Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
As the Nazi’s sweep through Europe at the beginning of World War II the British face the difficult issue of replacing their Prime Minister. The people and members of Parliament have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). They feel his lack of action lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. He agrees to step down and has to name a replacement. While he would prefer to have his protégé, Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), there is only one member of his party that all of Parliament will accept, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) is also opposed to the brash and opinionated Churchill. Bowing to the will of the opposition Churchill the King agrees to appoint him the next Prime Minister. Although he is thrilled at finally achieving his lifelong dream he has no delusions that he is facing extremely difficult times ahead. The Nazis are tearing through Europe. They have already taken Belgium and Holland they now are invading France. The Nazis have also managed to surround nearly the entire British ground force on the French beaches with no way home. Not only does he have to worry about foreign foes but also his numerous political enemies in his own party. Many oppose his brash and unpredictable nature, while others think of him as heavy drinker that is no more than an exceptional orator with little capacity to make hard decisions. He must overcome all of this to protect the English people and prepare them for the tough days ahead.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Victor Frankenstein (2015) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018 (Updated Feb 25, 2018)
I, Igor
If you're one of those people who thinks that the story of Frankenstein pays far too much attention to him actually making the monster, and not enough to the details and ups-and-downs of his relationship with Igor the hunchback, then this is the film for you (although if that's your attitude, you really don't deserve Frankenstein movies at all). Deformed circus clown becomes brilliant self-taught surgeon and anatomist, is rescued by unconventional medical student, gets put to work stitching.
James McAvoy could have been a great Frankenstein, but not with a script like this one - narration keeps banging on about how familiar we all are with this story, before going off into new and wildly eccentric territory - Igor has a romance with a trapeze artist, there are problems with steampunk zombie chimps, etc. Actual creation of famous monster only happens in last ten minutes. Film has zero feeling for historical setting (a version of Victorian London where nobody bats an eyelid if your name is Igor or Frankenstein).
All the major themes of Shelley's story are basically sidelined in favour of overwrought emotional drama. Best thing in it is possibly Andrew Scott as a detective looking to bust Dr F for interfering with zoo animals; his scenes with McAvoy are actually pretty interesting. The kind of film that seems to be afraid the audience will get bored and wander away if there isn't an outbreak of slow-mo or CGI or whatever every five minutes. How does Max Landis manage to keep selling scripts like this one? Moderately good-looking but a massive waste of potential.
James McAvoy could have been a great Frankenstein, but not with a script like this one - narration keeps banging on about how familiar we all are with this story, before going off into new and wildly eccentric territory - Igor has a romance with a trapeze artist, there are problems with steampunk zombie chimps, etc. Actual creation of famous monster only happens in last ten minutes. Film has zero feeling for historical setting (a version of Victorian London where nobody bats an eyelid if your name is Igor or Frankenstein).
All the major themes of Shelley's story are basically sidelined in favour of overwrought emotional drama. Best thing in it is possibly Andrew Scott as a detective looking to bust Dr F for interfering with zoo animals; his scenes with McAvoy are actually pretty interesting. The kind of film that seems to be afraid the audience will get bored and wander away if there isn't an outbreak of slow-mo or CGI or whatever every five minutes. How does Max Landis manage to keep selling scripts like this one? Moderately good-looking but a massive waste of potential.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated The Batman Who Laughs in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I am really eating up DC's books of late, especially the Scott Snyder and James Tynion IV! Yes, there are some hiccups along the way, as true for even the best of publishers, but the overall good output far outshines the bad/MEH output! I am quite liking this whole "Rebirth" thing and the way it ties into WATCHMEN, can't wait to see it all wrapped with DOOMSDAY CLOCK #12. <i>*ahem*</i> Let's not get ahead of ourselves then, eh? Onto my thoughts on TBWL..
I liked it quite a bit! Yes, it probably could easily have been a 5-issue mini, but I don't feel the story suffered by the added length. It allowed for the crazy roller coaster ride that it was to be even crazier, helped to spread just a bit more darkness in Gotham! Oh, and it showed how Alfred truly is the necessary light in Batman/Bruce's life, something B-Man totally needs, far more than Selina (sorry, Tom King, but I don't think the romance between the two works. Jus' sayin' is all!).
