Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ghosts of War (2020) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
The ending is worth it
Ghosts of War follows a group of American soldiers as they make their way to take up post at a French chateau towards the end of the Second World War, and encounter much more than they bargained for in this slightly above average B movie.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Inglourious Basterds (2009) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
It's the middle of World War II and France is overrun with Nazis. A group of Jewish-American soldiers is making a name for themselves as, "The Basterds," as they have the full intention of scalping each and every Nazi involved in the Third Reich. The Basterds soon become a real nuisance to The Fuhrer as their reputation strengthens and fear spreads like wildfire amongst the Nazis. Shosanna Dreyfus, a French-Jew whose family was killed by the Nazis, now owns a movie theater that catches the eye of Joseph Goebbels and his new film. The smaller, more private theater gets handpicked by Fredrick Zoller, a Nazi war hero and star of Goebbels film Nation's Pride, for the premiere of his new film. As the premiere becomes an intimate gathering of the Nazis, including the most important people of the Third Reich, The Basterds realize this may be their chance to end this war once and for all.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Inglourious Basterds had the potential to be one of the greatest films of the year. It's the first full-length film from Quentin Tarantino since Death Proof and his films from the past 12 years have escalated him into being one of the most well-respected filmmakers of our time. That along with an incredibly strong cast led by Brad Pitt and the fact that the film took place during World War II had me incredibly excited for the film. I'm a fairly big admirer of most of Tarantino's previous works and there's something about World War II and Nazis that I've always found fascinating. The final product was still good, but just didn't wind up meeting my expectations.
The concept of Inglourious Basterds is rather ingenious. A group of Jewish-Americans coming together and killing as many Nazis as they can. An ultimate form of revenge. Not only that, but an incredible sense of satisfaction washes over them while they partake in it. It's great and is pulled off rather flawlessly when we actually get to see The Basterds in action. As much as I love Tarantino's dialogue, it just seemed like the majority of the film was spent waiting around and talking about what was actually going to happen. Significant events still took place, but there's really only three or four scenes that come to mind that you could label as being exciting. Whether the film needed more of that is fully up to the viewer, but I'm under the impression that the film was a bit lacking in that department. Something else that should be mentioned, the film is not historically accurate. It's more of a World War II set in the Tarantino-verse kind of deal and is more of an alternate universe. Knowing that before seeing the movie helped a great deal in enjoying the film a bit more.
As enjoyable as Brad Pitt's performance as Lt. Aldo Raine was, I believe the real performance worth noting is Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. He's somehow able to walk the thin line between being polite and charming to being a frightening lunatic rather flawlessly. Even as he closes in on The Basterds and their plans, he still manages to steal most of the scenes he's in (the discussion about comparing Jews to rats at the beginning of the film, the "That's-a-bingo!" conversation with Aldo, etc). Landa is just an incredible detective with a marvelous personality that might just be one of the greatest characters Tarantino has ever written.
Inglourious Basterds is an extremely solid effort from Tarantino. The dialogue is definitely up to Tarantino's standard greatness, the performances are quite incredible, and the story is an entertaining one even with it straying away from what actually happened during that time period. It's just a shame it didn't meet the expectations I had based on the trailers and how much I enjoyed the past few Tarantino films. The hard hitting action scenes are magnificent, but it felt like there were too few and far between. The best suggestion I could give would be to go into the film expecting nothing and I think you'll walk away satisfied.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sleepless (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A potentially good ‘B’ movie undone.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Sleepless” proves that in spades.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Point Blank (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Point Blank starts when emergency room nurse Paul (Mackie) is preparing to have his first child with his wife Taryn (Parris), she is due within weeks, but she gets kidnapped by Mateo (Cooke) who wants Paul to help his injured brother Abe (Grillo) escape from the emergency room after being accused of murdering the DA.
Paul and Abe go on the run with LT Lewis (Harden) tracking them down as we see just who was really behind the murder of the DA.
