Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
Why oh why did they rename this film? I always want to call it Ford v Ferrari and several times I've said "Le Mans '66" and got odd looks so had to follow it up with the original.
Sports films are a weakness of mine, I love them but I'm not really sure why as I'm very much a spectator than a participant. Some racing meant this film got an automatic spot in the LFF planning... even with Matt Damon in it.
We've got another "based on true events" film on our hands and taking a glance at what car and racing experts have to say it seems that the events are fairly well done apart from some Hollywood tweaks here and there.
My main love in car movies is the roar of the engine, you can't beat that sound. I was nearly disappointed as almost instantly we get the engine sound but without the oomph, it was a really upsetting feeling. They did redeem themselves shortly after but I didn't enjoy that first moment at all. I did suffer with the audio in general being rather loud but I'm going to lay that firmly at the feet of old age rather than anything else.
There are a lot of people in this film, you only have to go for a scroll in the listings to see that. They add that busy feeling, the urgency of the project, the eagerness for the win. Some scenes feel crowded but they knew when to hold back and that meant that during the chaos we were still able to see some smaller and more powerful moments, moments that really were needed to break everything up.
Christian Bale did a Christian Bale for this film, after putting on all the weight for Vice he dropped it all again for his role as Ken Miles. Someone please cast him as a regular man, I worry about him. Ken's dedication to the sport and the skill really shines in Bale's performance, would we expect anything less from him? No, of course not. One of the most pleasing things is Bale saying "T'ra" in that accent, so soothing to listen to.
Matt Damon isn't a great love of mine, I'll watch his films with a disgruntled look on my face... Downsizing, that's for you... but... yes, there's a but, I thought he played Carroll Shelby exceptionally well, and without a hint of "Matt Damon" in it. This felt like the first time I've seen him in something where he's committed more to the role.
Great performances don't always mean great chemistry on screen but the two played off each other to great effect throughout. There's one fantastic scene (that you can see in one of the trailers) where they tussle together and it's such fun to watch, the full scene holds so much more than the trailer clips do.
Everything comes together in Le Mans '66 (*cough* Ford v Ferrari *cough*). The era is captured perfectly from all angles, the attention to detail on set looks spot on. The script isn't overly complicated and allowed the viewer (or at the very least me) to follow the story. The scenes on track are beautiful to watch with the truly impressive effect for weather and conditions being consistent in each shot. If you're asking me to find a quibble it would be on the crash effects, during one in particular the CGI seemed a little weak but you're drawn into the next shot fairly quickly so it's just a fleeting view.
Le Mans '66 was genuinely one of the highlights of the London Film Festival for me, Bale gives a stellar performance filled with humour and heart, Damon wowed me with his portrayal of Shelby and the way they managed to bring his character full circle... I didn't expect this to be such an emotional movie, I was taken aback by some of the moments and I genuinely can't wait to see this again.
Full review originally published on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/le-mans-66-movie-review.html
Sports films are a weakness of mine, I love them but I'm not really sure why as I'm very much a spectator than a participant. Some racing meant this film got an automatic spot in the LFF planning... even with Matt Damon in it.
We've got another "based on true events" film on our hands and taking a glance at what car and racing experts have to say it seems that the events are fairly well done apart from some Hollywood tweaks here and there.
My main love in car movies is the roar of the engine, you can't beat that sound. I was nearly disappointed as almost instantly we get the engine sound but without the oomph, it was a really upsetting feeling. They did redeem themselves shortly after but I didn't enjoy that first moment at all. I did suffer with the audio in general being rather loud but I'm going to lay that firmly at the feet of old age rather than anything else.
There are a lot of people in this film, you only have to go for a scroll in the listings to see that. They add that busy feeling, the urgency of the project, the eagerness for the win. Some scenes feel crowded but they knew when to hold back and that meant that during the chaos we were still able to see some smaller and more powerful moments, moments that really were needed to break everything up.
Christian Bale did a Christian Bale for this film, after putting on all the weight for Vice he dropped it all again for his role as Ken Miles. Someone please cast him as a regular man, I worry about him. Ken's dedication to the sport and the skill really shines in Bale's performance, would we expect anything less from him? No, of course not. One of the most pleasing things is Bale saying "T'ra" in that accent, so soothing to listen to.
