Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Miracle (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
n 1980, America was in a state of transition and turmoil as political events threatened world stability. The Reagan era was just starting but the nation was still trying to deal with economic issues as well as the Iran hostage crisis, and long gas lines.
As if those issues were not enough, the Cold War was still in full swing and tensions had mounted due to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Against this backdrop, coach Herb Brooks (Kurt Russell), is busy preparing a team of college Hockey players to represent the United States in the upcoming Winter Olympics.
Since the Olympics were being held in Lake Placid New York, the pressure was on for the U.S. team to make a respectable showing as the Olympic committee did not want the team to be embarrassed in front of the home crowd.
This was a task easier said than done, as the young players would be facing the best the world could throw at them, including the invincible Russian team that had not lost a game in 15 years and had recently handily defeated a team of NHL All Stars. The Russians like many of the teams that the Americans would face had played with each other for years and were like well-oiled machines in comparison to the assembled Americans who had less than a year to prepare.
The early part of the film focuses on the team selection process and Brook’s constant pushing of the team mentally and physically, even when it is to the dismay of his assistant coaches and disdain of his players. The audience is introduced to the players but they are never given much depth as the story focuses on Brooks and his desire to beat the Russians.
The later part of the film deals with the warm up games the team faced and then swings into the Olympics and the march to glory. The games are recreated mainly in highlight format as the focus of the films game recreation is saved for the dramatic and emotional game with the Russians. The action is fast and furious and is very accurate to the actual game itself.
While very emotional and entertaining, much of “Miracle” unfolds like a movie of the week. Russell does a great job as Brooks, but the supporting cast is not given any chance to shine. Patricia Clarkson is wasted in the role of Mrs. Brooks as she is not given much to do other than utter a few lines of encouragement and be the wife by the side of the coach.
All that being said, “Miracle;” is an uplifting and enjoyable look back at arguably the greatest moment in U.S. sports history. The film does stir the emotions and those of us who were old enough to remember the huge shot of patriotic pride that enveloped the land during those magical two weeks and how that team gave a nation renewed hope for the future and made us feel good just when we needed it the most.
As if those issues were not enough, the Cold War was still in full swing and tensions had mounted due to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Against this backdrop, coach Herb Brooks (Kurt Russell), is busy preparing a team of college Hockey players to represent the United States in the upcoming Winter Olympics.
Since the Olympics were being held in Lake Placid New York, the pressure was on for the U.S. team to make a respectable showing as the Olympic committee did not want the team to be embarrassed in front of the home crowd.
This was a task easier said than done, as the young players would be facing the best the world could throw at them, including the invincible Russian team that had not lost a game in 15 years and had recently handily defeated a team of NHL All Stars. The Russians like many of the teams that the Americans would face had played with each other for years and were like well-oiled machines in comparison to the assembled Americans who had less than a year to prepare.
The early part of the film focuses on the team selection process and Brook’s constant pushing of the team mentally and physically, even when it is to the dismay of his assistant coaches and disdain of his players. The audience is introduced to the players but they are never given much depth as the story focuses on Brooks and his desire to beat the Russians.
The later part of the film deals with the warm up games the team faced and then swings into the Olympics and the march to glory. The games are recreated mainly in highlight format as the focus of the films game recreation is saved for the dramatic and emotional game with the Russians. The action is fast and furious and is very accurate to the actual game itself.
While very emotional and entertaining, much of “Miracle” unfolds like a movie of the week. Russell does a great job as Brooks, but the supporting cast is not given any chance to shine. Patricia Clarkson is wasted in the role of Mrs. Brooks as she is not given much to do other than utter a few lines of encouragement and be the wife by the side of the coach.
All that being said, “Miracle;” is an uplifting and enjoyable look back at arguably the greatest moment in U.S. sports history. The film does stir the emotions and those of us who were old enough to remember the huge shot of patriotic pride that enveloped the land during those magical two weeks and how that team gave a nation renewed hope for the future and made us feel good just when we needed it the most.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Devil's Rejects (2005) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Chinese, Japanese, Dirty knees, look at these!
Shortly after the events of House of 1,000 Corpses, Sheriff Wydell and his band of deputies approach and surround the homestead occupied by everyone's favorite murderous, diabolical, psychotic family. Inside, lazy slumbering quickly turns to mounting a counter offensive when the family realizes what is about to happen. The ensuring shootout claims several victims before the aid of tear gas precedes a law enforcement home invasion. Unfortunately, only one family member is captured while Baby and Otis escape out the back. Baby calls their father, Captain Spaulding, to inform him of the pending doom on his way so he can meet up with them subsequently.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
The two siblings arrive at a local motel only to perform their brand of debauchery on two couples and friends staying there. They are forced to be in constant fear for their lives whilst their kidnappers decide what to do with them while waiting on their matriarch. The torture endured by their victims is heinous, cruel and unnecessary, but is their way of life.
