Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lost City of Z (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) stars as the British Explorer Colonel Percival Fawcett, who disappeared on an expedition in search of an ancient city and civilization in the Amazon. The film centers on the true-life adventure of Col Fawcett and his journey to find evidence of a lost people while engaging audiences in the ego and superiority complex that much of western civilization finds itself.
We are introduced to Fawcett as he is an Army Major who seeks to have some sense of distinction and recognition. Seeking notoriety and a sense of honor, Fawcett accepts the task of mapping out disputed territory between Peru and Brazil at the opening of the 20th century in order to prevent war between the two nations.
In his exploits, he is confronted with the exploitation of the indigenous population, extraction of resources, and an untamed land. Upon subsequent journeys and serving in World War I, he is consumed with the need to find a sense of honor in his duty to his nation. Over the course of the film, we begin to see how invested he is in this struggle to learn more about the people and places that he is exploring, however, there isn’t a true connection made between Hunnam’s portrayal and the audience. At times, I found myself not caring about Fawcett’s contributions or career. I could not get invested in his story or his struggle to find a lost city that he believed existed in the wild. By the end of the film, I wasn’t invested in who Fawcett was, what he set out to accomplish, or even his legacy.
One thing that I did find remarkable was that the film helps to expose much of the anxiety and danger that existed during this period and previous expeditions into the region. Additionally, it gave me an appreciation for the endless heights of the human ego, ambition, and drive. The film allows for a critique to emerge about western interference and exploration of the region and the ethnocentrism held by western nations. Lost City of Z is an expansive visual spectacle. The jungle becomes a living, breathing, creature that audiences will connect with, become fearful of, and appreciate. It is the character that carries the film.
The actors and actresses are the background. This aspect allows for the audience to become absorbed by the surroundings and the environment that the characters find themselves in.
The film is beautifully shot and captivating. The sequences are engaging and give the sense of being transported to a foreign, mysterious land that holds secrets that many of us could never comprehend or witness with our own eyes.
We are introduced to Fawcett as he is an Army Major who seeks to have some sense of distinction and recognition. Seeking notoriety and a sense of honor, Fawcett accepts the task of mapping out disputed territory between Peru and Brazil at the opening of the 20th century in order to prevent war between the two nations.
In his exploits, he is confronted with the exploitation of the indigenous population, extraction of resources, and an untamed land. Upon subsequent journeys and serving in World War I, he is consumed with the need to find a sense of honor in his duty to his nation. Over the course of the film, we begin to see how invested he is in this struggle to learn more about the people and places that he is exploring, however, there isn’t a true connection made between Hunnam’s portrayal and the audience. At times, I found myself not caring about Fawcett’s contributions or career. I could not get invested in his story or his struggle to find a lost city that he believed existed in the wild. By the end of the film, I wasn’t invested in who Fawcett was, what he set out to accomplish, or even his legacy.
One thing that I did find remarkable was that the film helps to expose much of the anxiety and danger that existed during this period and previous expeditions into the region. Additionally, it gave me an appreciation for the endless heights of the human ego, ambition, and drive. The film allows for a critique to emerge about western interference and exploration of the region and the ethnocentrism held by western nations. Lost City of Z is an expansive visual spectacle. The jungle becomes a living, breathing, creature that audiences will connect with, become fearful of, and appreciate. It is the character that carries the film.
The actors and actresses are the background. This aspect allows for the audience to become absorbed by the surroundings and the environment that the characters find themselves in.
The film is beautifully shot and captivating. The sequences are engaging and give the sense of being transported to a foreign, mysterious land that holds secrets that many of us could never comprehend or witness with our own eyes.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
The Body and the Screen: Female Subjectivities in Contemporary Women's Cinema
Book
Since the 1980s the number of women regularly directing films has increased significantly in most...
James Bond: The Secret History
Sean Egan and Jeremy Duns
Book
James Bond entered the world in 1953 with the novel Casino Royale by Ian Fleming. Since then, the...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A Surprisingly Disappointing Heist Film
Upon seeing King of Thieves listed as a Limitless preview screening, I immediately snapped up the opportunity to see it because I had been looking forward to it since the first trailer I saw. With a well-known cast, an iconic real life heist story, and a classic ‘British crime’ aura, I was anticipating something great. I really can’t understand how they managed to mess that combo up, but here we are. Out of all the reviews I’ve ever written, this one is probably the hardest because of how disappointed I feel. As a film fan it’s difficult when you get yourself hyped up, only to be let down by the finished result.
