Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
More classic literature retold for the modern audience, this time with a very distinctive and chaotic style.
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
Hard Cake
The personal history of david copperfield really disappointed me especially after such a cracking trailer and while no means a bad film it just really wasnt a film I enjoyed. What I was expecting was a sharply written, quirky yet dry and playful adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel something similar to a yorgos lanthimos film like the favorite for instance but sadly I found this movie to be extreamly dull, uninteresting and severely lacking overall. I wouldnt say its necessarily bad however it all just felt very flat to me. Characters didnt feel believable, humour seemed forced and while david patel burts at the seemes constantly with energy the film around him didnt seem to follow along the same. Very interesting ideas are present here and the emphases is on life almost being like a stage play with people we meet being the characters in it. See everyone in life is unique and has their own distinctive traits/interesting stories and no matter what happenes in our lives neither one is no less meaningless or important than the other. This does come across brilliantly and shows the bad traits of human nature, see everyone is on the path to happiness its just what they do and who they exploit or how much they choose to lie to get there and achieve sucess is diffrent from person to person. Then on a positive side it also shows how we should all realise where we have come from, to be greatful for what we have, to let our creativity flow and to appreciate these characters that enter our lives and inspire/care for us. So heres where I feel conflicted as much as I like these great ideas I feel they they just aren't integrated well enough with the dull story or the forced comedy and sure the film is well made but to watch its just not exciting or that engaging and the characters all became forgettable once off screen just like when watching a sketch show. Failing to keep my intrest constantly made the runtime feel a drag too and by the time I left I struggled to remember much of what had just happened infront of me wishing I'd of just stayed home and watched Perfume or The Favorite instead in the warm. No doubt some will enjoy this but will they be talking about it in a month? I highly doubt it.
Charles Dickens: A Life
Book
Charles Dickens is the acclaimed definitive biography by bestselling author Claire Tomalin Charles...
Daniel Radcliffe: The Biography
Book
Daniel Radcliffe went from shy schoolboy to the world's most famous boy wizard overnight. Aged just...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