The law is tightly on their trail waiting for that lead which will lead them to the felons. This is growing personal for the sheriff as he discovers the "rejects" were responsible for the death of his brother. The sheriff decides to hire some disreputable men of his own to use whatever methods they can to acquire the location of his targets.
The inevitable stand off leaves other casualties and a position it will be difficult for the sheriff to return from. The "rejects" always seem to find a way to survive no matter their degree of peril.
This film takes a different direction than that of House of 1,000 Corpses. That film being more of a standard "teenagers wander into a house of horrors" situation, whereas this film feels more like a "Natural Born Killers" type.
The total lack of any sort of normal human decency for the family is truly revolting and is on display every time they interact with anyone including women and children. They even don't really like each other very much and are constantly arguing with one other; their visceral hatred always right on the edge of bubbling over.
The unspeakable cruelty they enact on their victims can seem excessive at times; however, if you have lived through the events of the first film, you know what you are getting into here. When they are attached to their motel guests, you are just waiting for the next moment of panic when their guests start to figure out exactly what type of monsters they are dealing with.
I loved the gritty look of the film along with the mostly 1970s classic rock soundtrack. The scenery and landscapes of the sparse countryside fit the film well as well.
Not too many sequels build or are as good or better than their predecessor, but this film could be one of those for sure.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Truth Teller (The Truth Teller Series #1) in Books
Nov 27, 2019
Remember when you were 6 or 7 and first read The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe? Well I do and the whole 'you could go to another realm and be special' thing was such a key to drawing me into fantasy. And at that age the whole talking animals thing was entirely in keeping with my imagination.
But if you are a little older, nicely into double figures of age. Although the escape to another realm is still a terrific idea, the talking animals are just not going to fit anymore. What you need is a bit of action and likeable characters who are realistic while still being elves and dwarves. But if Narnia is no longer a viable destination at that age, where is?
Truth Teller fits the bill perfectly. Charlotte is a normal ten year old girl on holiday with her family. While wandering around the shops of the local town she finds a strange curio shop. She finds one of the objects in the shop interesting - a sort of snow globe without any snow. The odd little man who runs the shop gives it to her for free, but warns her that the price she pays might not be of the monetary kind.
That night while studying the globe she feels if she is falling into it and finds herself in a cold woodland, where she meets Elder. Very soon it is apparent to her that she is not anywhere near where she should be, if she is even on Earth at all anymore. Elder is an elf and he and his family try to help Charlotte find her way back home. Meanwhile dark forces are stirring and rumours of invasion are spreading.
Chambers has set out to provide an entry point into fantasy for younger (female) readers and has done a sterling job. My immediate reaction to this book was that it is flawless, in idea and execution. Although perhaps a little cliched for grizzle fantasy readers like myself it contains just enough strange creatures - elves, dwarves, giant wolves and druids - and a sprinkling of magic here and there to whisk the plot along. And it is whisked at some pace too, the narrative fluid and always in motion towards the books conclusion without much of a pause for breath.
Charlotte as the main character is well written and prone to modern turns of phrase that baffle her elven friends. Elder the elf boy she meets is charming and friendly even though he is as confused by Charlotte's plight as she is. The other characters are also very well drawn.
The story entwines the various threads into a whole that is easy to read and hard to forget. Reaching the last page was something I dreaded but like a lot of things the end of this book is just the start of the story of the Truth Teller.
If anyone is looking for a first book in fantasy, without the talking animals, this book fits the bill perfectly. Narnia for the iPhone generation? It's pretty close to that.
But if you are a little older, nicely into double figures of age. Although the escape to another realm is still a terrific idea, the talking animals are just not going to fit anymore. What you need is a bit of action and likeable characters who are realistic while still being elves and dwarves. But if Narnia is no longer a viable destination at that age, where is?
Truth Teller fits the bill perfectly. Charlotte is a normal ten year old girl on holiday with her family. While wandering around the shops of the local town she finds a strange curio shop. She finds one of the objects in the shop interesting - a sort of snow globe without any snow. The odd little man who runs the shop gives it to her for free, but warns her that the price she pays might not be of the monetary kind.
