Search
Justice Denied: Extraordinary Miscarriages of Justice
Book
An incisive examination by the bestselling author of The Mammoth Book of Gangs of some of the many...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Renfield (2023) in Movies
Apr 22, 2023
Cage feels Caged-In
Sometime you are in the mood for a drama, sometimes an action flick, other times a romantic comedy.
And then there are times you just want to watch Nicholas Cage camping it up on-screen as Dracula.
If that is the mood you are in, boy do I have a movie for you.
Based (very loosely) on the character created by Bram Stoker (and the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi), RENFIELD tells the tale of an over-the-top Dracula in modern times as seen through his “familiar”, Renfield.
Nicholas Hoult (Beast in the latest series of X-Men films) plays Renfield as a put-upon assistant to Dracula - kind of a comedy/horror version of the relationship of Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA - and it works (for the most part). Hoult is a winning (enough) and sympathetic presence on screen and you find yourself rooting for him in the end.
The surprising thing to me in this film is the sub-plot of Renfield finding love with a Police Office portrayed by (of all people) Awkwafina. This comedienne/actress has really grown on the BankofMarquis as a solid and dependable presence on screen and she doesn’t disappoint here. And that’s a good thing for the Renfield/Rebecca the Cop relationship ends up taking center stage during the 2nd act of this film (moving Nic Cage’s Dracula off-screen for a long stretch of time) and it works for Hoult and Awkwafina play off each other very well.
As for Cage, his Dracula is off-center, wacky, frenetic and out-of-this world. A true fish-out-of-water. But…if I’m being honest…his performance feels reigned in and it didn’t go far enough out-of-the-box and didn’t get nearly crazy enough for my tastes.
When something like that happens, one needs to look no further than the Director and Chris McKay (THE LEGO MOVIE, THE TOMORROW WAR) has a track record (at least for the BankofMarquis) of pulling his punches - and he pulls many, many punches in this film. But, he also DOESN’T pull punches at times (like in the scene where one guy gets his arms ripped off and then these arms are used as nunchucks on a bevy of bad guys). He doesn’t really know how far or how outlandish he should go. So he filters in a comedic amount of blood and gore - and then reigns Cage in. It’s an odd choice.
If you decide to watch Renfield, you already know what to expect - and for the most part you get it - except in the one spot that you really need it.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And then there are times you just want to watch Nicholas Cage camping it up on-screen as Dracula.
If that is the mood you are in, boy do I have a movie for you.
Based (very loosely) on the character created by Bram Stoker (and the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi), RENFIELD tells the tale of an over-the-top Dracula in modern times as seen through his “familiar”, Renfield.
Nicholas Hoult (Beast in the latest series of X-Men films) plays Renfield as a put-upon assistant to Dracula - kind of a comedy/horror version of the relationship of Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA - and it works (for the most part). Hoult is a winning (enough) and sympathetic presence on screen and you find yourself rooting for him in the end.
The surprising thing to me in this film is the sub-plot of Renfield finding love with a Police Office portrayed by (of all people) Awkwafina. This comedienne/actress has really grown on the BankofMarquis as a solid and dependable presence on screen and she doesn’t disappoint here. And that’s a good thing for the Renfield/Rebecca the Cop relationship ends up taking center stage during the 2nd act of this film (moving Nic Cage’s Dracula off-screen for a long stretch of time) and it works for Hoult and Awkwafina play off each other very well.
As for Cage, his Dracula is off-center, wacky, frenetic and out-of-this world. A true fish-out-of-water. But…if I’m being honest…his performance feels reigned in and it didn’t go far enough out-of-the-box and didn’t get nearly crazy enough for my tastes.
When something like that happens, one needs to look no further than the Director and Chris McKay (THE LEGO MOVIE, THE TOMORROW WAR) has a track record (at least for the BankofMarquis) of pulling his punches - and he pulls many, many punches in this film. But, he also DOESN’T pull punches at times (like in the scene where one guy gets his arms ripped off and then these arms are used as nunchucks on a bevy of bad guys). He doesn’t really know how far or how outlandish he should go. So he filters in a comedic amount of blood and gore - and then reigns Cage in. It’s an odd choice.