I know a lot of folks absolutely <b>abhor</b> DARK NIGHTS: METAL and anything relating to it, including the Batman Who Laughs! Me? I am enjoying it to no great end! It reminds me of some of the best things about the 90's, just turned up to 11! I think it's an interesting concept, bringing some clever creepiness into DC's "Rebirth"! And besides, it is at least something fresh and different (unlike the umpteenth X-deaths/reboots over at Marvel!)!
One aspect of the mini that really drove it all home was the art by Jock. I loved what he did in the WYTCHES (also with Snyder), and here it is just as good, if not better. The use of shadows and angles brings the creepiness all up and about, leaving with you long after the lights have gone out and sleep comes over you!
I already mentioned it, and several others have as well in their reviews, but Alfred was clearly the MVP here! He was totally on board, taking being a butler to a whole new level beyond 100%! I think sometimes he is under-utilized, but here he definitely got some much needed appreciation and respect! Kudos to you, Scott Snyder, for giving Alfred his due!
And lastly, that ending, the last couple panels? Ewwwww... chills!! Now, I can not wait to read Joshua Williamson's BATMAN/SUPERMAN #1! No spoilers, tho', promise!
So, yes, I was super-impressed with THE BATMAN WHO LAUGHS, just as I was with Snyder's DARK NIGHTS: METAL. If you didn't like METAL, then, well, chances are pretty likely you won't like this one!
I liked it quite a bit! Yes, it probably could easily have been a 5-issue mini, but I don't feel the story suffered by the added length. It allowed for the crazy roller coaster ride that it was to be even crazier, helped to spread just a bit more darkness in Gotham! Oh, and it showed how Alfred truly is the necessary light in Batman/Bruce's life, something B-Man totally needs, far more than Selina (sorry, Tom King, but I don't think the romance between the two works. Jus' sayin' is all!).
I know a lot of folks absolutely <b>abhor</b> DARK NIGHTS: METAL and anything relating to it, including the Batman Who Laughs! Me? I am enjoying it to no great end! It reminds me of some of the best things about the 90's, just turned up to 11! I think it's an interesting concept, bringing some clever creepiness into DC's "Rebirth"! And besides, it is at least something fresh and different (unlike the umpteenth X-deaths/reboots over at Marvel!)!
One aspect of the mini that really drove it all home was the art by Jock. I loved what he did in the WYTCHES (also with Snyder), and here it is just as good, if not better. The use of shadows and angles brings the creepiness all up and about, leaving with you long after the lights have gone out and sleep comes over you!
I already mentioned it, and several others have as well in their reviews, but Alfred was clearly the MVP here! He was totally on board, taking being a butler to a whole new level beyond 100%! I think sometimes he is under-utilized, but here he definitely got some much needed appreciation and respect! Kudos to you, Scott Snyder, for giving Alfred his due!
And lastly, that ending, the last couple panels? Ewwwww... chills!! Now, I can not wait to read Joshua Williamson's BATMAN/SUPERMAN #1! No spoilers, tho', promise!
So, yes, I was super-impressed with THE BATMAN WHO LAUGHS, just as I was with Snyder's DARK NIGHTS: METAL. If you didn't like METAL, then, well, chances are pretty likely you won't like this one!
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Batman: Detective Comics, Volume 7: Batmen Eternal in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Well, boys and girls (and all non-gender folks as well), I have made to the last entry in James Tynion IV's run on DETECTIVE COMICS! Wowwowwoweeewow! What an amazing run it was!!
Following the beginnings of "Rebirth", I was excited, as it was doing away with much of the New52 stuff that was just crap, helping to restructure the DCU. Unfortunately, my initial excitement was partially crushed by Tom King, as he left me, for want of a better word, <i><b>hating</i></b> the Dark Knight!
