Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Mar 18, 2021
Stop This Plane
Non-Stop- is a really good action suspense drama thriller. Liam Neeson is really good in this.
The plot: Alcoholic and world-weary, U.S. Air Marshal Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) lost his passion for his work long ago. Even though lives are potentially at stake during every flight, he sees the assignment as just a desk job. However, his "ordinary day at the office" becomes a high-stakes crisis during a flight to London. Marks receives a series of text messages demanding that he instruct the airline to transfer $150 million into an offshore account, or a passenger will die every 20 minutes.
I highly recordmend it.
The plot: Alcoholic and world-weary, U.S. Air Marshal Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) lost his passion for his work long ago. Even though lives are potentially at stake during every flight, he sees the assignment as just a desk job. However, his "ordinary day at the office" becomes a high-stakes crisis during a flight to London. Marks receives a series of text messages demanding that he instruct the airline to transfer $150 million into an offshore account, or a passenger will die every 20 minutes.
I highly recordmend it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is a man with demons. After his daughter fell seriously ill, the former New York police officer began a long descent into alcoholism and emotional distress. His fall was so great; Bill ended up losing his job and fortunately was able to find work as an Air Marshall providing in flight security for commercial routes.
In the new film Non-Stop, Bill is about to take a trans-Atlantic flight to London, and despite his dislike of flying and desire not to have a three day layover in London, reports for duty.
To say Bill is on edge would be an understatement as not only does he top off his coffee with a shot of spirits, he disables the airline smoke alarms so he can sneak a smoke to help calm himself and gather his thoughts.
Despite his issues, Bill is committed to his job and reports for duty and finds himself seated next to a charismatic lady named Jen (Julianne Moore), after she swaps seats with a passenger. Jen is a frequent traveler and noting that Bill seems on edge during takeoff, does her best to help calm him which Bill says will happen once they are airborne as he dislikes take offs.
True to his word, Bill is alert and ready to do his job once the plane is leveled off and en route to London. When a mysterious text arrives telling Bill that unless he deposits 150 million into an account, a passenger will be killed every twenty minutes, Bill swings into action and is determined to get to the bottom of the threat.
The flight crew is eager to put it off as a hoax as they state that a person cannot kill people on a crowded flight without being seen and it is likely just an elaborate hoax. Not convinced, Bill begins to investigate and asks for the passenger manifest to be rechecked and wants the account number he was given traced.
With the first deadline approaching Bill believes he has eliminated the threat when he uncovers a traitor in the midst in the guise of a fellow Air Marshall.
However text messages continue to arrive with instructions and Bill learns from his superiors that the account number given is in Bill’s name. Convinced that there is a viable threat Bill must fight to save the day when the crew, his bosses, and passengers believe he is deranged and actually hijacking the plane himself via an elaborate ruse.
While the film at times stretches credibility, it is for the most part a very tight and suspenseful and enjoyable film. My only issues were the final act at times seemed a bit to Hollywood and conventional for me but thanks to Neeson the film works.
The premise was engaging as was the cast and I was kept guessing as to the true nature of the threat as the film was good at casting suspicions then redirecting them throughout.
Like with the “Taken” films, Neeson is able to take a film that could be a mess in the hands of another actor but through his charisma and strong presence is able to give a character that although flawed is one that an audience can support.
French director Jaume Collet-Serra knows suspense from his part work with films such as “Orphan” and “Mindscape” and he wisely lets the film be a character driven story with action rather than an action film that happens to have characters.
As I said earlier, the final act was what kept the film from being a classic for me, but as it is, there is still plenty of good stuff to make this a film worth catching.
http://sknr.net/2014/02/28/non-stop/
In the new film Non-Stop, Bill is about to take a trans-Atlantic flight to London, and despite his dislike of flying and desire not to have a three day layover in London, reports for duty.
