Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Well acted - and important - film
The new Jay Roach film, BOMBSHELL - the Fox News sex scandal film - focuses on the struggles of 3 female protagonists - Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) - as they attempt to climb (or stay at the top of) the Corporate Ladder while battling sexism and a toxic work culture at Fox News. It is a powerful story that is a necessary tale in the "#MeToo" era that demands viewers to stand up and take notice.
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Apr 2, 2019 (Updated Apr 5, 2019)
Not only have I not read the Stephen King book that Pet Sematary is based on, I haven't even seen the original 1989 movie either. As much as I feel ashamed for completely missing out on both of those, it also meant that I was able to head into this movie with nothing to compare it to and no idea of what to expect, other than a bit of creepy-burial-ground-raising-the-dead type stuff that the first trailer covered. One quick note on the trailers before I begin though - the most recent one, which luckily I only saw after I had seen the movie, pretty much gives away the entire plot. Granted, if you're a fan of Stephen Kings work, or even the original movie, then you're going to know what to expect anyway. But, if you're like me - someone who enjoys a good horror movie, but doesn't read books and has gaping holes in his movie viewing history, then try and give the trailers a miss on this occasion before heading into the cinema.
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) is a Boston doctor who moves his family to the (hopefully) less chaotic setting of rural Maine - wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz), 8 year old daughter Ellie (Jeté Laurence), toddler Gage and friendly family cat Church. However, the family soon discover that their house is located right alongside a road which is prone to noisy trucks suddenly speeding past - our first jump scare and something already given away by the trailers! Those trucks also have a tendency to end the lives of any local pets who might happen to wander out in front of them, so it's pretty handy that there happens to be a Native American graveyard out in the woods at the back of the Creed's new house.
The local children make good use of the area, carrying out a funeral procession while wearing masks before burying deceased pets there, and they have also erected a sign - "Pet Sematary", which is nailed to one of the trees outside of it. Unfortunately, it's not too long before Church falls victim to a passing truck, at which point friendly neighbour Jud (John Lithgow) tells Louis of a special burial ritual which can be carried out on an area of ground located even further into the forest. It's a ritual that can bring the dead back to life so, in order to avoid upsetting daughter Ellie, Louis keeps the death a secret until he and Jud can head out late that night to perform the ritual with Church. Sure enough, Church is back with the family the next morning - alive, but looking very disheveled and in a seriously grumpy mood. He's not quite the cute little bundle of joy he once was - as Jud puts it, "Sometimes dead is better".
After banging on earlier about spoilers for movies, I feel it would be wrong of me to go and do the same thing here. If you're familiar with the story, then you'll know what happens anyway, although there is a moderate change of detail in this particular version which has already had a few die hard Stephen King fans up in arms. I'll just say that the special properties of the burial ground get used on a few more occasions during the course of the movie, with increasingly devastating consequences, and I personally felt that the change to the source material totally worked within the confines of this version of the story.
Ok, so what did I think of the movie overall? Well, I found Pet Sematary to be pretty intense, even more so than 'Us' recently. There were a couple of guys to the side of me in the cinema who were sitting forward on the edge of their seat for the majority of the movie just hyperventilating - I thought they were going to have a heart attack at one point! Yes, there are some jump scares, but this was more the kind of nightmare horror that I loved while watching 'Us' and it had me gripped to my seat for a good 80% or so of its run-time. Everyone involved in the movie is on top form - the children are outstanding, as is Jason Clarke, John Lithgow, even the cat! The dread-filled atmosphere, the tragedy and the horror of it all, it really resonated with me and I came away from this exhausted but happy!
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Footloose (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Public dancing is against the law in the small religious town of Bomont. But Boston-raised teenager, Ren McCormack and the Reverend’s daughter Ariel have other ideas in this remake of the 1984 classic.
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
The original “Footloose” requires a 1980s mindset and was successful partially due the disjointed storytelling of teen films during that era. Up until now it could be said that there is no “Footloose” without Kevin Bacon. But surprise! The remake is so good that you may need to step back.