If you decide to watch Renfield, you already know what to expect - and for the most part you get it - except in the one spot that you really need it.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated A Little Chaos (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Better suited to T.V.
From the mind of director Alan Rickman, everyone’s favourite Slytherin, A Little Chaos follows the story of a gardener as she tries to prove her worth, creating a fountain at the beautiful Gardens of Versailles. But does this historical drama have any depth?
Kate Winslet takes on the role of Sabine De Barra, a visionary landscape gardener who is tasked with creating the stunning piece of architecture in Versailles for King Louis XIV, portrayed by a typically on-point Rickman.
8379_poster_iphoneThe plot is stretched out into a film that lasts a little over two hours and despite some breath-taking scenery and excellent performances, A Little Chaos couldn’t be further removed from its title – in fact it’s all a little flat and Saturday night TV drama-esque.
A promising supporting cast that includes Stanley Tucci as Louis XIV’s gay brother and Matthias Schoenaerts, a former Cesar award-winner, as the king’s principal gardener, is wasted as the film spends much of its running time trying to tie together numerous loose ends, from a tragedy plot to a new-found romance.
Rickman’s direction is admirable and he certainly knows how to get the best out of his landscapes, but like the many shrubs in A Little Chaos, it all needed pruning back slightly more with at least 20 minutes of exposition being completely unnecessary.
Moreover, for a film that has its secondary focus on horticulture, there is very little in the way of gardening, and I for one was hoping for more beautiful shots of the stunning grounds rather than rain-soaked Winslet and admittedly impressive hair pieces.
Nevertheless, both Winslet and Rickman are superb in their roles and it’s nice to see the latter take on something a little less sinister after his well-received performances in the Harry Potter franchise and of course his brilliant turn in Die Hard.
The former is, alongside Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore, one of the most reliable actresses in cinema. Her performance here is excellent and through her tragic past, we see more to the character of Sabine the further we get into the picture.
It’s just a shame that none of it registers. After a disappointingly slow first half, things only moderately gain pace as the film
reaches its poorly CGI finished conclusion. Winslet’s character is given more depth than she needs and the audience faces the difficult task of dealing with numerous bits of information that don’t really come together.
Overall, Alan Rickman’s latest effort in the director’s chair lacks the magic and sparkle that he brings to his acting and despite mesmerising performances from Kate Winslet and Rickman himself, A Little Chaos is more at home on the small screen, rather than the big.
After all, if an overly camp Stanley Tucci fails to generate interest, there’s something seriously amiss.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/19/better-suited-to-tv-a-little-chaos-review/
Kate Winslet takes on the role of Sabine De Barra, a visionary landscape gardener who is tasked with creating the stunning piece of architecture in Versailles for King Louis XIV, portrayed by a typically on-point Rickman.
8379_poster_iphoneThe plot is stretched out into a film that lasts a little over two hours and despite some breath-taking scenery and excellent performances, A Little Chaos couldn’t be further removed from its title – in fact it’s all a little flat and Saturday night TV drama-esque.
A promising supporting cast that includes Stanley Tucci as Louis XIV’s gay brother and Matthias Schoenaerts, a former Cesar award-winner, as the king’s principal gardener, is wasted as the film spends much of its running time trying to tie together numerous loose ends, from a tragedy plot to a new-found romance.
Rickman’s direction is admirable and he certainly knows how to get the best out of his landscapes, but like the many shrubs in A Little Chaos, it all needed pruning back slightly more with at least 20 minutes of exposition being completely unnecessary.
Moreover, for a film that has its secondary focus on horticulture, there is very little in the way of gardening, and I for one was hoping for more beautiful shots of the stunning grounds rather than rain-soaked Winslet and admittedly impressive hair pieces.
