Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Feb 6, 2020
Brilliant performance by Zellwegger - and not much else
Renee Zellwegger is absolutely brilliant in her channeling of Judy Garland in the film JUDY. She deserves to - and WILL WIN - the Oscar for Best Actress. Her performance is amazing and I forgot that I was watching an actress playing Judy Garland and fell into a trance thinking I was actually watching the real Judy Garland.
Too bad the rest of the film is not this good.
Based on actual events, JUDY tells the story of a late in her career Judy Garland's trek to London for a series of Concerts. She is down on her luck, addicted to pills, filled with self doubt and ghosts from her past. In general...she is a wreck...and needs the $$ from these concerts to keep custody of her 2 young children.
And...Zellwegger plays all of these emotions as Judy very, very well as well as shining in the performance scenes where Judy was able - albeit for a short time - to "come up for air" and perform as the world class performer she is. Zellwegger trained for over a year with a vocal coach to get the singing/performance part of this film down - and it shows. She is brilliant in these moments.
The trouble with this film as written by Tom Edge (based on the stage play "End of the Rainbow" by Peter Quilter) and Director Rupert Goold is that this film doesn't really go anywhere. There is no arc to Judy's story. She starts the film as a trainwreck...and ends the film as a trainwreck. There isn't evem a realization by Judy that she is a trainwreck. She just IS a trainwreck.
And that does not a compelling movie make.
Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley, Finn Wittrock and Michael Gambon are all along for a ride on this train and all choose to get off before the end and the inevitable trainwreck that is going to happen.
Is this film worth seeing? Sure...for Zellwegger's Oscar winning performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything else to recommend it.
Letter Grade B (solely on the performance)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Too bad the rest of the film is not this good.
Based on actual events, JUDY tells the story of a late in her career Judy Garland's trek to London for a series of Concerts. She is down on her luck, addicted to pills, filled with self doubt and ghosts from her past. In general...she is a wreck...and needs the $$ from these concerts to keep custody of her 2 young children.
And...Zellwegger plays all of these emotions as Judy very, very well as well as shining in the performance scenes where Judy was able - albeit for a short time - to "come up for air" and perform as the world class performer she is. Zellwegger trained for over a year with a vocal coach to get the singing/performance part of this film down - and it shows. She is brilliant in these moments.
The trouble with this film as written by Tom Edge (based on the stage play "End of the Rainbow" by Peter Quilter) and Director Rupert Goold is that this film doesn't really go anywhere. There is no arc to Judy's story. She starts the film as a trainwreck...and ends the film as a trainwreck. There isn't evem a realization by Judy that she is a trainwreck. She just IS a trainwreck.
And that does not a compelling movie make.
Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley, Finn Wittrock and Michael Gambon are all along for a ride on this train and all choose to get off before the end and the inevitable trainwreck that is going to happen.
Is this film worth seeing? Sure...for Zellwegger's Oscar winning performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything else to recommend it.
Letter Grade B (solely on the performance)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The sixth instalment in the internationally loved wizarding franchise has been perhaps one of the most awaited films of the decade; even more so considering the gruelling year fans have had to wait since it was decided to push the film back 12 months.
David Yates is once again at the helm, which after the fifth film is somewhat of a surprise to many critics. With rumours speculating the return of Alfonso Cuaron as director, I breathed a sigh of relief, thinking perhaps we could get things back on track.
Alas, it was not to be. After two disappointing instalments, a third would be disastrous, though unfortunately, it seems to be the case here. Yates’ films just refuse to hit the spot, delving into unnecessary storylines that really don’t progress the film further. Take for example the climatic finale of the book atop the astronomy tower; well it’s been cut, replaced with an hour or so of non-stop snogging… ridiculous? I have words much stronger than that to describe it, but yes, ridiculous can do for now.
It would be silly to expect things to be perfect, but a little cohesion would have been welcome; to people who have not read the books, these films are starting to get incomprehensible and even to those that have, it still isn’t an enjoyable experience. Remember the chapter where The Burrow blows up? No? Well that’s because there isn’t one, but it’s been added, for explosions sake.
The Dursleys are cut, Dobby – cut, Dumbledore’s funeral – cut, Kreacher – cut, Bill and Fleur – cut, in fact most of the important things from the book; have been cut.
Happily, there is a rather small pot of gold at the end of this murky rainbow. The acting from most is absolutely excellent, Daniel Radcliffe has grown into his role brilliantly and Michael Gambon seems to finally have chosen the right moods for Dumbledore and his character. Newcomer Jim Broadbent is superb in his role as potions master Horace Slughorn and Alan Rickman is as usual glorious and fully able to spread his wings in the larger role he has been given in this film. On the negative side, Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley hasn’t developed into her role well, with her acting still being stilted; unfortunate, as her part is much larger in this film than the others.