That night while studying the globe she feels if she is falling into it and finds herself in a cold woodland, where she meets Elder. Very soon it is apparent to her that she is not anywhere near where she should be, if she is even on Earth at all anymore. Elder is an elf and he and his family try to help Charlotte find her way back home. Meanwhile dark forces are stirring and rumours of invasion are spreading.
Chambers has set out to provide an entry point into fantasy for younger (female) readers and has done a sterling job. My immediate reaction to this book was that it is flawless, in idea and execution. Although perhaps a little cliched for grizzle fantasy readers like myself it contains just enough strange creatures - elves, dwarves, giant wolves and druids - and a sprinkling of magic here and there to whisk the plot along. And it is whisked at some pace too, the narrative fluid and always in motion towards the books conclusion without much of a pause for breath.
Charlotte as the main character is well written and prone to modern turns of phrase that baffle her elven friends. Elder the elf boy she meets is charming and friendly even though he is as confused by Charlotte's plight as she is. The other characters are also very well drawn.
The story entwines the various threads into a whole that is easy to read and hard to forget. Reaching the last page was something I dreaded but like a lot of things the end of this book is just the start of the story of the Truth Teller.
If anyone is looking for a first book in fantasy, without the talking animals, this book fits the bill perfectly. Narnia for the iPhone generation? It's pretty close to that.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Attack the Block (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Remember, remember the fifth of November…because that’s when the film Attack the Block (from the producers of “Shaun of the Dead”) begins – on Guy Fawkes Night. If you want to know what that is, use a search engine like I did (there’s even a catchy poem for this British holiday, too).
Anyway, back to the film. It’s Guy Fawkes Night in London, with fireworks exploding throughout the city, a small gang of teens are looking to have a little fun. The gang has 5 people; the leader Moses (John Boyega), Jerome (Leeon Jones), Dennis (Franz Drameh), Biggz (Simon Howard) and Pest (Alex Esmail). During this “fun time” they mug Sam (Jodie Whitaker) a nurse returning home from work. During the course of the mugging an object falls from the sky striking a nearby car. While the gang is distracted, Sam runs off and calls the police. As Moses investigates what hit the car and what he can steal, something scratches his arm and escapes into the night. Moses is so furious, he and the rest of the gang give chase, eventually cornering and killing the creature.
They aren’t sure what the creature is but they know they can probably make money off of it, so they take it to Ron (Nick Frost), the friendly neighborhood drug dealer who lives in their apartment complex, for safe keeping. As the gang enjoys a “relaxing” smoke (don’t worry anti-tobacco people, they aren’t smoking cigarettes), Moses is approached by Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) the local drug kingpin that Ron works for. Hi-Hatz likes the tough, street-smart Moses and wants him to be one of his dealers, a job Moses considers an honor to be offered.
As Moses’ gang gaze out the apartment’s window at the fireworks exploding over South London they see more aliens landing. They soon discover that these aliens are bigger, stronger, tougher and way more violent than the first one they encountered and, even worse than that, these aliens are coming after them. The gang decides that they have to fight back and protect their block. During one encounter with the aliens, Pest becomes seriously injured and they end up tracking down Sam (the nurse they mugged at the beginning of the movie) for help. Once Sam is convinced that they are telling the truth about the invasion she joins them and eventually a sort of mutual respect forms between her and the members of the gang. Unfortunately while they are fighting off the invasion, Moses’s gang has a falling out with Hi-Hatz. So just to be clear, at a point in the film, Moses and his gang have the police, Hi-Hatz with his crew and aliens chasing after them. Will Moses and his merry men be victorious or will they fall prey to ‘those clamorous harbingers of blood and death’? Sorry, felt the need to quote Shakespeare.
The movie is highly enjoyable with its unique twist on the sci-fi genre blended with a healthy dose of humor, believable action and great anti-heroes. While the movie is a low budget film, the cast put on a big budget performance. The special effects were well done and not over the top like so many other sci-fi action movies I’ve seen. While the movie is a bit on the campy side (which I do enjoy) I do want to point out that with the exception of the alien-thing the film keeps things quite realistic. One negative thing about the film is that because of the British accent and slang I did not understand some of the dialogue (I’m sure the British say the same thing about our movies).
I will be honest, Nick Frost was the driving force behind me wanting to see this movie and I thoroughly enjoyed his scenes but he only has a few scenes. Jodie Whitaker did a very nice job of taking the audience on a journey of a character who, at the beginning is both mad at and afraid of those who had mugged her, but as the movie progresses those feelings are slowly replaced with mutual respect, understanding and friendship. Jumayn Hunter portrayed such a unique drug kingpin I was actually rooting for him (don’t worry law enforcement officials, I will still “Say ‘No’ to Drugs”). The rest of the supporting cast all did wonderful jobs as well but I want to talk about the actors that made up Moses’s Gang.