Nevertheless, both Winslet and Rickman are superb in their roles and it’s nice to see the latter take on something a little less sinister after his well-received performances in the Harry Potter franchise and of course his brilliant turn in Die Hard.
The former is, alongside Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore, one of the most reliable actresses in cinema. Her performance here is excellent and through her tragic past, we see more to the character of Sabine the further we get into the picture.
It’s just a shame that none of it registers. After a disappointingly slow first half, things only moderately gain pace as the film
reaches its poorly CGI finished conclusion. Winslet’s character is given more depth than she needs and the audience faces the difficult task of dealing with numerous bits of information that don’t really come together.
Overall, Alan Rickman’s latest effort in the director’s chair lacks the magic and sparkle that he brings to his acting and despite mesmerising performances from Kate Winslet and Rickman himself, A Little Chaos is more at home on the small screen, rather than the big.
After all, if an overly camp Stanley Tucci fails to generate interest, there’s something seriously amiss.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/19/better-suited-to-tv-a-little-chaos-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mr. Holmes (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Sir Ian McKellen is magnificent
Sherlock Holmes is hot property at the moment. Robert Downey Jr has played the titular detective in two box-office behemoths and Benedict Cumberbatch is supremely popular across the globe for his take on the character.
Now, Sir Ian McKellen is giving it a go in the little-publicised BBC funded Mr Holmes. But does it continue the trend of crafting intriguing dramas from the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls and the upcoming Beauty & the Beast live-action remake takes charge of an intriguing film that ends up having a whiff of Saturday night drama about it.
Mr Holmes follows the story of the titular character as he comes to terms with his advancing years. McKellen plays Holmes at age 93, living away from the public eye in a quiet rural location alongside his harsh housekeeper Mrs Munro (Laura Linney) and her son Roger – a wonderful Milo Parker in his first big-screen role.
Ian McKellen is simply brilliant throughout the course of the film and after years of playing Gandalf and Magneto, slows things right down in a portrayal of the detective never really seen before – he is magnificent.
Laura Linney is a good distraction from McKellen’s rather downbeat role but her character doesn’t really do enough to register and her accent wanders through numerous countries by the time the end credits roll. This is very much McKellen’s film.
Mr Holmes, much like A Little Chaos earlier this year is a slow-paced drama that would rather tackle the finer details of the script and focus on its characters then delve into unnecessary subplots and fancy special effects and there’s something charming about this simplicity.
Unfortunately though, it all just feels a little TV drama like. Because of this, you’re almost expecting a ‘To be continued…’ credit to be added at the end of the first hour – with the conclusion coming a week later.
This is a real shame as it makes Mr Holmes feel longer than it actually is. At just over 100 minutes, this is by no means a drawn-out film but the slow pace ensures things seem to take a little longer than they perhaps would in another feature.
Thankfully though, Ian McKellen’s performance is reason enough to give Mr Holmes a watch, with another being the intriguing and at times, rather unpredictable plot.
Overall, there isn’t really that much wrong with Mr Holmes but its release date is almost suicidal. Being sandwiched in between blockbusters like Jurassic World, Minions and Terminator: Genisys, it has a tough job to do and it deserves more success than I fear it will end up having.
Ian McKellen, like Meryl Streep is one of the finest living thespians and Mr Holmes only cements his position at the very top of his craft. However, it’s probably best reserved for a night-time viewing with slippers and a hot cup of cocoa.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/21/sir-ian-mckellen-is-magnificent-mr-holmes-review/
Now, Sir Ian McKellen is giving it a go in the little-publicised BBC funded Mr Holmes. But does it continue the trend of crafting intriguing dramas from the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls and the upcoming Beauty & the Beast live-action remake takes charge of an intriguing film that ends up having a whiff of Saturday night drama about it.