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) returns in “Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End”, the third film in the series which has set box office records the world over. Picking up shortly after the events of the previous film, “Dead Man’s Chest”, it’s a new world for pirates and those who associate with pirates. Once the hunters, they’ve become the hunted, rounded up by The East India Trading Company, headed by Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander). Now under Beckett’s command, The Flying Dutchman, and its miserable, unforgiving captain, Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), sails the seven seas hunting pirate ships and giving no quarter.
Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) journey to exotic Singapore and confront Chinese pirate Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat) to gain charts, and a ship, that will take them off to world’s end, to rescue Jack from his cursed fate in Davy Jone’s Locker.
They need to gather the Nine Lords of the Brethren Court, their only hope to defeat Beckett, the Flying Dutchman, and his Armada. Sao Feng is one of the nine lords as is Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Their clandestine meeting does not go unnoticed, with the East India Trading Company dispatching troops to interfere, and soon a battle royale erupts in one of the films better moments, which sadly were few and far between.
British troops and treacherous waters dispensed with, Elizabeth, Captain Barbosa, and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), are reunited with Jack, which sets into motion a very long, and at times confusing series of events. Jack is trying to avoid his debt to the squid faced Davy Jones, while Will is hoping to free his father from the Flying Dutchman as well, and at the same time restore his damaged relationship with Elizabeth.
While this covers the main three characters, the agenda for the others in the film are much more murky, especially that of Barbossa and other members of the Brethren Court who join together and seem content to risk life and limb without much in the way of compensation. There is a tacked on subplot about the Pieces of Eight that are needed to free a magical entity who may be of help in their battle with the deadly Jones and his otherworldly crew, but sadly most of the film’s nearly three hour running times seems either unnecessary and/or confusing as it works its way towards the final climax.
When the film does shift back into action mode which thankfully comes in the final 30 minutes or so of the film, with great special effects, the attractive and nimble cast really get a chance to shine. It is easily the most enjoyable and invigorating action sequence in all three of the films, and is almost worth the wait it took to get there. Almost. The film suffers mightily from the convoluted plot, dragging painfully on for long stretches of time, and only seems to come to life when Depp is on the screen. Sadly that is not nearly enough to save the film, weighed down as it is by the issues I’ve already detailed.
Although visually spectacular, I had high hopes for this film, especially after the great, but somewhat disturbing, opening sequence. Any momentum gained from that was quickly lost and the film soon became a bloated extravaganza of style over substance that was badly in need of having 45-60 minutes trimmed from its running time.
Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) journey to exotic Singapore and confront Chinese pirate Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat) to gain charts, and a ship, that will take them off to world’s end, to rescue Jack from his cursed fate in Davy Jone’s Locker.
They need to gather the Nine Lords of the Brethren Court, their only hope to defeat Beckett, the Flying Dutchman, and his Armada. Sao Feng is one of the nine lords as is Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Their clandestine meeting does not go unnoticed, with the East India Trading Company dispatching troops to interfere, and soon a battle royale erupts in one of the films better moments, which sadly were few and far between.
British troops and treacherous waters dispensed with, Elizabeth, Captain Barbosa, and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), are reunited with Jack, which sets into motion a very long, and at times confusing series of events. Jack is trying to avoid his debt to the squid faced Davy Jones, while Will is hoping to free his father from the Flying Dutchman as well, and at the same time restore his damaged relationship with Elizabeth.
While this covers the main three characters, the agenda for the others in the film are much more murky, especially that of Barbossa and other members of the Brethren Court who join together and seem content to risk life and limb without much in the way of compensation. There is a tacked on subplot about the Pieces of Eight that are needed to free a magical entity who may be of help in their battle with the deadly Jones and his otherworldly crew, but sadly most of the film’s nearly three hour running times seems either unnecessary and/or confusing as it works its way towards the final climax.
When the film does shift back into action mode which thankfully comes in the final 30 minutes or so of the film, with great special effects, the attractive and nimble cast really get a chance to shine. It is easily the most enjoyable and invigorating action sequence in all three of the films, and is almost worth the wait it took to get there. Almost. The film suffers mightily from the convoluted plot, dragging painfully on for long stretches of time, and only seems to come to life when Depp is on the screen. Sadly that is not nearly enough to save the film, weighed down as it is by the issues I’ve already detailed.