You wouldn’t know it by watching the movie but this is the first film for John Boyega, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard and Alex Esmail; the second movie for Franz Drameh. Even before knowing that, I already thought these five actors did an incredible job in the film but after finding that out I was really blown away. Their five characters are the core of the movie that takes us on this great adventure. However I do want to single out the lead John Boyega, as his character goes through a sort of rite of passage in the film. He does an amazing job with the range of emotion that is needed all the while keeping the character as real as a sci-fi film will allow. I will definitely keep an eye out for future films with these actors.
Anyway, back to the film. It’s Guy Fawkes Night in London, with fireworks exploding throughout the city, a small gang of teens are looking to have a little fun. The gang has 5 people; the leader Moses (John Boyega), Jerome (Leeon Jones), Dennis (Franz Drameh), Biggz (Simon Howard) and Pest (Alex Esmail). During this “fun time” they mug Sam (Jodie Whitaker) a nurse returning home from work. During the course of the mugging an object falls from the sky striking a nearby car. While the gang is distracted, Sam runs off and calls the police. As Moses investigates what hit the car and what he can steal, something scratches his arm and escapes into the night. Moses is so furious, he and the rest of the gang give chase, eventually cornering and killing the creature.
They aren’t sure what the creature is but they know they can probably make money off of it, so they take it to Ron (Nick Frost), the friendly neighborhood drug dealer who lives in their apartment complex, for safe keeping. As the gang enjoys a “relaxing” smoke (don’t worry anti-tobacco people, they aren’t smoking cigarettes), Moses is approached by Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) the local drug kingpin that Ron works for. Hi-Hatz likes the tough, street-smart Moses and wants him to be one of his dealers, a job Moses considers an honor to be offered.
As Moses’ gang gaze out the apartment’s window at the fireworks exploding over South London they see more aliens landing. They soon discover that these aliens are bigger, stronger, tougher and way more violent than the first one they encountered and, even worse than that, these aliens are coming after them. The gang decides that they have to fight back and protect their block. During one encounter with the aliens, Pest becomes seriously injured and they end up tracking down Sam (the nurse they mugged at the beginning of the movie) for help. Once Sam is convinced that they are telling the truth about the invasion she joins them and eventually a sort of mutual respect forms between her and the members of the gang. Unfortunately while they are fighting off the invasion, Moses’s gang has a falling out with Hi-Hatz. So just to be clear, at a point in the film, Moses and his gang have the police, Hi-Hatz with his crew and aliens chasing after them. Will Moses and his merry men be victorious or will they fall prey to ‘those clamorous harbingers of blood and death’? Sorry, felt the need to quote Shakespeare.
The movie is highly enjoyable with its unique twist on the sci-fi genre blended with a healthy dose of humor, believable action and great anti-heroes. While the movie is a low budget film, the cast put on a big budget performance. The special effects were well done and not over the top like so many other sci-fi action movies I’ve seen. While the movie is a bit on the campy side (which I do enjoy) I do want to point out that with the exception of the alien-thing the film keeps things quite realistic. One negative thing about the film is that because of the British accent and slang I did not understand some of the dialogue (I’m sure the British say the same thing about our movies).
I will be honest, Nick Frost was the driving force behind me wanting to see this movie and I thoroughly enjoyed his scenes but he only has a few scenes. Jodie Whitaker did a very nice job of taking the audience on a journey of a character who, at the beginning is both mad at and afraid of those who had mugged her, but as the movie progresses those feelings are slowly replaced with mutual respect, understanding and friendship. Jumayn Hunter portrayed such a unique drug kingpin I was actually rooting for him (don’t worry law enforcement officials, I will still “Say ‘No’ to Drugs”). The rest of the supporting cast all did wonderful jobs as well but I want to talk about the actors that made up Moses’s Gang.
You wouldn’t know it by watching the movie but this is the first film for John Boyega, Leeon Jones, Simon Howard and Alex Esmail; the second movie for Franz Drameh. Even before knowing that, I already thought these five actors did an incredible job in the film but after finding that out I was really blown away. Their five characters are the core of the movie that takes us on this great adventure. However I do want to single out the lead John Boyega, as his character goes through a sort of rite of passage in the film. He does an amazing job with the range of emotion that is needed all the while keeping the character as real as a sci-fi film will allow. I will definitely keep an eye out for future films with these actors.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Traffik (2018) in Movies
Nov 23, 2019
Verdict: Shock Filled Thriller
Story: Traffik starts when the ambitious reporter Brea (Patton) loses her big story and potential her job right on the eve of her birthday, her boyfriend John (Epps) wants to surprise her and with his friend Darren (Alonso) he gets a romantic weekend planned.