Mr Holmes follows the story of the titular character as he comes to terms with his advancing years. McKellen plays Holmes at age 93, living away from the public eye in a quiet rural location alongside his harsh housekeeper Mrs Munro (Laura Linney) and her son Roger – a wonderful Milo Parker in his first big-screen role.
Ian McKellen is simply brilliant throughout the course of the film and after years of playing Gandalf and Magneto, slows things right down in a portrayal of the detective never really seen before – he is magnificent.
Laura Linney is a good distraction from McKellen’s rather downbeat role but her character doesn’t really do enough to register and her accent wanders through numerous countries by the time the end credits roll. This is very much McKellen’s film.
Mr Holmes, much like A Little Chaos earlier this year is a slow-paced drama that would rather tackle the finer details of the script and focus on its characters then delve into unnecessary subplots and fancy special effects and there’s something charming about this simplicity.
Unfortunately though, it all just feels a little TV drama like. Because of this, you’re almost expecting a ‘To be continued…’ credit to be added at the end of the first hour – with the conclusion coming a week later.
This is a real shame as it makes Mr Holmes feel longer than it actually is. At just over 100 minutes, this is by no means a drawn-out film but the slow pace ensures things seem to take a little longer than they perhaps would in another feature.
Thankfully though, Ian McKellen’s performance is reason enough to give Mr Holmes a watch, with another being the intriguing and at times, rather unpredictable plot.
Overall, there isn’t really that much wrong with Mr Holmes but its release date is almost suicidal. Being sandwiched in between blockbusters like Jurassic World, Minions and Terminator: Genisys, it has a tough job to do and it deserves more success than I fear it will end up having.
Ian McKellen, like Meryl Streep is one of the finest living thespians and Mr Holmes only cements his position at the very top of his craft. However, it’s probably best reserved for a night-time viewing with slippers and a hot cup of cocoa.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/21/sir-ian-mckellen-is-magnificent-mr-holmes-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Greatest Love Story Ever Told in Books
Mar 12, 2019
Enjoyable book about two fun and interesting people.
In 2000, Megan Mullally and Nick Offerman meet on the set of a play. And the rest, as they say, is history. Their book is the story of their relationship--telling the story of how they met, from each's first impressions of one another and ranging across their courtship, wedding, work, and romance. The book covers such topics as family, past romances, religion, theater, and more.
I love both Megan and Nick immensely, so I was extremely excited when I saw they had a book coming out. My library copy arrived a day after publication, so I hadn't even had a chance to read many reviews. I didn't realize that most of the book is in interview/oral history-type format, so when you read the actual book, it just flips between Megan and Nick chatting back and forth. This takes a little getting used to and while I'm not a big audiobook fan (personal preference, my brain wanders too much), I think this is one that would be *fantastic* in audio form. I'm stalking our public library, waiting for them to get an audio copy for my wife. There are a few chapters that are written out, and I enjoyed those a bit more.
"To my way of thinking, it's an illustration of a relationship that the reader might find surprisingly normal. When all you have by which to judge a relationship are some grippingly cute Instagram videos, it might not occur to one that there's a lot of banal real life." ~Nick
So mostly, this book is just Nick and Megan talking. Because it's Nick and Megan, it's still pretty darn enjoyable. They cover certain topics in various chapters, so it can get a bit repetitive in places (we learn multiple times that Nick's family is salt of the earth and Megan's was, well, not). Still, it's fascinating to learn how the two met, a bit about their various careers (not as much as I would have liked--there are no funny Will and Grace or Parks and Recs anecdotes here), and a lot about their pasts.
The best part is that the book makes you smile--it's clearly apparent how much Nick and Megan love each other. I enjoyed learning more about both of them and how they spend their life together. Megan shares a fun Meryl Streep story, I loved her even more because apparently she's a hermit who loves to read (ME TOO MEGAN LET'S BE FRIENDS), and they are a couple who likes to hang out and do puzzles with their dogs. Life goals at its best.