The cast is more polished than the original, particularly in lead female role of Ariel Moore brought back to the screen by Julianne Hough. Hough’s performance is more engaging than that of the original portrayal by Lori Singer. Taking the reigns of the role that made Kevin Bacon famous is Kenny Wormald as city boy Ren. Wormald wears the role with charm and the required “Footloose” too-cool-for-school style.
Reverend Shaw Moore, now played by Dennis Quaid, is far more emotional than the original depiction of the character first played by a John Lithgow. However, the same cannot be said for his wife, Vi Moore, with a disappointing performance from Andy McDowell. This is balanced however by the truly enjoyable portrayal of Ren’s best friend Willard by the well-timed comedy of Miles Teller.
Yes, there were cheesy moments. There was even a sunset so over the top that it may remind you Star Wars buffs of a certain lengthy romance scene in Episode Two. And yes, more than one of the reanimated lines from the classic film was forced. But the flubs were few and far between as this “Footloose” remake manages to succeed in many places where the original could have been improved.
The explanation of tragedy that originally befell Bomont has been extended, giving the town’s anti-dance perspective a little more sway. And this time around “Footloose” directly addresses a number of the small town versus big city stereotypes with strong dual sided humor.
The new “Footloose” still has less dancing then you want from a film entirely about dance, but when it does occur the style is much more diverse, ranging from hip hop to that famous “Footloose” country. There were things missed from the original; particularly the precision of Bacon’s solo dance scene, but this remake honors the impact of the original while standing on its own.
Now where do you buy a pair of red cowboy boots?!
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Accountant (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The Accountant starts as we see Christian Wolff at a young age struggling to deal with autism but with the correct tuition Christian (Affleck) has turned his math savant skills to help small town people manage their accounts. He is distant from people but always helps those who need it.
On the other side of the story we meet head of the treasury department Ray King (Simmons) who blackmails a young agent Marybeth Medina (Addai-Robinson) into investigating this mysterious accountant that has been working with the biggest names on the terrorists list, that accountant is Christian under an alter-ego.
Christian’s latest accountancy job is sorting 15 years of accounts for Lamar Black (Lithgow) Living Robotics company that have been working on defence contracts. While Christian gets on with his latest job we see how Brax (Bernthal) goes about cleaning up other questionable actions from the bankers. While Christian must deal with the junior accountant Dana Cummings (Kendrick) being too talkative for his own liking.
As the story continues to unfold we continue to learn just how dangerous Christian really is and what his bigger plan is. As Brax cleans up what Christian discovers his desperate need for completion explodes but what he discovers could expose the fraud going on.
The Accountant is one of the most complete action thrillers of recent years. The story does borrow elements from recent ideas with myself seeing a mix of John Wick and Dexter going on throughout. Where this story stand head and shoulders above most other films is the way the whole story gets completed. Another huge plus point for this film is that every character gets a full development and we see their story arc go full circle.
Ben Affleck gives a brilliant performance in this leading role where we get to see him have the full emotionless character that is intense to level most action character could only wish for. Jon Bernthal continues to shine through supporting roles in films after his time on television. J.K. Simmons and Cynthia Addai-Robinson work excellently together again with a perfect story arc to their character. The only negative in this film I found was the character Dana just feels added to the story while this doesn’t mean Kendrick is bad it was the character didn’t quite fit the full story.
This is easily one of the films of the year that I can fully expect everyone to enjoy and even at over two hours long you barely notice the time being used in this film.
Overall: Brutal action, story with heart and perfect story telling throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/12/12/the-accountant-2016/
On the other side of the story we meet head of the treasury department Ray King (Simmons) who blackmails a young agent Marybeth Medina (Addai-Robinson) into investigating this mysterious accountant that has been working with the biggest names on the terrorists list, that accountant is Christian under an alter-ego.
Christian’s latest accountancy job is sorting 15 years of accounts for Lamar Black (Lithgow) Living Robotics company that have been working on defence contracts. While Christian gets on with his latest job we see how Brax (Bernthal) goes about cleaning up other questionable actions from the bankers. While Christian must deal with the junior accountant Dana Cummings (Kendrick) being too talkative for his own liking.
As the story continues to unfold we continue to learn just how dangerous Christian really is and what his bigger plan is. As Brax cleans up what Christian discovers his desperate need for completion explodes but what he discovers could expose the fraud going on.