To say Bill is on edge would be an understatement as not only does he top off his coffee with a shot of spirits, he disables the airline smoke alarms so he can sneak a smoke to help calm himself and gather his thoughts.
Despite his issues, Bill is committed to his job and reports for duty and finds himself seated next to a charismatic lady named Jen (Julianne Moore), after she swaps seats with a passenger. Jen is a frequent traveler and noting that Bill seems on edge during takeoff, does her best to help calm him which Bill says will happen once they are airborne as he dislikes take offs.
True to his word, Bill is alert and ready to do his job once the plane is leveled off and en route to London. When a mysterious text arrives telling Bill that unless he deposits 150 million into an account, a passenger will be killed every twenty minutes, Bill swings into action and is determined to get to the bottom of the threat.
The flight crew is eager to put it off as a hoax as they state that a person cannot kill people on a crowded flight without being seen and it is likely just an elaborate hoax. Not convinced, Bill begins to investigate and asks for the passenger manifest to be rechecked and wants the account number he was given traced.
With the first deadline approaching Bill believes he has eliminated the threat when he uncovers a traitor in the midst in the guise of a fellow Air Marshall.
However text messages continue to arrive with instructions and Bill learns from his superiors that the account number given is in Bill’s name. Convinced that there is a viable threat Bill must fight to save the day when the crew, his bosses, and passengers believe he is deranged and actually hijacking the plane himself via an elaborate ruse.
While the film at times stretches credibility, it is for the most part a very tight and suspenseful and enjoyable film. My only issues were the final act at times seemed a bit to Hollywood and conventional for me but thanks to Neeson the film works.
The premise was engaging as was the cast and I was kept guessing as to the true nature of the threat as the film was good at casting suspicions then redirecting them throughout.
Like with the “Taken” films, Neeson is able to take a film that could be a mess in the hands of another actor but through his charisma and strong presence is able to give a character that although flawed is one that an audience can support.
French director Jaume Collet-Serra knows suspense from his part work with films such as “Orphan” and “Mindscape” and he wisely lets the film be a character driven story with action rather than an action film that happens to have characters.
As I said earlier, the final act was what kept the film from being a classic for me, but as it is, there is still plenty of good stuff to make this a film worth catching.
http://sknr.net/2014/02/28/non-stop/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
On the wrong side of 60 you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was time for Liam Neeson to hang up his gun and move away from the cold, steely world of action films, into the fuzzy and sentimental territory of a rom-com.
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Andrew Kennedy (199 KP) rated The Conjuring 2 (2016) in Movies
Jun 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Conjuring 2 is based on the events of The Enfield poltergeist from 1977 the film however starts with the Warren's involvement with The Amityville incident it is during this that Lorraine has a vision of Ed dying.
In England a single mother of four is struggling to make ends meets for her family and then one of the daughters,Janet, starts to experience waking downstairs. It isn't long till it is established its a haunting. Various experts and skeptics alike decend on to the family home till during a TV interview Janet speaks as that of former home resident Bill Watkins.
This eventually brings in the church who contact the Warren's for them to assess whether its a hoax or not.
It is definitely presented as real. Lorraine is still troubled by her premonition of Eds demise but they seem to bond with the family.
Plenty of twists and scares and huge amount of atmosphere make this, dare I say it, a more enjoyable watch then the first Conjuring.
Of course this is based on a real life situation and all the players who were involved are represented in the film. However, the Warren's involvement was nowhere near as much as portrayed here (claims that no one even knew who Ed Warren was). In the end some believe its Britain's Amityville or a clever hoax by some teen girls, the film doesn't try to get into though there is a scene which eludes to the fact it could have been a hoax.
Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are back as the Warren's and are both very good in there roles. It is however young Madison Wolfe as Janet who steals the show from confused, scared little girl to snarling demon. The TV interview scene she portrays the point where Janet is possessed superbly.
Special mention to Simon Mcburney for his portrayal of Maurice Grossae.
