Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Red Joan (2018) in Movies
Apr 1, 2020
Forgettable
This is not the type of film that I'd willingly choose to watch. It didnt sound or look particularly appealing, however due to the requirement of social distancing my boyfriend and I are taking it in turns to pick films each evening to watch "together" (in our separate houses). This was his choice, and sadly it wasnt a very good one.
The main issue with this film is that is fairly predictable romance nonsense, and there really isnt enough Judi Dench. Nothing against Sophie Cookson, but to have Judi Dench in this film and barely use her is almost a travesty. It also seems to concentrate mostly on the romantic aspect of Joan's life, which gets rather frustrating as you watch a rather intelligent young woman turn into a naive lovelorn idiot the moment she gets involved with a vaguely handsome man. The concentration on the romance side for me made it feel like the rest of the film, and indeed the more important war related concerns, were pushed to one side and I felt like there was a lot of plot lines in this that weren't satisfactorily explained. I did also wonder why, if this film was inspired by a true story, that the central character wasnt named after the real person? Aside from the "Red Joan" makes for a catchier title.
Overall this isnt bad enough to switch off without making it to the end, but ultimately it winds up rather unsatisfying and entirely forgettable.
The main issue with this film is that is fairly predictable romance nonsense, and there really isnt enough Judi Dench. Nothing against Sophie Cookson, but to have Judi Dench in this film and barely use her is almost a travesty. It also seems to concentrate mostly on the romantic aspect of Joan's life, which gets rather frustrating as you watch a rather intelligent young woman turn into a naive lovelorn idiot the moment she gets involved with a vaguely handsome man. The concentration on the romance side for me made it feel like the rest of the film, and indeed the more important war related concerns, were pushed to one side and I felt like there was a lot of plot lines in this that weren't satisfactorily explained. I did also wonder why, if this film was inspired by a true story, that the central character wasnt named after the real person? Aside from the "Red Joan" makes for a catchier title.
Overall this isnt bad enough to switch off without making it to the end, but ultimately it winds up rather unsatisfying and entirely forgettable.
Michael Foreman: An Illustrated Life
Book
"One of my earliest memories is lying on the floor in front of the kitchen fire, drawing..." Michael...
John Gielgud: Matinee Idol to Movie Star
Book
New in paperback, John Gielgud: Matinee Idol to Movie Star is the most authoritative and...
Catalonia: A Cultural History
Book
Squeezed between more powerful France and Spain, Catalonia has endured a violent history. Its...
The Bigamist
Book
Directed by the actor/film-maker Ida Lupino, The Bigamist (1953) is the story of Harry Graham, a...
Vacation Mogul HD
Games and Entertainment
App
Make more money than you ever dreamed possible in Vacation Mogul, a casual building sim! Become one...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Nov 15, 2018
Master Director working some Masterful Camerawork
For my next deep dive into a film of the "Master of Suspense", Alfred Hitchock, I thought I'd pull out a "one-trick pony" film of his, 1948's ROPE. Based on a stage play, HItchock decided to film this movie as it were a play - keeping the entire film in one location (an apartment) and to film it in (what appears to be) one long take.
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
The film starts off with a murder, we see two young men (John Dall and Farley Granger) strangling their "inferior" friend. They then decide to hold a dinner party to see if anyone can tell that they have committed murder. Included in this party is the dead friend's girlfriend (Joan Chandler), his father (Sir Cedrick Hardwicke) and their old school teacher (James Stewart).
The fun of this film isn't "will they get caught", it's "how will they get caught - and by who". The cast is wonderful (especially Hardwicke) but they all take a back seat to the absolute stellar performance of Stewart who begins to piece together that something is amiss and turns the tide on the two murderers.
The real star of this film is Director HItchock and his camera. Since he decided to make this in one long take, it took a master of organization and logistics to pull this off, having stagehands move furniture and walls out of the way (and back in again) as the camera moved around. In 1948, a camera could only hold 10 minutes worth of film, so the "one long take" aspect of this is a trick, as it is really 8 takes with strategic timing of camera movements behind walls and backs to give the illusion of seamlessness.
The interesting thing of this "trick" is that you are totally at the control of what Hitchock wants you to see (and not see). There is a scene about 1/2 way through the film that completely ignores the action and the people in the scene and focuses on the trunk the body is in. It is a masterwork, and the tension of keeping your focus there throughout the course of this part of the film is scary, tense and mesmerizing.
One last thing, Hitchock makes a cameo in every one of his films. Try to tell where Hitch is in this film (and, no, it is not as someone walking by the apartment at the beginning of the movie).
Not one of Hitchock's best, plotwise, but one of his best, camera-wise. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, darn it all, if he doesn't pull it off.
The film starts off with a murder, we see two young men (John Dall and Farley Granger) strangling their "inferior" friend. They then decide to hold a dinner party to see if anyone can tell that they have committed murder. Included in this party is the dead friend's girlfriend (Joan Chandler), his father (Sir Cedrick Hardwicke) and their old school teacher (James Stewart).
The fun of this film isn't "will they get caught", it's "how will they get caught - and by who". The cast is wonderful (especially Hardwicke) but they all take a back seat to the absolute stellar performance of Stewart who begins to piece together that something is amiss and turns the tide on the two murderers.
The real star of this film is Director HItchock and his camera. Since he decided to make this in one long take, it took a master of organization and logistics to pull this off, having stagehands move furniture and walls out of the way (and back in again) as the camera moved around. In 1948, a camera could only hold 10 minutes worth of film, so the "one long take" aspect of this is a trick, as it is really 8 takes with strategic timing of camera movements behind walls and backs to give the illusion of seamlessness.
The interesting thing of this "trick" is that you are totally at the control of what Hitchock wants you to see (and not see). There is a scene about 1/2 way through the film that completely ignores the action and the people in the scene and focuses on the trunk the body is in. It is a masterwork, and the tension of keeping your focus there throughout the course of this part of the film is scary, tense and mesmerizing.
One last thing, Hitchock makes a cameo in every one of his films. Try to tell where Hitch is in this film (and, no, it is not as someone walking by the apartment at the beginning of the movie).
Not one of Hitchock's best, plotwise, but one of his best, camera-wise. Well worth checking out.
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Social Media involvement in political manipulation? Don’t be ridiculous!
Set in the near future “The Circle” tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said “like”!) Emma Watson (“Beauty and the Beast“) plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Doctor Who”) but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having “executive potential” by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“) and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt).
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.