Matt Damon isn't a great love of mine, I'll watch his films with a disgruntled look on my face... Downsizing, that's for you... but... yes, there's a but, I thought he played Carroll Shelby exceptionally well, and without a hint of "Matt Damon" in it. This felt like the first time I've seen him in something where he's committed more to the role.
Great performances don't always mean great chemistry on screen but the two played off each other to great effect throughout. There's one fantastic scene (that you can see in one of the trailers) where they tussle together and it's such fun to watch, the full scene holds so much more than the trailer clips do.
Everything comes together in Le Mans '66 (*cough* Ford v Ferrari *cough*). The era is captured perfectly from all angles, the attention to detail on set looks spot on. The script isn't overly complicated and allowed the viewer (or at the very least me) to follow the story. The scenes on track are beautiful to watch with the truly impressive effect for weather and conditions being consistent in each shot. If you're asking me to find a quibble it would be on the crash effects, during one in particular the CGI seemed a little weak but you're drawn into the next shot fairly quickly so it's just a fleeting view.
Le Mans '66 was genuinely one of the highlights of the London Film Festival for me, Bale gives a stellar performance filled with humour and heart, Damon wowed me with his portrayal of Shelby and the way they managed to bring his character full circle... I didn't expect this to be such an emotional movie, I was taken aback by some of the moments and I genuinely can't wait to see this again.
Full review originally published on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/le-mans-66-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Loveless (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Speaking as someone who grew up in the United States, prides themselves on having a vast and diverse movie library, and only leaves the confines of the greater Seattle-area on very rare occasions .. I’m the first to admit that there are times when I don’t fully appreciate the films produced in other countries. It’s amazing how different they can be based on even differences in other cultures. Take films made in Russia for example. Perhaps it’s the cold and bleakness of the country but Russian filmmakers are amongst the best when it comes to tragedies. I imagine it’s a ‘carry over’ in part from the great literary masterpieces to come out of that country. Not to give it all away right from the beginning but if you’re like me, you need to prepare yourself for a good tragedy and that’s exactly what the film is that is up for your consideration.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Had this been released on any regular week I'd have seen Joker the day it came out and not been overly bothered by the Twitter frenzy that happened in the aftermath of the opening... but, Joker came out two days into the London Film Festival and that meant I couldn't see it straight away. I ended up taking a day off in the middle of it and going out to have a regular cinema outing, it was only 6 days after release but the barrage of feedback online was enough to make me bored at the thought of seeing it.
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Guide To Second Date Sex (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
Talk about burying the lead. Marie Claire offered its readers the chance to see A Guide To Second Date Sex free online for Valentine's Day, after seeing the cute little into from the lead actors I knew I had to give it a try.
Laura and Ryan have a chance meeting in a club after their friends abandon them, their awkward meeting turns into flirty banter and the two agree to a second date.
Both fresh off break-ups and clueless about how to go about dating they turn to their friends for help, but do too many cooks spoil the broth?
What a film. It's so awkward, but you just can't look away. I envy you if there isn't a moment in this that you can identify with. [Mum, if you're reading this I am of course playing it up for effect, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, 😬]
The keyword that kept popping up throughout my notes was "awkward", I truly hate awkward viewing. It's one of the reasons I don't like reality TV for the most part [when I do watch it I record it so I can fast forward through those bits]. I have actively walked out of the room because I couldn't cope watching things. How I managed to sit through this film I do not know. I was laughing out loud, I was burying my head in my hands, and yet I sat through it.
I can well and truly say at this point that I love George MacKay, put him in everything please. He plays Ryan, Ryan is somewhat unsuccessfully trying to get over his ex and his little experience with dating is being helped along by his flatmate Dan... but he's all for the conquest rather than the romance. Laura, played by Alexandra Roach has the backup of the internet, her mother and a friend, but she seems a little more sceptical about all the suggestions she's offered.