Heading up to the mountain location the couple find themselves in a gas station where confrontation is quick to find them with help stranger Red (Goss) along with gangs, showing a potential large group of different enemies. The romantic weekend takes a turn, first with the appearance of Darren and his girlfriend Malia (Sanchez), but again by a deadly gang of human traffickers led by Red, who will kill to keep their secret.
Thoughts on Traffik
Characters – Brea is an ambitious reporter always taking her time researching a story before throwing it to her editor, this has seen her get herself into trouble, losing stories and potentially her job. In her personal life it is her birthday celebrating among friends with a romantic getaway being part of it. This getaway will give her the biggest story of her career, when she finds herself targeted by human traffickers who want her in their collection. John is the boyfriend that is getting nervous about the getaway as he is about to propose to Brea, he gets hooked up by the friend that will give them the location and will need to help Brea fight back against the people after them. Red is the leader of the human traffickers, he can charm, but he will show his deadly side if anybody gets in his way.
Performances – Paula Patton is the star of the show here, she gives us a strong performance that shows us just how determined she is to survive. Omar Epps, Luke Goss and the rest of the cast all do a great job letting Paula shine through in this film.
Story – The story here follows a couple on a romantic getaway that get targeted by human traffickers who want to keep their secret safe. This is a story that is designed the highlight the horrific crimes of human trafficking, not just in America, but worldwide. Away from the message behind everything, we do see the mix of a home invasion, chase and fightback elements of story telling putting a firm light on the idea that women will fight back, in this case Brea. The way everything unfolds is mostly predictable which is fine, nothing really hits the intensity levels wanted from the film.
Action/Crime – The action is a mix of chases and fight between victim and captures, they are quick instead of being over the top. The crime side of the film does show us just how easily this operation can happen to the victims and how organised it can be run.
Settings – The film is set in the mountain range outside California where the people can pick and choose who they take.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – One of the main twists is too predictable.
Final Thoughts – This is a generic action thriller that does highlight an important message of the horrors of the human trafficking world that leaves Paula Patton to shine.
Overall: Important, but Generic.
Story: Traffik starts when the ambitious reporter Brea (Patton) loses her big story and potential her job right on the eve of her birthday, her boyfriend John (Epps) wants to surprise her and with his friend Darren (Alonso) he gets a romantic weekend planned.
Heading up to the mountain location the couple find themselves in a gas station where confrontation is quick to find them with help stranger Red (Goss) along with gangs, showing a potential large group of different enemies. The romantic weekend takes a turn, first with the appearance of Darren and his girlfriend Malia (Sanchez), but again by a deadly gang of human traffickers led by Red, who will kill to keep their secret.
Thoughts on Traffik
Characters – Brea is an ambitious reporter always taking her time researching a story before throwing it to her editor, this has seen her get herself into trouble, losing stories and potentially her job. In her personal life it is her birthday celebrating among friends with a romantic getaway being part of it. This getaway will give her the biggest story of her career, when she finds herself targeted by human traffickers who want her in their collection. John is the boyfriend that is getting nervous about the getaway as he is about to propose to Brea, he gets hooked up by the friend that will give them the location and will need to help Brea fight back against the people after them. Red is the leader of the human traffickers, he can charm, but he will show his deadly side if anybody gets in his way.
Performances – Paula Patton is the star of the show here, she gives us a strong performance that shows us just how determined she is to survive. Omar Epps, Luke Goss and the rest of the cast all do a great job letting Paula shine through in this film.
Story – The story here follows a couple on a romantic getaway that get targeted by human traffickers who want to keep their secret safe. This is a story that is designed the highlight the horrific crimes of human trafficking, not just in America, but worldwide. Away from the message behind everything, we do see the mix of a home invasion, chase and fightback elements of story telling putting a firm light on the idea that women will fight back, in this case Brea. The way everything unfolds is mostly predictable which is fine, nothing really hits the intensity levels wanted from the film.
Action/Crime – The action is a mix of chases and fight between victim and captures, they are quick instead of being over the top. The crime side of the film does show us just how easily this operation can happen to the victims and how organised it can be run.
Settings – The film is set in the mountain range outside California where the people can pick and choose who they take.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – One of the main twists is too predictable.
Final Thoughts – This is a generic action thriller that does highlight an important message of the horrors of the human trafficking world that leaves Paula Patton to shine.