Although visually spectacular, I had high hopes for this film, especially after the great, but somewhat disturbing, opening sequence. Any momentum gained from that was quickly lost and the film soon became a bloated extravaganza of style over substance that was badly in need of having 45-60 minutes trimmed from its running time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Mar 13, 2020
Cracking British all star cast (1 more)
Reminds you just how crazy politics was in 2003
The best little UK film you've never seen
A film about whistle-blowing against the backdrop of the Iraq War of 2003 doesn't sound like a very appealing watch, but "Official Secrets" defies all those fears. It's a cracking little UK movie.
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
Two years after 9/11, and the West has its sights set on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Tony Blair and George "Dubya" Bush (together with that behind-the-scenes pit-bull Don Cheney - as featured in "Vice") are determined to persuade the United Nations that WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction - are in place, whether they are or not. London is threatened with being a nuclear wasteland within 45 minutes. Of course, while certain areas of the press (including the leadership of "The Guardian") support the war, the majority of the British people think this is total b*llocks! Two journalists - the irascible and volatile Ed Vulliamy (Rhys Ifans) and the head-down but relentless Martin Bright (Matt Smith) - are determined to uncover the truth behind the two government's machinations.
Enter Katharine Gun (Keira Knightley), an interpreter at GCHQ in Cheltenham who, when brought into a loop of the dirty government dealing, takes great exception to it. Unfortunately, she has signed the Official Secret's Act, a document incompatible with a conscience, and with a Kurdish husband Yasar (Adam Bakri) seeking British residence, she is in no position to throw stones.
Can Katharine's legal team, led by human rights lawyer Ben Emmerson (Ralph Fiennes), keep her away from a long prison sentence?
We've seen lots of fictional movies about the little guy up against the immovable mass and sunglass-wearing creepiness of the state: Will Smith's excellent "Enemy of the State" is a great example. Here the frisson in the script by Gregory Bernstein, Sara Bernstein and director Gavin Hood, based on the book by Marsha and Thomas Mitchell, is that it is all based on fact, brought brilliantly to life with interspersed news footage.
It's easy to forget, with nearly 20 years having passed, just how completely f****d up the world was after 9/11. Sabre-rattling became a US obsession, and the news-reel shots of Bush and Blair trying to justify their actions is really quite vomit-inducing.
Keira Knightley gives one of her best performances in years as the rather naive every-woman for appreciates she's digging a hole but has only dawning realisation as to how deep it goes.
But the supporting cast is also outstanding with Smith and Ifans being enormously entertaining as the journos, supported by their supportive boss - Downton's Matthew Goode. Ralph Fiennes delivers a typically underplayed and powerful performance as the legal beagle. Other well known faces popping up include Tamsin Greig and W1A's Monica Dolan.
How gripped you will be will depend on your memory! Mine is officially useless... so the denouement when it came was a surprise to me! But this is a little British film that really packs a punch. Extremely watchable and with a star cast, this ones a keeper. Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/12/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-official-secrets-2019/ Thanks).
Empire of the Sun
9.0
Rate It
Book
The classic, award-winning novel, made famous by Steven Spielberg’s film, tells of a young boy’s...
Alec Baldwin recommended Oliver Twist (1948) in Movies (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated Layer Cake (2004) in Movies
Oct 5, 2020
British crime thriller. A highly professional and goal-oriented businessman in the drugs trade finds his well-organised life falling into chaos when he gets mixed up with stolen Ecstasy, Serbian war criminals and a missing heiress. Could he be forced to become something he despises - an actual gangster?
Looks a bit like a Guy Ritchie movie - and not without reason, for Matthew Vaughn produced the early Ritchie films - but the tone is (thankfully) more measured and serious. The plot is nothing very distinctive, although the subtext about Craig's character having to adopt the brutal methods of the people he encounters has some interest. Good performances from a strong cast; Michael Gambon is scary as a gang boss, but it's Daniel Craig's movie. This is apparently the performance that swung Bond for him, but the film deserves to be recognised on its own merits.
Looks a bit like a Guy Ritchie movie - and not without reason, for Matthew Vaughn produced the early Ritchie films - but the tone is (thankfully) more measured and serious. The plot is nothing very distinctive, although the subtext about Craig's character having to adopt the brutal methods of the people he encounters has some interest. Good performances from a strong cast; Michael Gambon is scary as a gang boss, but it's Daniel Craig's movie. This is apparently the performance that swung Bond for him, but the film deserves to be recognised on its own merits.