"It's a wonder that I ever had a boyfriend in my entire life, because all I really like to do is read. I don't even know how I ever met another human."
"All I ever want to do is read. I only leave the house under duress."
Overall, this is fun book about two fun and interesting people. If you're an audiobook fan--even a little bit--I bet you'd enjoy it more in that format. If you like Megan or Nick, you'll find something to enjoy in this one. If you're looking for a chronological history with lots of tidbits about their careers, this isn't that book. But if you want some insight into Megan and Nick as people, this is a worthwhile read.
I love both Megan and Nick immensely, so I was extremely excited when I saw they had a book coming out. My library copy arrived a day after publication, so I hadn't even had a chance to read many reviews. I didn't realize that most of the book is in interview/oral history-type format, so when you read the actual book, it just flips between Megan and Nick chatting back and forth. This takes a little getting used to and while I'm not a big audiobook fan (personal preference, my brain wanders too much), I think this is one that would be *fantastic* in audio form. I'm stalking our public library, waiting for them to get an audio copy for my wife. There are a few chapters that are written out, and I enjoyed those a bit more.
"To my way of thinking, it's an illustration of a relationship that the reader might find surprisingly normal. When all you have by which to judge a relationship are some grippingly cute Instagram videos, it might not occur to one that there's a lot of banal real life." ~Nick
So mostly, this book is just Nick and Megan talking. Because it's Nick and Megan, it's still pretty darn enjoyable. They cover certain topics in various chapters, so it can get a bit repetitive in places (we learn multiple times that Nick's family is salt of the earth and Megan's was, well, not). Still, it's fascinating to learn how the two met, a bit about their various careers (not as much as I would have liked--there are no funny Will and Grace or Parks and Recs anecdotes here), and a lot about their pasts.
The best part is that the book makes you smile--it's clearly apparent how much Nick and Megan love each other. I enjoyed learning more about both of them and how they spend their life together. Megan shares a fun Meryl Streep story, I loved her even more because apparently she's a hermit who loves to read (ME TOO MEGAN LET'S BE FRIENDS), and they are a couple who likes to hang out and do puzzles with their dogs. Life goals at its best.
"It's a wonder that I ever had a boyfriend in my entire life, because all I really like to do is read. I don't even know how I ever met another human."
"All I ever want to do is read. I only leave the house under duress."
Overall, this is fun book about two fun and interesting people. If you're an audiobook fan--even a little bit--I bet you'd enjoy it more in that format. If you like Megan or Nick, you'll find something to enjoy in this one. If you're looking for a chronological history with lots of tidbits about their careers, this isn't that book. But if you want some insight into Megan and Nick as people, this is a worthwhile read.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
One Mann’s Movies Review of “Marriage Story” – a “Kramer vs Kramer lite” in my book, albeit with some great acting performances.
K vs K Lite.
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
For me, mention the phrase “divorce movie” and there’s only one film that comes to mind – the Oscar-laden classic from 1979 starring an immaculate Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. THAT toy plane; THOSE stiches! (Gulp). This is the yardstick by which I judge such movies… and to be honest, “Marriage Story” didn’t measure up.
The story.
We start the movie seeing the apparently idyllic married life of theatre impresario Charlie (Adam Driver) and his lead actress and muse Nicole (Scarlett Johansson), together bringing up their young child. But spin forwards and the pair are in the middle of an ‘amicable’ separation, with Nicole returning to her home roots in California and Charlie having an expensive commute to and from New York where he’s struggling to premiere his show on Broadway.
But despite an agreement to keep lawyers out of the equation, Nicole is persuaded to lawyer up with Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern) tightening up the legal screws until Charlie’s life risks being torn apart. It’s time for him to fight back.
Well regarded by the Academy.
As for “Kramer vs Kramer”, this is a movie that has been garlanded with multiple Oscar nominations. Both Driver and Johansson are nominated in the lead acting roles and Laura Dern seems to be favourite for the Best Supporting Actress gong (after winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA). Three more Oscar nominations come for the score (by Randy Newman); the original screenplay (by director Noah Baumbach); and a Best Film nomination.