Overall: Important, but Generic.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Citadel (2012) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Tommy is a father with agoraphobia after he saw his wife attacked by a group of children, he is trying to be the good father for his new born child, but his fears are controlling the situation, he sees children trying to take his child, he needs to face his fears to make it through this trauma he is going through. Priest is a renegade man that is aggressively searching for a way to bring down the feral children, he sees Tommy as a chance to get the job done, even if it is against what his religion states. Marie is one of the social workers that will help Tommy, she is trying to help him through the medical side even if she is the one that puts him in contact with the priest. The Feral Children are the highlight of the film because they are genuinely frightening when they attack.
Performances – Aneurin Barnard in the leading role does make us feel for his character, we believe he has been through the trauma and is the desperation to save his family. James Cosmo is fun to watch as anti-priest figure. Wunmi Mosaku doesn’t do anything wrong in the supporting role, if only we could have seen more from the character.
Story – The story here follows a new father that is dealing with his own trauma while raising his new born child, which will see him needing to face off against feral child that feed on people’s fears. The early thing that must be pointed out here, comes from the idea that we are not full convinced that we are seeing the fears of the character dealt with, for the most part we are seeing one man terrorised but even the people without the fear seem to be targets too, this mostly confuses the rule point in place. the idea that the feral child live in the abandoned flat complex doesn’t improve on things either because you would think more incidents would happen. The part of the story that does standout and is interesting to watch would be seeing how Tommy is dealing with his own traumas while remaining strong facing the possibility of not being able to raise his own child because of his problems, sadly we don’t see enough of this addressed with the horror side of the story taking over, which simply put, isn’t as interesting.
Horror – The horror starts of being home invasion like horror, which worked for the illness Tommy had, but when we enter the flats, it does become the highlight of the action in the film, feeling dark, scary with anything able to jump out to get them.
Settings – The settings show us the run down neighbourhood in which Tommy lives, the support groups around it and most importantly the empty flat block which has the feral children in it.
Special Effects – The effects are used mostly look practical, with the moments surrounding the feral child being the most notable and scary ones.
Scene of the Movie – Inside the flat block.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It breaks the rules it sets up too easily.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film that does take its time getting going, one the chaos is unleashed with get a highly intense final act which ramps the fear up to the max.
Overall: Slow Start, Strong Finish.
Performances – Aneurin Barnard in the leading role does make us feel for his character, we believe he has been through the trauma and is the desperation to save his family. James Cosmo is fun to watch as anti-priest figure. Wunmi Mosaku doesn’t do anything wrong in the supporting role, if only we could have seen more from the character.
Story – The story here follows a new father that is dealing with his own trauma while raising his new born child, which will see him needing to face off against feral child that feed on people’s fears. The early thing that must be pointed out here, comes from the idea that we are not full convinced that we are seeing the fears of the character dealt with, for the most part we are seeing one man terrorised but even the people without the fear seem to be targets too, this mostly confuses the rule point in place. the idea that the feral child live in the abandoned flat complex doesn’t improve on things either because you would think more incidents would happen. The part of the story that does standout and is interesting to watch would be seeing how Tommy is dealing with his own traumas while remaining strong facing the possibility of not being able to raise his own child because of his problems, sadly we don’t see enough of this addressed with the horror side of the story taking over, which simply put, isn’t as interesting.
Horror – The horror starts of being home invasion like horror, which worked for the illness Tommy had, but when we enter the flats, it does become the highlight of the action in the film, feeling dark, scary with anything able to jump out to get them.
Settings – The settings show us the run down neighbourhood in which Tommy lives, the support groups around it and most importantly the empty flat block which has the feral children in it.
Special Effects – The effects are used mostly look practical, with the moments surrounding the feral child being the most notable and scary ones.
Scene of the Movie – Inside the flat block.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It breaks the rules it sets up too easily.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror film that does take its time getting going, one the chaos is unleashed with get a highly intense final act which ramps the fear up to the max.
Overall: Slow Start, Strong Finish.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Joe (2019) in Movies
Feb 6, 2020
I managed to get a ticket to see this at the London Film Festival, it had made my long shortlist, the premise looked interesting and the graphics were extremely appealing. I was very excited to see what Little Joe had in store.
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Lee (2222 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Apr 8, 2019 (Updated Apr 8, 2019)
Shazam is the latest DC superhero to land himself a standalone movie and continues to highlight the fact that these self contained DC offerings really do seem to be a lot better than their rushed ensemble movie output. It also shows how much better they can be when straying from the traditional dark DC gloom and deciding to inject a bit more humour and fun into it all. Aquaman recently showed just how much of a box office success that formula can be, Wonder Woman before it to a certain extent, and although Shazam does certainly have some dark themes and moments, it’s ultimately a lot more fun than either of those.