The Accountant is one of the most complete action thrillers of recent years. The story does borrow elements from recent ideas with myself seeing a mix of John Wick and Dexter going on throughout. Where this story stand head and shoulders above most other films is the way the whole story gets completed. Another huge plus point for this film is that every character gets a full development and we see their story arc go full circle.
Ben Affleck gives a brilliant performance in this leading role where we get to see him have the full emotionless character that is intense to level most action character could only wish for. Jon Bernthal continues to shine through supporting roles in films after his time on television. J.K. Simmons and Cynthia Addai-Robinson work excellently together again with a perfect story arc to their character. The only negative in this film I found was the character Dana just feels added to the story while this doesn’t mean Kendrick is bad it was the character didn’t quite fit the full story.
This is easily one of the films of the year that I can fully expect everyone to enjoy and even at over two hours long you barely notice the time being used in this film.
Overall: Brutal action, story with heart and perfect story telling throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/12/12/the-accountant-2016/
Kaz (232 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019 (Updated Jul 31, 2019)
A film which I can't figure out.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I read the novel 'Pet Semetary' last year and, although there are some questionable elements to the story, I thought that generally, it was a good, creepy read.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Having just watched the 2019 remake, (I must point out that I haven't watched the original film) I'm not sure what to make of it.
For me, the novel 'Pet Semetary' is really dark and creepy. What this film version does, is add to that atmosphere and made it even more sinister, which I really liked.
Another good thing about this adaptation, was that it stayed pretty close to the original text, for the most part. Usually I don't like changes when a book is being made into a film, but actually, thinking about it, some of the changes in 'Pet Semetary' were wise, due to practicalities,
For example, in the novel, Gage is the one that dies and not Ellie. I would imagine the producers of this film, might have thought that it would either be too extreme to show a 2-3 year old running around with a knife and also it would be difficult to direct a child in this type of scene. So I understand why this was changed.
I thought that the acting was ok, but nothing special. I think John Lithgow was underused as Judd and actually, I thought his character was much less likable, than Judd in the book. I would give a special mention to the child actor who plays Ellie, as I thought she played her role well.
Now, let's talk about the ending. Whilst I thought the ending of the book was rather questionable, I could understand the thinking behind it. This book's general theme is grief and so Louis' decision to resurrect his wife, illustrates that his grief was so powerful, that he would do almost anything to bring his loved on,e back from the dead.
The ending to the film version though, was very disappointing. For me, Stephen King, not only writes books which satisfy a reader's enjoyment for being scared, but also has other themes and messages running through them too. So, by changing the ending to this film, it kind of took away that sad, powerful message of grief and replaced it with a conventional, 'horror film' ending. This was really disappointing for me, because by putting in that ending, it kind of demeaned everything that the book was trying to do.
This film was ok and had some positive points, but I don't think it does the original book, sufficient justice.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
With media currently showing us scenes of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as he shuffles into court, expecting sympathy while his victims continue to try and rebuild their lives, along comes the timely release of Bombshell. Based on a high profile #MeToo scandal, Bombshell gives us a look deep inside the heart of Fox News, and tells the explosive story of the women who fought back against the powerful man who created it.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated This is 40 (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The last time we saw Pete and Debbie in the movie “Knocked Up”, they were just reconciling after a short separation. Pete found Debbie too controlling and regularly escaped the house leading Debbie to believe he was having an affair when really he was in a fantasy baseball draft. Five years later, Pete is no longer a band promoter but trying to keep his own record label afloat, while Debbie owns and manages a clothing boutique.
To the casual observer, Pete and Debbie, played with great chemistry by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, live an idyllic life with a nice house, two daughters and promising businesses. But a closer look finds Pete would rather play Scrabble on his iPad while on the toilet than spend time playing with his daughters. Most would never guess Debbie is a stress smoker since she goes to great lengths to hide her habit. Stressing over turning 40 isn’t helping her quit and neither is trying to figure out which of her employees is stealing from her. Is it the sexpot Desi, played easily by Megan Fox, or is it the strange Jodi, played with eerie weirdness by Charlyne Yi? As for Pete’s business, his stubborn antipathy towards popular music is driving his record label towards bankruptcy. But that’s not all that’s troubling Pete and Debbie. Both have daddy issues and neither know how quite to handle their over-emotional 14 year old daughter.
