep with lines that roll off the actors’ tongues like syrup. The action also includes the most inappropriate use of foodstuffs since “American Pie” (and presumably that went in the bin afterwards!).
Family times around the dinner table can get exceptionally loud.
The drama is slow and drawn-out, so action-film fans will be asleep within the first 30 minutes. That wasn’t a problem for me…. it is a film in which you can really soak up the atmosphere. And it exquisitely explores the genuine pain of first love.
The pain of first love.
But what I’m afraid I really couldn’t relate to was Elio’s action about half-way through the film. In the main, he acts as a typically introspective and sensitive teenager, slightly awkward and bashful in approaching sexual matters. But then in a pivotal scene he makes a daring move which – to me – seemed completely out of character. This rather threw me, and I never really got my equilibrium back with the movie after that.
Elio and Oliver…. with Elio about to do something out of character.
It’s no doubt a finely crafted film. The sex scenes are beautifully shot and could never be accused of veering towards the pornographic. But I’m honestly not sure it’s a film that gripped me enough to seek it out to watch again in the future. (Sorry CMBYN lovers!)
What I will admit is that the film is gloriously sun-drenched and atmospheric, set as it is in the countryside around Crema in northern Italy. Shut your eyes and you can almost smell the olive trees and the bolognese simmering on the stove.
You have to hand it to them: the film just reeks of Italian class.
The story, set in 1983, concerns the 17 year-old musical prodigy Elio (Timothée Chalamet, “Lady Bird“, “Interstellar“) who, with his good looks, has the opportunity to seduce his fair share of Italian babes, specifically the gorgeous Marzia (Esther Garrel) who has the hots for him. Although not one to look a gift vagina in the mouth, Elio is sexually conflicted and finds himself increasingly drawn, romantically, to the dashing and cock-sure 24-year old American visitor Oliver (Armie Hammer, “Free Fire“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“): a feeling that is, initially, reluctantly returned.
Love unrequited. Lady in red Marzia (Esther Garrel) – will she be eventually told to get on her bike?
The Oscar-winning screenplay by James Ivory (he of Merchant and Ivory production fame) is rich and deep with lines that roll off the actors’ tongues like syrup. The action also includes the most inappropriate use of foodstuffs since “American Pie” (and presumably that went in the bin afterwards!).
Family times around the dinner table can get exceptionally loud.
The drama is slow and drawn-out, so action-film fans will be asleep within the first 30 minutes. That wasn’t a problem for me…. it is a film in which you can really soak up the atmosphere. And it exquisitely explores the genuine pain of first love.
The pain of first love.
But what I’m afraid I really couldn’t relate to was Elio’s action about half-way through the film. In the main, he acts as a typically introspective and sensitive teenager, slightly awkward and bashful in approaching sexual matters. But then in a pivotal scene he makes a daring move which – to me – seemed completely out of character. This rather threw me, and I never really got my equilibrium back with the movie after that.
Elio and Oliver…. with Elio about to do something out of character.
It’s no doubt a finely crafted film. The sex scenes are beautifully shot and could never be accused of veering towards the pornographic. But I’m honestly not sure it’s a film that gripped me enough to seek it out to watch again in the future. (Sorry CMBYN lovers!)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated On the Basis of Sex (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
In the year 2018, it’s easy to forget how much the times have changed over the last century. We now carry computers around in our pockets, have the internet to conduct worldwide business in a matter of seconds and cars that run on electricity. Considering all of these amazing technological advancements you would think something as simple and no-brainer as equal rights must have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, right? Well, the new movie On the Basis of Sex humbly reminded me that the equal rights movement was not too much longer ago than the invention of the internet and it was just the type of reminder I needed to once again appreciate just how far we have come.
On the Basis of Sex is a biopic detailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s (Felicity Jones) rise from one of the first women “invited” to attend Harvard Law School to becoming the 2nd woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first part of the movie aptly chronicles Mrs. Ginsburg’s experience as a woman at Harvard Law School and then getting her first job as a professor at Rutgers Law School in 1963. Considering she graduated at the top of her class being a professor was not her dream job, but law firms were not looking to hire female lawyers, so she made the best of it. This all leads up to the main focus of the film which is Mrs. Ginsburg representing a Colorado man who has been denied caretaker tax benefits because the tax code specifically applied to women. The movie shows both her struggles and triumphs with the case and why equal rights were so important to her. Although the movie focused on this one case, it was crystal clear that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and this was just one of many cases she would take on to ensure greater equality for woman.
Felicity Jones does an incredible job portraying Mrs. Ginsburg. She brings a swagger to the character and used an authentic sounding Brooklyn accent to boot. Armie Hammer also does a great job playing the ever supportive and unshakable husband Marty Ginsburg. They had great chemistry on screen and did an excellent job showing just how supportive they were to one another. Even though their relationship was not the focus of the film, it was very touching and added a little extra heart to the story. Speaking of the story, it was both engaging and thought provoking, so much so that its effects are still there even after leaving the theater. I enjoyed how the story unfolded and the fact that it never got to preachy or political. As biopics go, there were a few spots that seemed to drag on a bit, but generally the pace never lingered in one spot for too long and it kept my interest the whole time.
On the Basis of Sex was a very good movie and a welcome addition to this year’s holiday movie offerings. If you are looking for something different after a couple of hours with web slinging spider-folk and yellow cars that turn into giant robots then this would be a great movie to check out. With excellent acting, a great inspirational story and even a little bit of heart, I really couldn’t ask for anything more.
