Search
Search results
Blazing Minds (92 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 15, 2021 (Updated Oct 16, 2021)
With Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Adam Driver in a movie directed by Ridley Scott I just had to see it.
And I have to say I wasn't disappointed, loved the idea if the story being told by the three viewpoints which works very well.
The Last Duel is a well crafted movie that although runs at 2h 32mins it really didn't seem that long.
And I have to say I wasn't disappointed, loved the idea if the story being told by the three viewpoints which works very well.
The Last Duel is a well crafted movie that although runs at 2h 32mins it really didn't seem that long.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Children of Hare Hill in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Set in the National Trust owned gardens in Cheshire, Scott McKenzie writes about the loss of a parent from the perspective of young children. <i>The Children of Hare Hill </i>deals with the grief and confusion of those too young to fully comprehend the impact a death has upon the remaining family members. Charlotte, aged 8, and Ben, aged 5, lost their father two years ago and now it is time to say goodbye.
McKenzie sets the story in Hare Hill Gardens, a place he loves to visit with his own children. It is here that the two protagonists are scattering their father’s ashes. Around the gardens are thirteen wooden hares that visitors are encouraged to find, something that the children enjoyed doing with their father numerous times. After their difficult task, Charlotte and Ben fall asleep in the walled garden and, on waking, discover the secret of Hare Hill.
Although still in the same place they fell asleep, Charlotte and Ben are now in a magical version of the gardens where the hares are real animals that have been turned into wooden statues. In order to release them from the spell they have to complete several tricky quests. From riddles to number puzzles the children rely on each other’s knowledge and strengths to save the hares and discover who is waiting for them at the end.
When thinking about magical lands we tend to expect witches and wizards, broomsticks and complicated spells, however that is not the case in <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i>. The tasks that befall the siblings are ones that can be solved by “normal” children with the help of their memories of their father. It is an interesting concept and a beautiful way of remembering the life of a loved one.
It is not clear who the target audience is for this novel. Presumably the ages of the characters and the shortness of the story (166 pages) are more inclined to the younger reader, however the narrative and language suggests otherwise. A child of Charlotte’s age is unlikely to read books containing words such as “serendipitous”, “reminisced” and “crescendo”. Scott McKenzie is such an intellectual writer with a beautiful way with words, yet it backfires when targeted at children.
Putting the target audience issue aside, <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i> is a delightful short story that manages to evoke many emotions in the reader. The sadness that comes with reading about death is overshadowed by the bravery of the siblings, their love for one another and the fun they have solving the riddles and tasks as they race around the gardens. Instead of dwelling on the negative feelings the characters are inevitably feeling, McKenzie focuses on happy memories, making what could have been a heart-wrenching story into a heart warming one instead.
Set in the National Trust owned gardens in Cheshire, Scott McKenzie writes about the loss of a parent from the perspective of young children. <i>The Children of Hare Hill </i>deals with the grief and confusion of those too young to fully comprehend the impact a death has upon the remaining family members. Charlotte, aged 8, and Ben, aged 5, lost their father two years ago and now it is time to say goodbye.
McKenzie sets the story in Hare Hill Gardens, a place he loves to visit with his own children. It is here that the two protagonists are scattering their father’s ashes. Around the gardens are thirteen wooden hares that visitors are encouraged to find, something that the children enjoyed doing with their father numerous times. After their difficult task, Charlotte and Ben fall asleep in the walled garden and, on waking, discover the secret of Hare Hill.
Although still in the same place they fell asleep, Charlotte and Ben are now in a magical version of the gardens where the hares are real animals that have been turned into wooden statues. In order to release them from the spell they have to complete several tricky quests. From riddles to number puzzles the children rely on each other’s knowledge and strengths to save the hares and discover who is waiting for them at the end.
When thinking about magical lands we tend to expect witches and wizards, broomsticks and complicated spells, however that is not the case in <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i>. The tasks that befall the siblings are ones that can be solved by “normal” children with the help of their memories of their father. It is an interesting concept and a beautiful way of remembering the life of a loved one.
It is not clear who the target audience is for this novel. Presumably the ages of the characters and the shortness of the story (166 pages) are more inclined to the younger reader, however the narrative and language suggests otherwise. A child of Charlotte’s age is unlikely to read books containing words such as “serendipitous”, “reminisced” and “crescendo”. Scott McKenzie is such an intellectual writer with a beautiful way with words, yet it backfires when targeted at children.
Putting the target audience issue aside, <i>The Children of Hare Hill</i> is a delightful short story that manages to evoke many emotions in the reader. The sadness that comes with reading about death is overshadowed by the bravery of the siblings, their love for one another and the fun they have solving the riddles and tasks as they race around the gardens. Instead of dwelling on the negative feelings the characters are inevitably feeling, McKenzie focuses on happy memories, making what could have been a heart-wrenching story into a heart warming one instead.
Robert Englund recommended Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies (curated)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Sep 22, 2020
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 30, 2021
Doesn't Really Work
With films such as GLADIATOR, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, ROBIN HOOD, EXODUS: GODS AND MONSTERS and the current THE LAST DUEL, Director Ridley Scott is single-handedly trying to keep alive the “Sword and Sandals” genre that was so much en vogue in the Golden Age of Hollywood.
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Exodus: Gods and Kings is a new movie directed by Ridley Scott.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Three nuanced perspectives on a winter’s tale.
In Ridley Scott’s new movie “The Last Duel” we are in the late 14th century in France. And – apart from in one scene – it appears to be perpetual winter!
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sean Astin recommended Patton (1970) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
As the Nazi’s sweep through Europe at the beginning of World War II the British face the difficult issue of replacing their Prime Minister. The people and members of Parliament have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). They feel his lack of action lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. He agrees to step down and has to name a replacement. While he would prefer to have his protégé, Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), there is only one member of his party that all of Parliament will accept, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) is also opposed to the brash and opinionated Churchill. Bowing to the will of the opposition Churchill the King agrees to appoint him the next Prime Minister. Although he is thrilled at finally achieving his lifelong dream he has no delusions that he is facing extremely difficult times ahead. The Nazis are tearing through Europe. They have already taken Belgium and Holland they now are invading France. The Nazis have also managed to surround nearly the entire British ground force on the French beaches with no way home. Not only does he have to worry about foreign foes but also his numerous political enemies in his own party. Many oppose his brash and unpredictable nature, while others think of him as heavy drinker that is no more than an exceptional orator with little capacity to make hard decisions. He must overcome all of this to protect the English people and prepare them for the tough days ahead.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.