Sound like a hodge-podge of dilemmas? It certainly is. What started out as an amusing tale of turning 40 quickly devolved into a manic mess of pointing fingers, curse words, teenage angst and mental breakdowns. At one point in the film, Debbie’s dad, played by John Lithgow, looked utterly confused and I could empathize. If this movie had a storyline, it got lost along with any sympathy for Pete or Pete’s dad played by Albert Brooks. You know it’s bad when you start hoping the 8 year old daughter, Charlotte, says something funny again to break the tension.
With this strong cast of actors, including director Judd Apatow’s daughters Maude and Iris who played Pete and Debbie’s daughters, Sadie and Charlotte, there was no issue with the performances. Maybe some of the story was trimmed away in the editing room, but with a run time of 134 minutes, one would think some semblance of a storyline could have been left. Sure, there was plenty to laugh at, especially with bit parts played by Jason Segal, Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd.
I really wanted to like this movie. Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann sounded like the perfect trio to make a funny movie. Alas, the funny stuff is in the trailers. Save yourself some dough and wait for the DVD, where some of the storyline may make it in the deleted scenes.
To the casual observer, Pete and Debbie, played with great chemistry by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, live an idyllic life with a nice house, two daughters and promising businesses. But a closer look finds Pete would rather play Scrabble on his iPad while on the toilet than spend time playing with his daughters. Most would never guess Debbie is a stress smoker since she goes to great lengths to hide her habit. Stressing over turning 40 isn’t helping her quit and neither is trying to figure out which of her employees is stealing from her. Is it the sexpot Desi, played easily by Megan Fox, or is it the strange Jodi, played with eerie weirdness by Charlyne Yi? As for Pete’s business, his stubborn antipathy towards popular music is driving his record label towards bankruptcy. But that’s not all that’s troubling Pete and Debbie. Both have daddy issues and neither know how quite to handle their over-emotional 14 year old daughter.
Sound like a hodge-podge of dilemmas? It certainly is. What started out as an amusing tale of turning 40 quickly devolved into a manic mess of pointing fingers, curse words, teenage angst and mental breakdowns. At one point in the film, Debbie’s dad, played by John Lithgow, looked utterly confused and I could empathize. If this movie had a storyline, it got lost along with any sympathy for Pete or Pete’s dad played by Albert Brooks. You know it’s bad when you start hoping the 8 year old daughter, Charlotte, says something funny again to break the tension.
With this strong cast of actors, including director Judd Apatow’s daughters Maude and Iris who played Pete and Debbie’s daughters, Sadie and Charlotte, there was no issue with the performances. Maybe some of the story was trimmed away in the editing room, but with a run time of 134 minutes, one would think some semblance of a storyline could have been left. Sure, there was plenty to laugh at, especially with bit parts played by Jason Segal, Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd.
I really wanted to like this movie. Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann sounded like the perfect trio to make a funny movie. Alas, the funny stuff is in the trailers. Save yourself some dough and wait for the DVD, where some of the storyline may make it in the deleted scenes.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Spoiler free section: Pet Sematary starring Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz and John Lithgow wasn’t badly cast, it felt perfect actually, even the child actor Jete Laurence was above average. There wasn’t anything wrong with their performance either, each actor performed their role really well and their characters were believable. But the movie just left me needing so much more.
Pet Sematary is a movie about a family who moves from Boston to escape big city life and spend more quality family time in the country side. Little do they know that their new property contains a pet cemetery! Horror ensues… well kinda, a little bit does at least.
The movie moves at a slow creeping pace, which is fine for a horror movie to start but there needs to be payoff. The build up to payoff ratio is about 90-10. It’s all build up with a few aspects of the movie never having any sort of payoff whatsoever. Even the movie as a whole ended without solid resolution.
The atmosphere in the movie was average for a main stream horror movie but if you are a hardcore horror movie fan you will be disappointed. The movie drew a lot of unintentional laughter from the audience at times when the movie should have been building tension. There was the occasion where the movie was doing it intentionally and that’s really when the movie was at its best. I use the term “best” loosely as the movie sets the bar pretty low.