Unfortunately, just like the previous two films, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince really hasn’t hit the spot, it seems the larger books of the boy wizards saga have in reality stumped their respective directors, ending up as a complete mess. It certainly has its moments, though at 153 minutes it should have; but it seems the best film from the 8 has been made slightly too prematurely. Film number 7, come on down!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/28/harry-potter-the-half-blood-prince/
David Yates is once again at the helm, which after the fifth film is somewhat of a surprise to many critics. With rumours speculating the return of Alfonso Cuaron as director, I breathed a sigh of relief, thinking perhaps we could get things back on track.
Alas, it was not to be. After two disappointing instalments, a third would be disastrous, though unfortunately, it seems to be the case here. Yates’ films just refuse to hit the spot, delving into unnecessary storylines that really don’t progress the film further. Take for example the climatic finale of the book atop the astronomy tower; well it’s been cut, replaced with an hour or so of non-stop snogging… ridiculous? I have words much stronger than that to describe it, but yes, ridiculous can do for now.
It would be silly to expect things to be perfect, but a little cohesion would have been welcome; to people who have not read the books, these films are starting to get incomprehensible and even to those that have, it still isn’t an enjoyable experience. Remember the chapter where The Burrow blows up? No? Well that’s because there isn’t one, but it’s been added, for explosions sake.
The Dursleys are cut, Dobby – cut, Dumbledore’s funeral – cut, Kreacher – cut, Bill and Fleur – cut, in fact most of the important things from the book; have been cut.
Happily, there is a rather small pot of gold at the end of this murky rainbow. The acting from most is absolutely excellent, Daniel Radcliffe has grown into his role brilliantly and Michael Gambon seems to finally have chosen the right moods for Dumbledore and his character. Newcomer Jim Broadbent is superb in his role as potions master Horace Slughorn and Alan Rickman is as usual glorious and fully able to spread his wings in the larger role he has been given in this film. On the negative side, Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley hasn’t developed into her role well, with her acting still being stilted; unfortunate, as her part is much larger in this film than the others.
Unfortunately, just like the previous two films, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince really hasn’t hit the spot, it seems the larger books of the boy wizards saga have in reality stumped their respective directors, ending up as a complete mess. It certainly has its moments, though at 153 minutes it should have; but it seems the best film from the 8 has been made slightly too prematurely. Film number 7, come on down!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/28/harry-potter-the-half-blood-prince/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gosford Park (2001) in Movies
Mar 24, 2020
Underneath it all...and Altman film
Do you like DOWNTON ABBEY? Do you like Agatha Christie Murder Mysteries? Do you like the 1970's British television series UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, then do I have a film for you.
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Mad To Be Normal (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Mental Health in the 60s
I’ll admit, whenever I see David Tennant’s name on a cast list I get excited. As a long time fan, I’ve watched him play a variety of roles brilliantly. So when I was given the opportunity to review Mad To Be Normal and I learned what the plot was, how could I refuse? Set in the 60s, the film follows Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing and his unconventional approach to mental health treatment, causing controversy within the psychiatry field.
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
Verdict: Zellweger Shines
Story: Judy starts in the late 1960’s where screen legend Judy Garland (Zellweger) has been running low on money, struggling to keep a roof over her children’s heads, she must let her ex-husband Sidney Luft (Sewell) look after them, while she travels to London, where she has a fan base dying to see her in sell-out concerts.
In London Judy is managed by Rosalyn Wilder (Buckley) who must make sure she makes the shows, Judy is trying to make the money, while experiencing the flashbacks of her time working on the Wizard of Oz, being order into certain diets, being controlled. She does make new friends and learns about her own personal problems.
Thoughts on Judy
Characters – Judy Garland is the screen legend, she has been struggling in the mid-40s with a reputation that claims she is difficult, needing to find a way to have an income, she moves to London for a string of shows, which soon sell out, giving her a chance at recovering her career, only her demons will continue to haunt her. Sidney Luft is the ex-husband that wants to have custody of their children back in America. Rosalyn Wilder is trying to manage Judy on the London, she does what she can, getting the most out of her. Bernard Delfont is financing the concerts, he is left disappointed with Judy, echoing what it was like for her as a child star. Most of the supporting characters don’t get much to do, while we focus a lot more on Judy’s life.
Performances – Renee Zellweger is fantastic in this leading role, completely controlling the scenes, making us feel every emotion that Judy would go through. Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley and Michael Gambon are all strong, though they don’t get much to work with.