The setup gives you a very quick insight into our two main characters including some of the advice that's offered above. I've moaned in the past about short intros not setting up enough of the film that follows but with the way this film is laid out and the fact that the main action happens in the space of one evening means that everything unfolds very quickly and you don't need anything more.
When the present day story happens I really love the internal monologue that cuts in, the underlying insecurities and anxiety gets to bubble up. It absolutely needed it too, there's no way the film would have worked without this extra layer of humour. Without the audio the actors still do a great job, they mastered the art of the awkward silence, add the voiceover in and you get that chance to identify and match it to your own experience and internal commentary. I could write several stories in this vein based on my own experience. [Mum, again, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, 😬]
The film is based on the director's play that was performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I would love to have seen how that was done, I'm visualising something crossed between a play and Fleabag.
A Guide To Second Date Sex expresses those hideous memories that you really wish had been erased with the evening full of alcohol that accompanied them. It reflects so many girls' nights in and morning after phones calls I've been part of that it had that nostalgic feel which I think is how I stayed engaged despite my awkward reaction. It's an amusing and charming tale of dating that develops into a hilarious romp through young love and its perils.
This was an immensely entertaining watch but I really wish it ended one clip earlier than it did, and that's the only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars.
[Note to friends when you see it... Yes, that scene... I know, right?!]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-guide-to-second-date-sex-movie-review.html
Laura and Ryan have a chance meeting in a club after their friends abandon them, their awkward meeting turns into flirty banter and the two agree to a second date.
Both fresh off break-ups and clueless about how to go about dating they turn to their friends for help, but do too many cooks spoil the broth?
What a film. It's so awkward, but you just can't look away. I envy you if there isn't a moment in this that you can identify with. [Mum, if you're reading this I am of course playing it up for effect, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, 😬]
The keyword that kept popping up throughout my notes was "awkward", I truly hate awkward viewing. It's one of the reasons I don't like reality TV for the most part [when I do watch it I record it so I can fast forward through those bits]. I have actively walked out of the room because I couldn't cope watching things. How I managed to sit through this film I do not know. I was laughing out loud, I was burying my head in my hands, and yet I sat through it.
I can well and truly say at this point that I love George MacKay, put him in everything please. He plays Ryan, Ryan is somewhat unsuccessfully trying to get over his ex and his little experience with dating is being helped along by his flatmate Dan... but he's all for the conquest rather than the romance. Laura, played by Alexandra Roach has the backup of the internet, her mother and a friend, but she seems a little more sceptical about all the suggestions she's offered.
The setup gives you a very quick insight into our two main characters including some of the advice that's offered above. I've moaned in the past about short intros not setting up enough of the film that follows but with the way this film is laid out and the fact that the main action happens in the space of one evening means that everything unfolds very quickly and you don't need anything more.
When the present day story happens I really love the internal monologue that cuts in, the underlying insecurities and anxiety gets to bubble up. It absolutely needed it too, there's no way the film would have worked without this extra layer of humour. Without the audio the actors still do a great job, they mastered the art of the awkward silence, add the voiceover in and you get that chance to identify and match it to your own experience and internal commentary. I could write several stories in this vein based on my own experience. [Mum, again, I've never done any of this.] [Everyone else, 😬]
The film is based on the director's play that was performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I would love to have seen how that was done, I'm visualising something crossed between a play and Fleabag.
A Guide To Second Date Sex expresses those hideous memories that you really wish had been erased with the evening full of alcohol that accompanied them. It reflects so many girls' nights in and morning after phones calls I've been part of that it had that nostalgic feel which I think is how I stayed engaged despite my awkward reaction. It's an amusing and charming tale of dating that develops into a hilarious romp through young love and its perils.
This was an immensely entertaining watch but I really wish it ended one clip earlier than it did, and that's the only reason I'm not giving this 5 stars.
[Note to friends when you see it... Yes, that scene... I know, right?!]
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/a-guide-to-second-date-sex-movie-review.html
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).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated The Canal (2014) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Canal (2014)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated A Time of Myths in Books
Nov 5, 2018
I received this book as a complimentary, signed review copy through the Goodreads Giveaway scheme. Instantly after reading the title and the blurb, I was incredibly intrigued by this book that promised myth, events of legendary stature (Woodstock) and a mysterious edge to it as well.