Both leads deliver really emotional performances, with Johansson in particular being very believable in the role. But who knew she was so short?! She always strikes me as a statuesque beauty, but she’s only 5′ 3” and it’s particularly noticeable in a scene filmed at Warner Brothers Studios.
It’s also fabulous to see both the great Alan Alda (here showing signs of his Parkinson’s) and Ray Liotta on screen again, as both low-rent and top-dollar lawyers respectively.
But WHY exactly are they divorcing?
I found the whole set up of the movie as frustrating. There seemed no clear understanding of why the separation is happening. True there is an affair involved (and Mrs Movie Man and I have always lived our nearly 40 years of marriage with the understanding that a “one strike” rule applies). But notwithstanding that, it seems to be more of a ‘drifting apart’ that’s gone on. I just wanted to give them a good shaking and get them to work it out!
This is all obviously unfair – because (and I also know this from experience) that in many marriages ‘shit happens’: some people do just want to do different things; feel suffocated; etc. And – thinking about it – I’m not sure there was any real reason given for Meryl Streep‘s departure in K vs K: which was part of the reason for Dustin Hoffman‘s character’s frustration.
Who do you sympathise with?
This is a movie where the audience is bound to take a side. But for me, there was only one side to take and that was Charlie’s. The actions of Nicole seem reprehensible and unforgivable, and when there are lines to be crossed she seems to have little hesitation in crossing them.
Many people seem to rave about this movie, but…
…I found the pace to be inconsistent. At one point, the story just stops for a soulful rendition by Charlie of a song in a bar, and I frankly just got bored with it. And while there’s a steady build up of the legal case involved, suddenly we seem to skip to a resolution without any real rationale for it. Or did I fall asleep??
A further irritation for me was Julie Hagerty as Nicole’s mum Sandra. She does the kooky mum turn that she did perfectly well in last year’s funny “Instant Family“, but its a role that really didn’t seem to fit in this movie. There’s an element of slapstick comedy in these scenes that just didn’t suit the general tone of the movie.
Overall, I just don’t share the love for this movie. Given the choice, I’d much rather watch Kramer vs Kramer again.
And what was that punchline?
By the way, Alan Alda is a fantastic comedian, and really knows how to deliver a joke. In this movie he’s regaling Charlie with a long-winded story (on the clock) when Charlie interrupts him. How did it end…. Alda revealed the full joke after a press screening at the New York Film Festival… and it’s a corker!
This woman’s at her hairdresser’s, and she says, “I’m going to Rome on holiday.”
He says, “Oh really, what airline are you taking?”
She says, “Alitalia.”
He says, “Alitalia, are you crazy? That’s terrible, don’t take that.”
He says, “Where are you gonna stay?”
She says, “I’m gonna stay at The Hassler.”
“The Hassler! What, are you kidding? They’re renovating the Hassler. You’ll hear hammering all night long. You won’t sleep! What are you gonna see?”
She says, “I think I’m going to try to go to the Vatican.” “The Vatican? You’ll be standing in line all day long—”
(Charlie interrupts at this point, but the joke goes on)
So she goes to Rome. She comes back, and the hairdresser says, “How was it?”
She says, “It was a great trip, it was wonderful.”
“How was the Vatican?”
“Wonderful! We happened to meet the Pope.”
“You met the Pope?”
“Yeah, and he spoke to me.”
“What did he say to you?”
“He said, ‘Where’d you get that f***ing haircut?’”
LOL!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I had a dream. A sob. A sing.
You remember in “Aliens” when Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) fought through hell and high water against that “bitch” to protect the youngster Newt (Carrie Henn)? And then how betrayed you felt in that emotional investment at the start of “Alien 3”?
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Adrift (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Hurricane Raymond has been upgraded to a category 5”
“Should we be worried” says Tami. Well, yes dear, you really should.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.