James Wan is a man who knows how to
In the end I give The Conjuring 2 top marks. A film I enjoyed immensely and actually preferred this to the original.
In England a single mother of four is struggling to make ends meets for her family and then one of the daughters,Janet, starts to experience waking downstairs. It isn't long till it is established its a haunting. Various experts and skeptics alike decend on to the family home till during a TV interview Janet speaks as that of former home resident Bill Watkins.
This eventually brings in the church who contact the Warren's for them to assess whether its a hoax or not.
It is definitely presented as real. Lorraine is still troubled by her premonition of Eds demise but they seem to bond with the family.
Plenty of twists and scares and huge amount of atmosphere make this, dare I say it, a more enjoyable watch then the first Conjuring.
Of course this is based on a real life situation and all the players who were involved are represented in the film. However, the Warren's involvement was nowhere near as much as portrayed here (claims that no one even knew who Ed Warren was). In the end some believe its Britain's Amityville or a clever hoax by some teen girls, the film doesn't try to get into though there is a scene which eludes to the fact it could have been a hoax.
Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are back as the Warren's and are both very good in there roles. It is however young Madison Wolfe as Janet who steals the show from confused, scared little girl to snarling demon. The TV interview scene she portrays the point where Janet is possessed superbly.
Special mention to Simon Mcburney for his portrayal of Maurice Grossae.
James Wan is a man who knows how to
In the end I give The Conjuring 2 top marks. A film I enjoyed immensely and actually preferred this to the original.
Rhys (240 KP) rated The Outsider in Books
Jun 30, 2018 (Updated Jul 7, 2018)
Contains spoilers, click to show
‘The Outsider’ is a crime/horror novel of four distinct parts. The first is the murder and investigation described in the blurb. This part is more traditionally crime novel than horror and introduces the main characters, giving them all distinct personalities and building up to the twist. Part two takes place after said twist (obviously, giving this away would destroy the enjoyment of the first part) and involves a new focus on the ‘antagonist’ of the third part: Ralph Anderson.
Part three introduces Holly, a character from the Finders Keepers books (that I have not read at this time) and continues for most of the book. This part is heavily inspired by several vampire novels and series including ‘Dracula’ and ‘The Strain’ but keeps a distinct Stephen King feeling.
(Part four is epilogue, which ties up loose ends and ensures that the characters who survive, as well as some who do not, have a happy ending.)
Previous King novels can feel forced, or full of ‘fluff’ that exists only to pad out the time between gruesome murders and intense horror. In this novel, every piece of dialogue has a purpose, whether to build on a character’s.... character... or to make the world seem more real, ground the supernatural in reality.
Despite what is said on the ‘bad’ section, this novel works well as a stand alone. Holly, the character that connects this to previous works, is written as though it will be a reader’s first encounter with her. She is built up from scratch and goes through development at the same rate as the other characters (her previous appearances are described enough that a reader will know the gist, but do not give away anything from the ‘Mr. Mercedes’ trilogy other than that Bill Hodges at some point dies.)
(For context, I am not a regular reader of King’s novels, having tried ‘It’ and ‘Insomnia’ but quickly loosing interest in both.)
Why not full marks? Around half way through the novel there is a scene that simply does not fit in with the rest of the story. The character that will eventually become King’s equivalent of Renfield from ‘Dracula’ meets the Outsider in the bathroom, with said character appropriately terrified. Why is this such an odd scene? Throughout the tense conversation (in which the Outsider’s powers are shown in full) Jack is suffering from an upset stomach (and King seems strangely obsessed with describing.) Horrible, yes, but horror it is not.
Overall, I would recommend this novel to a fan of Stephen King or to someone who wants to get into his writing.
Part three introduces Holly, a character from the Finders Keepers books (that I have not read at this time) and continues for most of the book. This part is heavily inspired by several vampire novels and series including ‘Dracula’ and ‘The Strain’ but keeps a distinct Stephen King feeling.