Thoughts on Point Blank
Characters – Paul is an emergency room nurse, he is married and about to start his family, his life is exactly where he wants it. His life takes a big change one this day when he gets forced to help a murder suspect escape from the hospital to save his pregnant wife, meaning he will need to start breaking the law to save her. Abe is the gun for hire that has been injured in the incident, he is the prime suspect and is being set up, where his brother is trying to help him escape, he is street smart and has connections in the criminal world which will help him stay ahead of the law. LT Lewis is the one trying to track down the pair trying to put away the person that killed the DA. Mateo is the brother of Abe that has gone to the extremes to try and get his brother out of custody.
Performances – Anthony Mackie and Frank Grillo do everything they can with this film, Grillo is starting make a name for himself in the trashing action films now, where he can play the bad boy with ease, Mackie doesn’t do much that you wouldn’t expect from him here though. Marcia Gay Harden gives us the basic cop figure, while Christian Cooke completes the main cast with a basic enough performance.
Story – The story here follows an emergency nurse that must help a murder suspect to save his kidnapped wife. This is a basic story which I always say is all you need for action at times, this is a remake of a French film, but we are lacking that one thing a good action film needs a villain that feels like a threat, we do get many suspects to who the villain might be because it is clear that Abe never committed a crime. We get moments of the unlikely couple needing to work together only for them to not have enough conflict about what is happening. This is basic storytelling that just never gets intense enough to the level it could do.
Action – The action involved in the film is the highlight of the film, even if a lot is basic, it does bring the film to life with the car chases involved.
Settings – The film is set in a big city which does help us understand how many people can be getting crimes done with ease.
Scene of the Movie – Big D
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough villain potential.
Final Thoughts – This is a mostly by the book action film that just doesn’t get going.
Overall: Forgettable Action Film.
Paul and Abe go on the run with LT Lewis (Harden) tracking them down as we see just who was really behind the murder of the DA.
Thoughts on Point Blank
Characters – Paul is an emergency room nurse, he is married and about to start his family, his life is exactly where he wants it. His life takes a big change one this day when he gets forced to help a murder suspect escape from the hospital to save his pregnant wife, meaning he will need to start breaking the law to save her. Abe is the gun for hire that has been injured in the incident, he is the prime suspect and is being set up, where his brother is trying to help him escape, he is street smart and has connections in the criminal world which will help him stay ahead of the law. LT Lewis is the one trying to track down the pair trying to put away the person that killed the DA. Mateo is the brother of Abe that has gone to the extremes to try and get his brother out of custody.
Performances – Anthony Mackie and Frank Grillo do everything they can with this film, Grillo is starting make a name for himself in the trashing action films now, where he can play the bad boy with ease, Mackie doesn’t do much that you wouldn’t expect from him here though. Marcia Gay Harden gives us the basic cop figure, while Christian Cooke completes the main cast with a basic enough performance.
Story – The story here follows an emergency nurse that must help a murder suspect to save his kidnapped wife. This is a basic story which I always say is all you need for action at times, this is a remake of a French film, but we are lacking that one thing a good action film needs a villain that feels like a threat, we do get many suspects to who the villain might be because it is clear that Abe never committed a crime. We get moments of the unlikely couple needing to work together only for them to not have enough conflict about what is happening. This is basic storytelling that just never gets intense enough to the level it could do.
Action – The action involved in the film is the highlight of the film, even if a lot is basic, it does bring the film to life with the car chases involved.
Settings – The film is set in a big city which does help us understand how many people can be getting crimes done with ease.
Scene of the Movie – Big D
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough villain potential.
Final Thoughts – This is a mostly by the book action film that just doesn’t get going.
Overall: Forgettable Action Film.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Stillwater (2021) in Movies
Aug 3, 2021
The film Stillwater is based upon and exploits the Amanda Knox story. Swapping Italy for the town of Marseille, France, Allison (Abigail Breslin), an American university student is convicted of killing her girlfriend, Lina. Bill (Matt Damon), Allison’s estranged father, visits her regularly in prison, and is convinced of her innocence.
The majority of the film focuses on Bill’s quest to prove her innocence. Bill is a roughneck (oil driller), good ol’ boy Okie from Stillwater. After delivering a letter to Allison’s lawyer with new information, he takes it upon himself to find the main suspect, Akim, with the help of Virginie (Camille Cottin). This is completely against Allison’s wishes, because she sees him, and herself, as a ‘fuck-up’.