On the Basis of Sex is a biopic detailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s (Felicity Jones) rise from one of the first women “invited” to attend Harvard Law School to becoming the 2nd woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first part of the movie aptly chronicles Mrs. Ginsburg’s experience as a woman at Harvard Law School and then getting her first job as a professor at Rutgers Law School in 1963. Considering she graduated at the top of her class being a professor was not her dream job, but law firms were not looking to hire female lawyers, so she made the best of it. This all leads up to the main focus of the film which is Mrs. Ginsburg representing a Colorado man who has been denied caretaker tax benefits because the tax code specifically applied to women. The movie shows both her struggles and triumphs with the case and why equal rights were so important to her. Although the movie focused on this one case, it was crystal clear that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a force to be reckoned with and this was just one of many cases she would take on to ensure greater equality for woman.
Felicity Jones does an incredible job portraying Mrs. Ginsburg. She brings a swagger to the character and used an authentic sounding Brooklyn accent to boot. Armie Hammer also does a great job playing the ever supportive and unshakable husband Marty Ginsburg. They had great chemistry on screen and did an excellent job showing just how supportive they were to one another. Even though their relationship was not the focus of the film, it was very touching and added a little extra heart to the story. Speaking of the story, it was both engaging and thought provoking, so much so that its effects are still there even after leaving the theater. I enjoyed how the story unfolded and the fact that it never got to preachy or political. As biopics go, there were a few spots that seemed to drag on a bit, but generally the pace never lingered in one spot for too long and it kept my interest the whole time.
On the Basis of Sex was a very good movie and a welcome addition to this year’s holiday movie offerings. If you are looking for something different after a couple of hours with web slinging spider-folk and yellow cars that turn into giant robots then this would be a great movie to check out. With excellent acting, a great inspirational story and even a little bit of heart, I really couldn’t ask for anything more.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hotel Mumbai (2019) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Characters – Arjun is married with one child and another on the way, he is one of the many employees at the Taj hotel, he is portrayed as being a man that will work for anything to keep his family fed and safe, but one that could not always play by the rules at work, he begs for this shift and shows every of his guests and co-workers just how much he will risk for the right thing. Zahra is an Iranian Heiress that is considered one of the most important guests one who could make or break the reputation of the hotel. She is one person that gets trapped, waiting for her husband David to find their baby which was left with a nanny in the room, David will risk more by going out into the battlefield in a hope to get to the baby, where he becomes one of the top picks for a hostage, an American. Oberoi is head chef in the hotel, he does everything he can to keep the guests safe, letting the employees decide if they want to help or be with their own families. Vasili is a Russian businessman that seems like he will be loud and rude for most of his stay. He however proves to be one of the most important men during the hostage situation. We do get to meet the terrorists, who are doing this in the name of their God, they are young naïve and don’t seem to have any understanding just what they are doing, performing the acts with completely heartless manor.
Performances – Dev Patel, Nazanin Boniadi, Armie Hammer, Anupam Kher and Jason Isaacs are the biggest names in this film, their performances are faultless, we have one of the best all around cast performances too, from everyone involved.
Story – The story here shows the guests and staffs point of view of the terrorist attack on the Taj hotel in Mumbai in 2008, it shows what they did to survive, how heartless the terrorists were and gives the many people who risked their lives a chance to show their story. There is no easy way to describe this story, it was one of the worst ground level terrorists in attacks in recent history, seeing how calculated the terrorists were in their actions in hard to watch, seeing how helpless the victims were, is heart breaking. We can see how horrific their actions were and just how heroic the staff at the hotel were, when it comes to helping the helpless.
History/Thriller – The moment in history will always be one that shocked the world, it is one that you should have heard about and now you can hear the stories of the people involved. It is a film that will keep you on the edge of your seat throughout the film.
Settings – Most of the film is set within the walls of the Taj hotel, it showed us just how trapped the victims and survivors would have been.
Scene of the Movie – Lift sequence.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – However hard this would be to portray everyone involved, it does feel like some of the characters and people don’t get enough of a story behind there events.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the most intense films you will see and it shows just how horrific the events of the film were to the people involved.
Overall: Pure Intensity
Performances – Dev Patel, Nazanin Boniadi, Armie Hammer, Anupam Kher and Jason Isaacs are the biggest names in this film, their performances are faultless, we have one of the best all around cast performances too, from everyone involved.
Story – The story here shows the guests and staffs point of view of the terrorist attack on the Taj hotel in Mumbai in 2008, it shows what they did to survive, how heartless the terrorists were and gives the many people who risked their lives a chance to show their story. There is no easy way to describe this story, it was one of the worst ground level terrorists in attacks in recent history, seeing how calculated the terrorists were in their actions in hard to watch, seeing how helpless the victims were, is heart breaking. We can see how horrific their actions were and just how heroic the staff at the hotel were, when it comes to helping the helpless.
History/Thriller – The moment in history will always be one that shocked the world, it is one that you should have heard about and now you can hear the stories of the people involved. It is a film that will keep you on the edge of your seat throughout the film.
Settings – Most of the film is set within the walls of the Taj hotel, it showed us just how trapped the victims and survivors would have been.
Scene of the Movie – Lift sequence.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – However hard this would be to portray everyone involved, it does feel like some of the characters and people don’t get enough of a story behind there events.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the most intense films you will see and it shows just how horrific the events of the film were to the people involved.
Overall: Pure Intensity
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
There are a swathe of European film-makers like Luca Guadagnino and Paolo Sorrentino that have the skill to make every image they print to film look like a work of art, giving you the feeling you are on the most idyllic holiday you ever had. Watching a largely silent image of a beautiful lake or a tree in the breeze, or an al fresco dinner where family and friends talk freely whilst the wine and olive oil flow is a treat I am not immune to.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.