That was the general feeling until I read Scott Snyder's BATMAN run (OMG! The Court of Owls is such a cool concept! I could totally see Faction Paradox involving themselves with the Court!) and then Tynion's run on DETECTIVE! Both writers have helped me to remember why I always liked the character of Batman, and what goes into making him cool and interesting!
This final volume, BATMAN ETERNAL, brings all of the plotlines together: the stuff with Tim Drake, angst-y Steph Brown/Spoiler (who, actually, was less angst-y, so that was great) and all her issues, Batman "vs." Batwoman, the Belfry, Cassandra Cain/Orphan and her role in the world going forward, as well as what became of [Spoiler!]. The answers given were well-thought out and fitting to the whole arc overall. Everything Tynion presented made sense, and really helped to restore Batman to being a great character, with depth and emotion. Definitely a better Batman than in the Tom King-helmed BATMAN book!
All the artists, even Eddy Barrows (who, normally, I kinda like, but the last two volumes he felt off), were top notch! Perfectly suited to the mood, environment running through this final Tynion 'TEC arc! So, let me just give a hearty applause for all their effort to Javier Fernandez, Eddy Barrows, Alvaro Martinez, Philippe Briones, Scot Eaton, Raul Fernandez, Eber Ferreira, and Wayne Faucher! Brilliant work, lads, absolutely brilliant!
Yes, I recommend this book, but more than that, I recommend you read all seven of the volumes of DETECTIVE COMICS! Some of the best, most Batman-like Batman stuff you will read!
Following the beginnings of "Rebirth", I was excited, as it was doing away with much of the New52 stuff that was just crap, helping to restructure the DCU. Unfortunately, my initial excitement was partially crushed by Tom King, as he left me, for want of a better word, <i><b>hating</i></b> the Dark Knight!
That was the general feeling until I read Scott Snyder's BATMAN run (OMG! The Court of Owls is such a cool concept! I could totally see Faction Paradox involving themselves with the Court!) and then Tynion's run on DETECTIVE! Both writers have helped me to remember why I always liked the character of Batman, and what goes into making him cool and interesting!
This final volume, BATMAN ETERNAL, brings all of the plotlines together: the stuff with Tim Drake, angst-y Steph Brown/Spoiler (who, actually, was less angst-y, so that was great) and all her issues, Batman "vs." Batwoman, the Belfry, Cassandra Cain/Orphan and her role in the world going forward, as well as what became of [Spoiler!]. The answers given were well-thought out and fitting to the whole arc overall. Everything Tynion presented made sense, and really helped to restore Batman to being a great character, with depth and emotion. Definitely a better Batman than in the Tom King-helmed BATMAN book!
All the artists, even Eddy Barrows (who, normally, I kinda like, but the last two volumes he felt off), were top notch! Perfectly suited to the mood, environment running through this final Tynion 'TEC arc! So, let me just give a hearty applause for all their effort to Javier Fernandez, Eddy Barrows, Alvaro Martinez, Philippe Briones, Scot Eaton, Raul Fernandez, Eber Ferreira, and Wayne Faucher! Brilliant work, lads, absolutely brilliant!
Yes, I recommend this book, but more than that, I recommend you read all seven of the volumes of DETECTIVE COMICS! Some of the best, most Batman-like Batman stuff you will read!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mercy (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“With shroud, and mast, and pennon fair”.
It’s 1968. Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle“; “Magic in the Moonlight“), an amateur sailor and entrepreneur based in Teignmouth, Devon, is inspired by listening to single-handed round-the-world yachtsman Sir Francis Chichester and does a a crazy thing. He puts his business, his family’s house and his own life on the line by entering the Sunday Times single-handed round-the-world yacht race. It’s not even as if he has a boat built yet!
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jul 19, 2022
Tense and Suspenseful
Part STRANGER THINGS and Part IT, the new Blumhouse film, THE BLACK PHONE, is a surprisingly effective horror/thriller that is reminiscent of the better Stephen King stories - and that just might be because the short story for which this film is based on is written by Joe Hill - Stephen King’s son.
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)