It seemed perfect, and when I received it I was eager to get started, but then I hit what I thought would be a huge stumbling block for me. It was right up my street with regards to the content and genre, but when I started to read I initially struggled with Blamires' style of writing. He switches perspective initially to introduce all of the main characters, which, in someone with less talent would be confusing, however Blamires does this with a certain skill which weaves the separate narratives together into one intertwining story of humanity at it's grittiest and most basic level.
Initially set in the mid 80s, the mystery set and questions begin to swirl in the readers head before jumping into the next 'book'. As the story progresses, in a very natural and well written way, we follow this intertwined story of a group of youngsters from the age of free love, flower power and smoking dope, of course, I'm referring to the 60s for those of you scratching your heads! The description and atmosphere created by Blamires in describing the Woodstock festival is admirably done, and as someone who only knows of 'hippies' from watching reruns of bad tv shows and my own limited cultural knowledge, I have to hold my hands up and say I'm no expert. However, it felt utterly believable and very much in line with my limited knowledge, so much so that at times I actually felt like I would have loved to be part of this group of people.
Again, the book returns to the modern day of the 80s, told from the perspective of Nathan, the character who seems the most likeable and least tragic of the group, but oh how that changes! I won't spoil it, but his perspective is fantastic and easy to read, and he is a very believable character. You want to help him uncover his past and in the process find out exactly what happened to the rest of the group as, if there isn't enough that Blamires does well, he is also fantastic at drawing you totally into the story and keeping you guessing right to the very end, truly engaging you with every character. Well, except Derek, he simply repulsed me and I was glad with his ending!
The final 'book' was fantastically written, full of the same atmosphere and drama seen in the rest of the story, but also neatly tidying up all, well, nearly all, the questions you ask throughout the story, whilst still delivering the drama and tension you have come to expect from the book so far. Again, Blamires tells it in a very believable and engaging manner, and I think the greatest strength of this story is that it is so believable, I actually found myself wondering if there weren't groups of people just like these out there today as lost as Nathan and Maddy are in this 'hellhole' of a world we live in.
Great credit has to be given to Blamires in the creation of this story as it is truly fantastic. The characters are engaging, in their own ways, real and so easy to relate to. I wanted so badly to be their friend, to help Jo with her inner turmoil, to fix the issues they all had, and more than anything to have been part of that group at Woodstock having a laugh with like minded people. It transported me to times and places I will never be able to experience, but through this book, I feel I have, in some small way, been able to experience a tiny ounce of what it may have been like. The story was never superficial, at times it is really philosophical and 'deep', and this is absorbed by the reader without really noticing it, but at the end, it al makes sense.
Chris Blamires is a hugely talented author, great story teller, deep thinker and all of this comes through in just over 300 pages of excellently written tales. I thoroughly enjoyed this book, as I think is clear, and it is one I look forward to reading again and recommending to my friends. And as for the author, well, he certainly is one to watch and I look forward to reading more of his work in the near future!
It seemed perfect, and when I received it I was eager to get started, but then I hit what I thought would be a huge stumbling block for me. It was right up my street with regards to the content and genre, but when I started to read I initially struggled with Blamires' style of writing. He switches perspective initially to introduce all of the main characters, which, in someone with less talent would be confusing, however Blamires does this with a certain skill which weaves the separate narratives together into one intertwining story of humanity at it's grittiest and most basic level.
Initially set in the mid 80s, the mystery set and questions begin to swirl in the readers head before jumping into the next 'book'. As the story progresses, in a very natural and well written way, we follow this intertwined story of a group of youngsters from the age of free love, flower power and smoking dope, of course, I'm referring to the 60s for those of you scratching your heads! The description and atmosphere created by Blamires in describing the Woodstock festival is admirably done, and as someone who only knows of 'hippies' from watching reruns of bad tv shows and my own limited cultural knowledge, I have to hold my hands up and say I'm no expert. However, it felt utterly believable and very much in line with my limited knowledge, so much so that at times I actually felt like I would have loved to be part of this group of people.