Bill develops a relationship with Virginie, and her daughter, Maya (Lilou Siauvaud). After Allison refuses to see him anymore, Bill stays with Virginie, as a friend, helps with Maya, and goes native. Honestly, the subplot of this relationship with Virginie that progresses to a romantic relationship, and the fatherly relationship to Maya, slow the film down to a snail’s pace. The story finally picks up again, when Bill takes Maya to a football game, and he captures Akim. Bill collects DNA from Akim, hands it to an ex-cop, then finally learns the truth of what happened with the murder of Lina. This situation ruins his relationship with his new French family, and he goes back to Stillwater, quickly followed by Allison, after she is released after the DNA matches what was left at the crime scene.
I was originally pretty excited to see the film, but then I read a Vanity Fair interview with the director, Tom McCarthy. McCarthy mentioned that he wanted to be in the shoes of Amanda Knox, or something like that. Knox, who was found not guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher, was probably very available. Knox came out after the article was published and voiced that her story was being exploited. Reading her responses made me have really icky feelings, and I almost didn’t go see it, because they’re profiting off her story. To be fair, Knox is profiting off her own story as well, but it still isn’t right. This situation hurt the film, in my opinion, and I think the box office numbers in the US reflect that as well. I would have rated this film higher, and enjoyed it more, had I not seen the press surrounding it. I don’t know whether that’s a good or bad thing.
Damon did well in his portrayal of an Okie roughneck, and you could tell he really did study to nail the role. Breslin was neither here nor there, and I didn’t necessarily sympathize with her at all. So, I didn’t really care in the end if she got out of prison or not.
This film clocks in at 2 hours and 20 minutes, and it felt like a 2 hour and 20-minute film. I didn’t like the subplot, at all. It made the movie so bloated, and I kind of just wanted it to end. I don’t think this film is going to do well outside of the US, at all.
The majority of the film focuses on Bill’s quest to prove her innocence. Bill is a roughneck (oil driller), good ol’ boy Okie from Stillwater. After delivering a letter to Allison’s lawyer with new information, he takes it upon himself to find the main suspect, Akim, with the help of Virginie (Camille Cottin). This is completely against Allison’s wishes, because she sees him, and herself, as a ‘fuck-up’.
Bill develops a relationship with Virginie, and her daughter, Maya (Lilou Siauvaud). After Allison refuses to see him anymore, Bill stays with Virginie, as a friend, helps with Maya, and goes native. Honestly, the subplot of this relationship with Virginie that progresses to a romantic relationship, and the fatherly relationship to Maya, slow the film down to a snail’s pace. The story finally picks up again, when Bill takes Maya to a football game, and he captures Akim. Bill collects DNA from Akim, hands it to an ex-cop, then finally learns the truth of what happened with the murder of Lina. This situation ruins his relationship with his new French family, and he goes back to Stillwater, quickly followed by Allison, after she is released after the DNA matches what was left at the crime scene.
I was originally pretty excited to see the film, but then I read a Vanity Fair interview with the director, Tom McCarthy. McCarthy mentioned that he wanted to be in the shoes of Amanda Knox, or something like that. Knox, who was found not guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher, was probably very available. Knox came out after the article was published and voiced that her story was being exploited. Reading her responses made me have really icky feelings, and I almost didn’t go see it, because they’re profiting off her story. To be fair, Knox is profiting off her own story as well, but it still isn’t right. This situation hurt the film, in my opinion, and I think the box office numbers in the US reflect that as well. I would have rated this film higher, and enjoyed it more, had I not seen the press surrounding it. I don’t know whether that’s a good or bad thing.
Damon did well in his portrayal of an Okie roughneck, and you could tell he really did study to nail the role. Breslin was neither here nor there, and I didn’t necessarily sympathize with her at all. So, I didn’t really care in the end if she got out of prison or not.
This film clocks in at 2 hours and 20 minutes, and it felt like a 2 hour and 20-minute film. I didn’t like the subplot, at all. It made the movie so bloated, and I kind of just wanted it to end. I don’t think this film is going to do well outside of the US, at all.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colette (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“The hand that holds the pen writes history”.