Shazam does take it’s time in introducing our superhero though, not to mention our super-villain, and the result is a much more grounded and believable movie. We begin with young boy Thaddeus Sivana, traveling by car with his elder brother and father. It’s the first of a number of dark scenes involving the Sivana family, really helping us to get a better understanding and appreciation of the man he later becomes and the motivation that drives him. We then head to present day Philadelphia, where 15 year old Billy Batson is using whatever means possible, legal or otherwise, to try and locate the birth mother he became separated from as a young boy while at a crowded funfair. Since then, Billy has been in the foster care system, and now finds himself in the care of Victor and Rosa – former foster kids themselves, who now run a home for a small group of foster children. Billy is sharing a room with Freddy, a disabled boy with an interest in superheroes and the proud owner of some pretty cool superhero memorabilia, including a batarang from Batman and a genuine bullet, flattened from having bounced off the man of steel himself! The foster home is a pretty close knit group and Billy initially struggles to fit into this large new ready made family.
And then one day, while on the run after standing up to a couple of older kids who were bullying Freddy, Billy finds himself transported to a dark mysterious cave where he inherits the powers of aged wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsoul). The wizard is the last Shazam, currently protecting the world from an invasion of the Seven Deadly Sins, but now so weak that he must transfer his powers to someone who is true of heart. Absorbing his power, Billy becomes a grown up superhero (Zachari Levy), but by saying the word Shazam he is able to alternate between his teen body and that of the mighty superhero whenever he wants.
Once he manages to convince Freddy that he is in fact Billy and not some crazy guy in a suit, they have a lot of fun trying to work out which powers Shazam actually has and how to best make use of them. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll know that this is where a lot of the fun lies within the movie and it’s definitely very entertaining. But Billy eventually begins having a little too much fun for Freddy’s liking, and when all he is doing is skipping school to go shoot off lightning bolts for a gathered crowd, Freddy becomes frustrated that he is wasting his gift. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. Meanwhile, young Thaddeus Sivana has now become Dr Sivana (Mark Strong), acquiring some pretty impressive powers of his own and forging his own dark path in a scene which really pushes the 12A age rating for the movie. All his life, Sivana has been seeking the power that Billy has now acquired, so when this larger than life hero shows up, goofing around and not really taking that power seriously, Dr Sivana goes after Shazam to try and take the power for himself.
From there, the rest of the movie is pretty much a cat and mouse chase between Sivana and Shazam across the city, up in the sky and down on the streets as they smash through shopping malls and buildings before culminating in a fairground showdown. It’s actually a lot more fun than it sounds, although the whole movie could probably benefit from having about 10-15 minutes cut from it. Also, the dark threat introduced so shockingly earlier on in the movie, suddenly doesn’t become so shocking or menacing towards the end. It’s indicative of the tone of the movie as a whole really, trying to remain rooted in the traditional DC gloom, but striving for family friendly box office success. These are all very minor negatives for me though – overall Shazam is a lot of fun and very lighthearted, with a lot to say about the importance of family. And the Boardman family had an absolute blast watching it!
Shazam does take it’s time in introducing our superhero though, not to mention our super-villain, and the result is a much more grounded and believable movie. We begin with young boy Thaddeus Sivana, traveling by car with his elder brother and father. It’s the first of a number of dark scenes involving the Sivana family, really helping us to get a better understanding and appreciation of the man he later becomes and the motivation that drives him. We then head to present day Philadelphia, where 15 year old Billy Batson is using whatever means possible, legal or otherwise, to try and locate the birth mother he became separated from as a young boy while at a crowded funfair. Since then, Billy has been in the foster care system, and now finds himself in the care of Victor and Rosa – former foster kids themselves, who now run a home for a small group of foster children. Billy is sharing a room with Freddy, a disabled boy with an interest in superheroes and the proud owner of some pretty cool superhero memorabilia, including a batarang from Batman and a genuine bullet, flattened from having bounced off the man of steel himself! The foster home is a pretty close knit group and Billy initially struggles to fit into this large new ready made family.
And then one day, while on the run after standing up to a couple of older kids who were bullying Freddy, Billy finds himself transported to a dark mysterious cave where he inherits the powers of aged wizard Shazam (Djimon Hounsoul). The wizard is the last Shazam, currently protecting the world from an invasion of the Seven Deadly Sins, but now so weak that he must transfer his powers to someone who is true of heart. Absorbing his power, Billy becomes a grown up superhero (Zachari Levy), but by saying the word Shazam he is able to alternate between his teen body and that of the mighty superhero whenever he wants.