In the glorious surroundings of Tahiti, the American footloose traveller Tami Oldham (Shailene Woodley, “Divergent trilogy“, “The Descendents) meets British footloose traveller Richard Sharp (Sam Claflin, “Journey’s End“, “Me Before You“) and a nautical-based love beckons. Richard is hired by his friends Peter (Jeffrey Thomas) and Christine (Elizabeth Hawthorne) to sail their luxury 44 foot yacht Hazana from Tahiti to Tami’s home city of San Diego. But they hadn’t reckoned on the decidedly un-romantic attentions of Raymond and severely battered and bruised it’s a battle for survival on the vast expanse of the Pacific.
I was intrigued by this film as it seems to have divided the professional critics’ opinions: Kevin Maher in The Times gave it five stars… five! Conversely Edward Porter in The Sunday Times gave it two stars. After seeing the film, I’m with Mr Maher on this one (breaking convention as I haven’t exactly been in tune with this reviewer recently!).
As a story with romantic undertones, the film will live or die on your belief in this aspect. And fortunately the romance works. There is real chemistry between the pair despite them striking you as an odd couple. This is in no small part to the quality of the acting: Claflin proves again that he is a safe pair of hands as a male lead, but it’s Shailene Woodley, who has to carry large portions of the film single-handedly, who again demonstrates just how excellent an actress she is. The camera of Tarentino favourite Robert Richardson (“The Hateful Eight“, “Django Unchained”) stays tightly on Woodley’s features dramatically capturing her tiniest of grimaces.
Woodley is also deliciously un-Hollywood, getting to where she has through acting talent as much as her looks. Yes, she has a great body (liberally, perhaps a tad lasciviously, featured here both above and under the water) but her face is gloriously assymettical with little wrinkles appearing unexpectedly when she grins. She’s a good role model for young girls that perfection is not a pre–requisite for success. (What’s perhaps less good, role-model-wise, is that Woodley allegedly ate only 350 calories a day to get to the emaciated state seen at the end of the film! But to compensate, it’s notable that she looks so much better/sexier at the start of the film than at the end).
It’s also interesting to note that the 27-year old Woodley is also a co-producer on the film, a sign perhaps that as well as being the ‘Meryl Streep of the future'(TM), she is also likely to become a significant mover and shaker in Hollywood when getting there.
A bit like “The Shallows“, it’s unapologetically a B movie, but it’s delivered with such style and chutzpah that it drives its way through the apallingly cheesy dialogue just as the poor Hazana bashes its way throught the mountainous seas. It’s even self-mocking, with Tami rolling her eyes at the corniness of Richard’s, very English, attempts at romantic dialogue. The script is more successful in establishing back-stories for Tami and Richard, demonstrating a degree of parallelism that perhaps better explains their mutual attraction. The irony of fate taking Tami back to her damaged past is exquisite.
A controversial and brave decision by Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur is to constantly flashback between the survival scenes and Tami and Richard’s courtship that leads up to the cataclismic event. This can be a little distracting, but given the gut-wrenching twist in the third act a linear storytelling would simply have not worked. It’s very well done too, with matched cross-cuts that really work well. Kormákur’s previous film “Everest” was his biggest hit to date, and I noted the cheeky addition of the book “Everest” on the bookshelf on Richard’s boat! (As an aside, “Everest” is for some reason the film review on One Mann’s Movies that has been viewed more often than any other… no idea why… must be down to search engine results!)
Extraordinarily, it’s a true story with the closing frames of the film being genuinely moving.
With many similarities to the excellent Robert Redford thriller “All Is Lost”, this is a robust and enthralling thriller-cum-romance that unusually delivers on both counts. The romance is believable and the thrills suitably thrilling, especially when a panic-ridden Tami is separated from her one patch of dry land. Although slightly let down by some dodgy dialogue, sitting amongst all the big-hitter summer blockbusters this is a movie you should definitely seek out.