Colette is yet another tale of female empowerment: a woman with real talent trying to break out of the gilded cage she finds herself trapped in.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
The plot
This is a true story, set in Paris in the late 19th Century. Colette (Keira Knightley), a beautiful country girl living in Burgundy is seduced by and then married to the much older Parisian ‘literary entrepreneur’ Willy (Dominic West). Willy is a “brand” in Paris: a well-known critic turned author. The only problem being that he does virtually no writing of his own but ghosts work out to his team. Colette exhibits a gift for writing slightly lascivious tales of her life (under the pseudonym Claudine) at her girl’s school, where clearly nighttime swimming lessons taught more than back stroke! As a result, Willy fills a financial hole by publishing Colette’s work in his name. The books fly off the shelves faster than the publishers can print them. But Willy has expensive habits and Colette gets locked into writing an ever-popular series but without a voice of her own.
Bohemian Rhapsodies
If the swinging 60’s started anywhere, it was probably in Paris during this time period! While Victorian England was staid and conservative, Paris – home of the Moulin Rouge – was a hot-bed of liberation. As a result, Colette and Willy’s marital affairs are – erm – sexually ‘fluid’. While Colette has to learn to live with her philandering ‘Free Willy’, he positively encourages the bi-sexual Colette to explore the other camp, as it were.
The turns
Keira Knightley turns in a truly cracking performance in the titular lead. No-one does ‘brooding’ better than Knightley, and she gets ample chance here to exercise that look, most notably in a train scene near the end of the film: if looks could kill.
Dominic West delivers as reliably a solid performance as you would expect from him, but he is such a despicable and loathsome character that it is difficult to warm to him.
Driving me mad (not sexually you understand…. although…) was the girl playing the American double-dip love interest Georgie: I knew her so well but just couldn’t place her. It was the American accent that threw me: she is of course Eleanor Tomlinson, Demelza from TV’s “Poldark”, here showing a lot more flesh than she can get away with on a Sunday night on BBC1!
An interesting choice of language
The film is obviously in English about one of France’s literary greats (although curiously Colette writes in French). My guess is that the film will go down like a lead balloon in France as a result. A part of me would have liked this to be French language with subtitles, but maybe that’s just me.
When you look at it objectively, Colette’s story is quite remarkable: what a clever and determined woman.
Gorgeous to look at
Aside from Knightley, the other star turn in the film comes from cinematographer Giles Nuttgens (who also did “Hell or High Water“). The scenes, particularly the bucolic ones set in the French countryside, are simply gorgeously photographed. The framing of the shots is also exquisite with an impressive shot of the slog up a spiral staircase to the couple’s flat being repeatedly used.
Sex vs violence – still not on a par in 2019
It remains curious to me how prudish both the UK and the US are still about sex on screen. In the UK the film is a 15 certificate; in the US the film is R-rated! Yes, there are some breasts on show, and a few mixed- and same-sex couplings (particularly during a frenetic 5 minute period in the middle of the film!), but they are artfully done and you don’t get to see much more than the breasts. In comparison, the violence that would get meted out during a 15/R action thriller would typically makes my eyes water.
But is it any good?
This is one of those films that is worthy, beautifully done, well acted but for some reason it felt to me like a bit of a slog. At 111 minutes it certainly felt a lot longer than it was. The middle reel of the film in particular is rather pedestrian (and yes, I recognise the irony of the fact that I just said there was the frenetic 5 minutes of sex during that part!). Maybe on the night I was just not in the mood for this type of film.
The director is Englishman Wash Westmoreland, whose last film back in 2014 was the impressive “Still Alice”.
I’m glad I’ve seen it, and it is a lot better than many films I saw last year. But in terms of my “re-watchability” quotient, its not going to rate that highly.
Mixed Race Cinemas: Multiracial Dynamics in America and France
Book
Using critical race theory and film studies to explore the interconnectedness between cinema and...
Signs and Images. Writings on Art, Cinema and Photography: Essays and Interviews, Volume 4
Roland Barthes and Chris Turner
Book
Last season, Seagull Books published the first three volumes in a new series collecting essays and...
Olympia Dukakis recommended Jules and Jim (1962) in Movies (curated)