Once he manages to convince Freddy that he is in fact Billy and not some crazy guy in a suit, they have a lot of fun trying to work out which powers Shazam actually has and how to best make use of them. If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll know that this is where a lot of the fun lies within the movie and it’s definitely very entertaining. But Billy eventually begins having a little too much fun for Freddy’s liking, and when all he is doing is skipping school to go shoot off lightning bolts for a gathered crowd, Freddy becomes frustrated that he is wasting his gift. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. Meanwhile, young Thaddeus Sivana has now become Dr Sivana (Mark Strong), acquiring some pretty impressive powers of his own and forging his own dark path in a scene which really pushes the 12A age rating for the movie. All his life, Sivana has been seeking the power that Billy has now acquired, so when this larger than life hero shows up, goofing around and not really taking that power seriously, Dr Sivana goes after Shazam to try and take the power for himself.
From there, the rest of the movie is pretty much a cat and mouse chase between Sivana and Shazam across the city, up in the sky and down on the streets as they smash through shopping malls and buildings before culminating in a fairground showdown. It’s actually a lot more fun than it sounds, although the whole movie could probably benefit from having about 10-15 minutes cut from it. Also, the dark threat introduced so shockingly earlier on in the movie, suddenly doesn’t become so shocking or menacing towards the end. It’s indicative of the tone of the movie as a whole really, trying to remain rooted in the traditional DC gloom, but striving for family friendly box office success. These are all very minor negatives for me though – overall Shazam is a lot of fun and very lighthearted, with a lot to say about the importance of family. And the Boardman family had an absolute blast watching it!
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Official Secrets (2019) in Movies
Oct 16, 2019
Should this tense, dramatic thriller remain a Secret?
I was lucky enough to be invited to an advanced screening of this film, ahead of it's general release.
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!
"Official Secrets (2019)" is a tense and clever thriller based on real events that occurred during the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003. Keira Knightley plays Katherine Gun, a British spy-turned-whistleblower who worked for GCHQ at the time. She leaked confidential information to the press, exposing illegal activities at the highest levels of government intended to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq. Backed by a high-calibre support cast, which includes Matt Smith and Ralph Fiennes, this film serves to show you the true story of what happened during this shadowy and questionable chapter in our history.
The film uses actual news footage from the time to great effect, making you feel as if you're watching a biographical documentary on the History Channel. Knightley is captivating as the Robin Hood-esque lead, delivering a truly believable and heartfelt performance throughout. It wasn't until the credits began to roll and they showed you footage of the real Katherine Gun from news reels at the time that you realise just how good Knightley's performance really was. From the way she dressed to the tone in which she spoke and the small mannerisms of her personality, it was a very, very good portrayal.
As with most films like this, I imagine certain events and aspects of the story were dramatised or exaggerated for the purposes of cinema, but at no point did it ever feel like it. Any changes to real events were subtle enough that you couldn't spot them without detailed knowledge of what really happened at the time - something, it turns out, very few people actually had.
Matt Smith is both charming and uncompromising as the stubborn reporter who champions Gun's crusade for the truth, giving her support and a platform to get her message out to the world. Similarly, Ralph Fiennes looks right at home as the lawyer who defends her in the public eye.
I admit that certain aspects and legalities within the plot felt, at times, a little far-fetched, but honestly, the film did such a good job of telling this story, I'm inclined to think that's still how things actually happened.
Spoilers aren't as much of an issue for films like this, as you already know the outcome. But this film isn't about the destination, it's about the journey. It shines a spotlight on the down-and-dirty world of global politics, as well as how difficult it can sometimes be to choose to do the right thing.
The film moves along at a slow yet perfect pace. It doesn't look or feel like a Hollywood movie, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, it feels like a BBC drama, similar to Line of Duty or Luther or Spooks, and that's exactly the kind of approach this film needed to work.
I went into this admittedly understanding very little of what went on back in 2003. I was much younger and wasn't interested in geopolitics, or even the news in general. But seeing this film piqued my interest, and after a few hours of Googling the events depicted in the film, I'm even more in awe of just how well made this was. Kudos to everyone involved.
My only criticism, if I had to give one, would be the number of times people had to say "Official Secrets Act"... I get that's what the film is about, but it seemed like every character had a quota for the number of times they had to mention it! But that's just nit-picking for nit-picking's sake. This truly is a cracking film. One of the gems of the year that's not to be missed!