If you were expecting this reboot of the Stephen King classic to be on the same level as IT, you will be greatly disappointed.
Spoiler section: The unresolved stories in this movie really bugged me.
There is a character played by Obssa Ahmed, who is a car accident victim who kinda haunts the family but says it’s because the main character tried to help him before he died. He seems like he’s eventually going to play a saving role but never does, he just exists, for no reason.
The actual Pet Sematary is meaningless. It’s actually not haunted, and nothing exceptional happens there. It’s just a passing through point to the actual haunted place a mile away. Boring.
Kids with the masks and the funeral procession that looked really cool in the preview meant nothing…
Supernatural things kept happening in the house. Was the house haunted? I couldn’t tell if it was the family, the house or just the area a mile behind the house that was haunted. The only thing I was sure about was that the titular pet cemetery was the only thing not haunted at all.
This movie is not for hard core horror fans, its more for your mom who likes scary movies occasionally. I can’t recommend this movie. It’s very forgettable and not worth the price of admission. Super vanilla, pointless characters and plot points, and only a few jump scares make this movie a hard pass. 1.5 out 5 stars. That Ramones song during the end credits is catchy as hell though J
Pet Sematary is a movie about a family who moves from Boston to escape big city life and spend more quality family time in the country side. Little do they know that their new property contains a pet cemetery! Horror ensues… well kinda, a little bit does at least.
The movie moves at a slow creeping pace, which is fine for a horror movie to start but there needs to be payoff. The build up to payoff ratio is about 90-10. It’s all build up with a few aspects of the movie never having any sort of payoff whatsoever. Even the movie as a whole ended without solid resolution.
The atmosphere in the movie was average for a main stream horror movie but if you are a hardcore horror movie fan you will be disappointed. The movie drew a lot of unintentional laughter from the audience at times when the movie should have been building tension. There was the occasion where the movie was doing it intentionally and that’s really when the movie was at its best. I use the term “best” loosely as the movie sets the bar pretty low.
If you were expecting this reboot of the Stephen King classic to be on the same level as IT, you will be greatly disappointed.
Spoiler section: The unresolved stories in this movie really bugged me.
There is a character played by Obssa Ahmed, who is a car accident victim who kinda haunts the family but says it’s because the main character tried to help him before he died. He seems like he’s eventually going to play a saving role but never does, he just exists, for no reason.
The actual Pet Sematary is meaningless. It’s actually not haunted, and nothing exceptional happens there. It’s just a passing through point to the actual haunted place a mile away. Boring.
Kids with the masks and the funeral procession that looked really cool in the preview meant nothing…
Supernatural things kept happening in the house. Was the house haunted? I couldn’t tell if it was the family, the house or just the area a mile behind the house that was haunted. The only thing I was sure about was that the titular pet cemetery was the only thing not haunted at all.
This movie is not for hard core horror fans, its more for your mom who likes scary movies occasionally. I can’t recommend this movie. It’s very forgettable and not worth the price of admission. Super vanilla, pointless characters and plot points, and only a few jump scares make this movie a hard pass. 1.5 out 5 stars. That Ramones song during the end credits is catchy as hell though J
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Interstellar (2014) in Movies
Aug 9, 2018
Another top notch cinematic experience by the best director of our time
2014's INTERSTELLAR is one of Christopher Nolan's most ambitious works - and that is saying alot. It also is one of his best. Nolan - and his brother, the screenwriter of this film, Jonathan Nolan - wanted to make a "real" science fiction film, with the emphasis on the science, so they enlisted the help of noted theoretical physicist, Dr. Kip Thorne to ensure that they were not violating any established physical laws and that all speculations would spring from science and not fantasy.
And, for the most part, they succeed.
Following the adventures of "everyman" Cooper (if you call a farmer who is also a top notch astronaut, pilot and engineer an everyman), Interstellar tells of an Earth of the not-too-distant future that is running out of food and mankind must find a new planet to inhabit or else face extinction. Talked into leaving his family and heading into space, Cooper must face the challenges of his mission while fighting the emotions of leaving his family behind on a dying world.