(Part four is epilogue, which ties up loose ends and ensures that the characters who survive, as well as some who do not, have a happy ending.)
Previous King novels can feel forced, or full of ‘fluff’ that exists only to pad out the time between gruesome murders and intense horror. In this novel, every piece of dialogue has a purpose, whether to build on a character’s.... character... or to make the world seem more real, ground the supernatural in reality.
Despite what is said on the ‘bad’ section, this novel works well as a stand alone. Holly, the character that connects this to previous works, is written as though it will be a reader’s first encounter with her. She is built up from scratch and goes through development at the same rate as the other characters (her previous appearances are described enough that a reader will know the gist, but do not give away anything from the ‘Mr. Mercedes’ trilogy other than that Bill Hodges at some point dies.)
(For context, I am not a regular reader of King’s novels, having tried ‘It’ and ‘Insomnia’ but quickly loosing interest in both.)
Why not full marks? Around half way through the novel there is a scene that simply does not fit in with the rest of the story. The character that will eventually become King’s equivalent of Renfield from ‘Dracula’ meets the Outsider in the bathroom, with said character appropriately terrified. Why is this such an odd scene? Throughout the tense conversation (in which the Outsider’s powers are shown in full) Jack is suffering from an upset stomach (and King seems strangely obsessed with describing.) Horrible, yes, but horror it is not.
Overall, I would recommend this novel to a fan of Stephen King or to someone who wants to get into his writing.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Inside Out (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A delightful treat
If there’s one thing Pixar knows how to do, it’s create memorable films. Long after you’ve walked out the cinema, the likes of Wall.E and Finding Nemo stay with you.
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
2015 marks the first time the studio will release two films in the same year, with The Good Dinosaur coming to cinemas in December and the subject of this review, Inside Out, in this year’s busy summer season.
But has this increased workload for Pixar’s animators resulted in a poorer quality movie?
Inside Out follows the story of young Riley, an eleven-year-old girl coming to terms with growing up in a new home away from her friends and the neighbourhood she knows and loves.
Deep inside her head, however, we find a whole host of colourful characters controlling Riley’s emotions. Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust all play a part in keeping her level-headed. Unfortunately, after a near disaster it falls on upbeat Joy and ever-blue Sadness to bring Riley back to who she once was.
Inside Out continues Pixar’s trend of creating beautifully animated films that really strike a chord with audiences. The sheer amount of colour is absolutely breath-taking and children will find much to enjoy in both the central characters and the numerous environments inside Riley’s head, while adults will love the stunning recreation of San Francisco in all its bustling glory.
The cast, which includes voice work by Bill Hader (Monsters University), Kyle MacLachlan (Desperate Housewives) and Diane Lane (Man of Steel) all do sterling jobs in bringing their characters to life but it is in Phyllis Smith, who plays Sadness, that we find the best portrayal.
A relatively unknown actress with few film credits to her name, Smith is truly wonderful as the little blue lady who keeps a check on the more upsetting moments in Riley’s life.
Elsewhere, Pixar has once again created a story that really focuses on the themes of growth, family bonding and what it means to grow up in today’s society with numerous cultural references that children and adults alike will enjoy.
However, it’s important to note that Inside Out is one of the more emotional films Pixar has created. At numerous points throughout the movie there were a couple of children in the cinema wiping away the tears – though this shows how heavily invested in the characters they became.
Unfortunately, despite being 94 minutes in length, Inside Out does feel a little drawn out in places and lacks the deeper storytelling elements that has made some of the studios other films so charming. This isn’t to say it lacks charm, but it’s in slightly shorter supply here.
Overall, Pixar has added another cracking film to its ever-increasing roster. Whilst not hitting the heights of Wall.E or Toy Story, it makes for a memorable and sensible film for the whole family to enjoy.
It’s the perfect start to the summer holidays. Roll on The Good Dinosaur.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/26/a-delightful-treat-inside-out-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…