Again, the book returns to the modern day of the 80s, told from the perspective of Nathan, the character who seems the most likeable and least tragic of the group, but oh how that changes! I won't spoil it, but his perspective is fantastic and easy to read, and he is a very believable character. You want to help him uncover his past and in the process find out exactly what happened to the rest of the group as, if there isn't enough that Blamires does well, he is also fantastic at drawing you totally into the story and keeping you guessing right to the very end, truly engaging you with every character. Well, except Derek, he simply repulsed me and I was glad with his ending!
The final 'book' was fantastically written, full of the same atmosphere and drama seen in the rest of the story, but also neatly tidying up all, well, nearly all, the questions you ask throughout the story, whilst still delivering the drama and tension you have come to expect from the book so far. Again, Blamires tells it in a very believable and engaging manner, and I think the greatest strength of this story is that it is so believable, I actually found myself wondering if there weren't groups of people just like these out there today as lost as Nathan and Maddy are in this 'hellhole' of a world we live in.
Great credit has to be given to Blamires in the creation of this story as it is truly fantastic. The characters are engaging, in their own ways, real and so easy to relate to. I wanted so badly to be their friend, to help Jo with her inner turmoil, to fix the issues they all had, and more than anything to have been part of that group at Woodstock having a laugh with like minded people. It transported me to times and places I will never be able to experience, but through this book, I feel I have, in some small way, been able to experience a tiny ounce of what it may have been like. The story was never superficial, at times it is really philosophical and 'deep', and this is absorbed by the reader without really noticing it, but at the end, it al makes sense.
Chris Blamires is a hugely talented author, great story teller, deep thinker and all of this comes through in just over 300 pages of excellently written tales. I thoroughly enjoyed this book, as I think is clear, and it is one I look forward to reading again and recommending to my friends. And as for the author, well, he certainly is one to watch and I look forward to reading more of his work in the near future!
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Lonely Place to Die (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Lonely Place to Die starts as we three climbers Rob (Newman), Ed (Speleers) and Alison (George) showing just how extreme their love for climber is when we see them avoid disaster following an accident. Returning to their holiday trip the friends meet up with fellow climbers Jenny (Magowan) and Alex (Sweeney) to prepare for the biggest climb of their trip.
Heading out on the next day of climbing the friends find a mysterious breathing pipe where they discover a young girl Anna (Boyd) locked in a hole in the ground. Deciding to do the right thing they split up to get help with Alison and Rob heading to Devil’s Drop to get to the village quicker while the rest take Anna for a safe place to wait for rescue.
When one of their own is killed the remaining friends find themselves being hunted down by Mr Kidd (Harris) & Mr Mcrae (McCole) who are after Anna, the friends have to use all their climbing and survival skills to escape this deadly situation.
A Lonely Place to Die is a thriller that goes on to keep the storyline twists coming, the idea of finding a girl trapped in the woods and being hunted down is an easy story and would easily have been enough but adding in the idea of kidnapping hand over works really well. This does mean the introduction too all of the original characters comes off almost pointless because most of them are just disposable but it does get saved with the final act tension. This is one I do feel people will enjoy and with this many twists it never actually gets confusing.
Actor Review
Melissa George: Allison is the experienced climber on a climbing holiday with friends, we see how she can handle herself in the extreme conditions early on but when we see her and her friends find a young girl in the middle of the forest she must find a way out of the mountain range to save the girl. Melissa is always a strong lead in film but I was never sure of her accent in this one.
Ed Speleers: Ed is the least experienced member of the friends that Allison has bought along on the trip, he is reckless but we see how he will do the right thing when needed. Ed is a solid supporting choice but lacks that final moment.
Sean Harris: Mr Kidd is one of the two men hunting the friends down, he is very psychotic as we see him happily watch people die. This is a very good villain because we see his greed and complete lack of care showing through. Sean is good in this role where we see just how twisted his character gets.
Karel Roden: Darko is dealing with Mr Kidd, he is a victim as it is Anna that has been kidnapped for a ransom. He has come prepared to get revenge on the people involved. Karel is good in this role as we see his change as we learn his real position in the situation.