As Cooper, Matthew McConaughey (at the height of his "McConnaissance") is perfectly cast as this "everyman". He brings the right balance of charisma, heroism, emotional maturity, intelligence and a "down to earth" behavior that has us rooting for him from the start. His acting is at the highest level and is matched, beat by beat by Jessica Chastain and (surprisingly to me at the time) Anne Hathaway as a fellow astronaut/scientist.
The special effects, worlds, circumstances, narrow escapes and deflating defeats are all handled in typical top-notch Nolan fashion, but it is the emotional stakes - specifically between McConaughey and Chastain (as his grown up daughter) are what keeps this film "grounded" and rises it above the standard sci-fi fair.
Nolan regular Michael Caine, the always great John Lithgow, Wes Bentley, Ellen Burstyn, a "before he was famous" Timothee Chalamet, another "before he was famous" David Oyelowo, Casey Affleck and a "surprise apperance" by a very famous "A" lister (who I will not name, so as not to ruin it) are all equally as good and give the proceedings the gravitas it needs.
Special notice needs to be made of the performance of Bill Irwin as the robot TARS (all space movies need a robot, right?). He performs the puppetry of the robot (Nolan wished to do everything as "practical" as possible) and adds large doses of humanity - and humor - to this non-human.
Another bit of special notice needs to be given to frequent Nolan collaborator - the brilliant Composer Hans Zimmer. He was tasked by Nolan to create a "unique" score - one that does not rely heavily on crescendoing strings and horns - and he succeeds tremendously with a hauntingly, melodic and driving score that heightens - but never overpowers - the scenes playing on the screen.
The decision as to whether or not you like this film will hinge on your "believability" of the final chapter - one where I "went with the flow" and was all right with, but (I'm sure) others will struggle with.
All in all, another top notch film by the best director of our day. If you have never seen INTERSTELLAR - or if you haven't seen it in awhile - I suggest you check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, for the most part, they succeed.
Following the adventures of "everyman" Cooper (if you call a farmer who is also a top notch astronaut, pilot and engineer an everyman), Interstellar tells of an Earth of the not-too-distant future that is running out of food and mankind must find a new planet to inhabit or else face extinction. Talked into leaving his family and heading into space, Cooper must face the challenges of his mission while fighting the emotions of leaving his family behind on a dying world.
As Cooper, Matthew McConaughey (at the height of his "McConnaissance") is perfectly cast as this "everyman". He brings the right balance of charisma, heroism, emotional maturity, intelligence and a "down to earth" behavior that has us rooting for him from the start. His acting is at the highest level and is matched, beat by beat by Jessica Chastain and (surprisingly to me at the time) Anne Hathaway as a fellow astronaut/scientist.
The special effects, worlds, circumstances, narrow escapes and deflating defeats are all handled in typical top-notch Nolan fashion, but it is the emotional stakes - specifically between McConaughey and Chastain (as his grown up daughter) are what keeps this film "grounded" and rises it above the standard sci-fi fair.
Nolan regular Michael Caine, the always great John Lithgow, Wes Bentley, Ellen Burstyn, a "before he was famous" Timothee Chalamet, another "before he was famous" David Oyelowo, Casey Affleck and a "surprise apperance" by a very famous "A" lister (who I will not name, so as not to ruin it) are all equally as good and give the proceedings the gravitas it needs.
Special notice needs to be made of the performance of Bill Irwin as the robot TARS (all space movies need a robot, right?). He performs the puppetry of the robot (Nolan wished to do everything as "practical" as possible) and adds large doses of humanity - and humor - to this non-human.
Another bit of special notice needs to be given to frequent Nolan collaborator - the brilliant Composer Hans Zimmer. He was tasked by Nolan to create a "unique" score - one that does not rely heavily on crescendoing strings and horns - and he succeeds tremendously with a hauntingly, melodic and driving score that heightens - but never overpowers - the scenes playing on the screen.
The decision as to whether or not you like this film will hinge on your "believability" of the final chapter - one where I "went with the flow" and was all right with, but (I'm sure) others will struggle with.
All in all, another top notch film by the best director of our day. If you have never seen INTERSTELLAR - or if you haven't seen it in awhile - I suggest you check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.