Support Cast: A Lonely Place to Die has a good supporting cast that all do their jobs to make this an edge of your seat ride.
Director Review: Julian Gilbey –
Action: A Lonely Place to Die has a lot of survival action with chasing, climbing and gun fights happening.
Crime: A Lonely Place to Die puts us in the middle of the kidnapping so we actually feel like the one of the climbers stuck in the middle.
Thriller: A Lonely Place to Die keeps us on edge through the whole film as we wonder who will make it out alive.
Settings: A Lonely Place to Die has the first half in the middle of the Scottish Highlands with no means on communication while being chased really does work and the festival finale is a good close for the chaos.
Special Effects: A Lonely Place to Die has good effects when needed but isn’t a film that turns to them.
Suggestion: A Lonely Place to Die is one I think people should watch, I think it is intense thriller with nicely handled twists. (Watch)
Best Part: The twists.
Worst Part: A few loose ends at the end.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $4 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Out there, there’s nowhere to hide
Overall: Enjoyable thriller that keeps us on edge throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/06/melissa-george-weekend-a-lonely-place-to-die-2011/
Heading out on the next day of climbing the friends find a mysterious breathing pipe where they discover a young girl Anna (Boyd) locked in a hole in the ground. Deciding to do the right thing they split up to get help with Alison and Rob heading to Devil’s Drop to get to the village quicker while the rest take Anna for a safe place to wait for rescue.
When one of their own is killed the remaining friends find themselves being hunted down by Mr Kidd (Harris) & Mr Mcrae (McCole) who are after Anna, the friends have to use all their climbing and survival skills to escape this deadly situation.
A Lonely Place to Die is a thriller that goes on to keep the storyline twists coming, the idea of finding a girl trapped in the woods and being hunted down is an easy story and would easily have been enough but adding in the idea of kidnapping hand over works really well. This does mean the introduction too all of the original characters comes off almost pointless because most of them are just disposable but it does get saved with the final act tension. This is one I do feel people will enjoy and with this many twists it never actually gets confusing.
Actor Review
Melissa George: Allison is the experienced climber on a climbing holiday with friends, we see how she can handle herself in the extreme conditions early on but when we see her and her friends find a young girl in the middle of the forest she must find a way out of the mountain range to save the girl. Melissa is always a strong lead in film but I was never sure of her accent in this one.
Ed Speleers: Ed is the least experienced member of the friends that Allison has bought along on the trip, he is reckless but we see how he will do the right thing when needed. Ed is a solid supporting choice but lacks that final moment.
Sean Harris: Mr Kidd is one of the two men hunting the friends down, he is very psychotic as we see him happily watch people die. This is a very good villain because we see his greed and complete lack of care showing through. Sean is good in this role where we see just how twisted his character gets.
Karel Roden: Darko is dealing with Mr Kidd, he is a victim as it is Anna that has been kidnapped for a ransom. He has come prepared to get revenge on the people involved. Karel is good in this role as we see his change as we learn his real position in the situation.
Support Cast: A Lonely Place to Die has a good supporting cast that all do their jobs to make this an edge of your seat ride.
Director Review: Julian Gilbey –
Action: A Lonely Place to Die has a lot of survival action with chasing, climbing and gun fights happening.
Crime: A Lonely Place to Die puts us in the middle of the kidnapping so we actually feel like the one of the climbers stuck in the middle.
Thriller: A Lonely Place to Die keeps us on edge through the whole film as we wonder who will make it out alive.
Settings: A Lonely Place to Die has the first half in the middle of the Scottish Highlands with no means on communication while being chased really does work and the festival finale is a good close for the chaos.
Special Effects: A Lonely Place to Die has good effects when needed but isn’t a film that turns to them.
Suggestion: A Lonely Place to Die is one I think people should watch, I think it is intense thriller with nicely handled twists. (Watch)
Best Part: The twists.
Worst Part: A few loose ends at the end.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $4 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Out there, there’s nowhere to hide
Overall: Enjoyable thriller that keeps us on edge throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/06/melissa-george-weekend-a-lonely-place-to-die-2011/