Story – The story here follows Judy Garland’s arrival in London for a set of concerts, hoping to revive her career, only her past demons and reputation come back to haunt her once again. The story might show more of her time on the big stage in London which is all fine, but the tragic side of her story only comes in small flashbacks, these scenes are filled with pain and would have been a lot more interesting to see, just how badly she was treated at a young age by the blossoming Hollywood system. We don’t see much between The Wizard of Oz and 1968 either, which is where her bad reputation comes from, this would have also been nice to see, what caused this reputation, was it fair etc. we just seem to skip a lot, despite how interesting the loneliness Judy is experiencing in London would be.
Biopic – We only get to see a couple of moments from Judy’s life, part of the making of Wizard of Oz and then her 1968 concert tour in London, different stages of her career, different problems in her life.
Settings – The film has a couple of main settings, the set of Wizard of Oz, the stage in London and the hotel where she was staying in her time in London, they show her strength, her weakness and the place that broke her early in her life.
Scene of the Movie – Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning enough about why Judy became difficult to work with.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting biopic, where we get to see a difficult stage of her career, Zellweger is fantastic and elevates this film to new levels.
Overall: Nice Biopic, With Something Missing.
Story: Judy starts in the late 1960’s where screen legend Judy Garland (Zellweger) has been running low on money, struggling to keep a roof over her children’s heads, she must let her ex-husband Sidney Luft (Sewell) look after them, while she travels to London, where she has a fan base dying to see her in sell-out concerts.
In London Judy is managed by Rosalyn Wilder (Buckley) who must make sure she makes the shows, Judy is trying to make the money, while experiencing the flashbacks of her time working on the Wizard of Oz, being order into certain diets, being controlled. She does make new friends and learns about her own personal problems.
Thoughts on Judy
Characters – Judy Garland is the screen legend, she has been struggling in the mid-40s with a reputation that claims she is difficult, needing to find a way to have an income, she moves to London for a string of shows, which soon sell out, giving her a chance at recovering her career, only her demons will continue to haunt her. Sidney Luft is the ex-husband that wants to have custody of their children back in America. Rosalyn Wilder is trying to manage Judy on the London, she does what she can, getting the most out of her. Bernard Delfont is financing the concerts, he is left disappointed with Judy, echoing what it was like for her as a child star. Most of the supporting characters don’t get much to do, while we focus a lot more on Judy’s life.
Performances – Renee Zellweger is fantastic in this leading role, completely controlling the scenes, making us feel every emotion that Judy would go through. Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley and Michael Gambon are all strong, though they don’t get much to work with.
Story – The story here follows Judy Garland’s arrival in London for a set of concerts, hoping to revive her career, only her past demons and reputation come back to haunt her once again. The story might show more of her time on the big stage in London which is all fine, but the tragic side of her story only comes in small flashbacks, these scenes are filled with pain and would have been a lot more interesting to see, just how badly she was treated at a young age by the blossoming Hollywood system. We don’t see much between The Wizard of Oz and 1968 either, which is where her bad reputation comes from, this would have also been nice to see, what caused this reputation, was it fair etc. we just seem to skip a lot, despite how interesting the loneliness Judy is experiencing in London would be.
Biopic – We only get to see a couple of moments from Judy’s life, part of the making of Wizard of Oz and then her 1968 concert tour in London, different stages of her career, different problems in her life.
Settings – The film has a couple of main settings, the set of Wizard of Oz, the stage in London and the hotel where she was staying in her time in London, they show her strength, her weakness and the place that broke her early in her life.
Scene of the Movie – Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning enough about why Judy became difficult to work with.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting biopic, where we get to see a difficult stage of her career, Zellweger is fantastic and elevates this film to new levels.
Overall: Nice Biopic, With Something Missing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Spy spoof caper that’s only passably amusing.
It’s a HILARIOUS concept. It’s Bond but not as we know it: a suave, sophisticated, well-dressed hero but someone who’s a complete klutz when it comes to the spy business. Rowan Atkinson is perfect in the role: because when he plays his face ”straight” he IS strangely good-looking and certainly pulls off the air of confidence, intelligence and sophistication well.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
So it was that 2003’s Johnny English was a refreshing novelty. Roll forwards 15 years (via 2011’s “Johnny English Reborn”) and the concoction needs… you know… actual JOKES.
For “Johnny English Strikes Again” is unfortunately a pretty lame affair.
The Plot
Johnny English (Atkinson) is retired from MI7 and living life as a Geography teacher at a public school. Aside from teaching them about sheep farming in Australia and magma, English delights in teaching his young pupils the tricks of the spy trade: “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight”, with a twinkle and a vodka martini in hand. “You’re looking particularly beautiful tonight” repeats the class.
But the quiet life of English is about to end, since a cyber-attack has exposed all of MI7’s current agents and the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson) needs to re-hire a retired agent who is currently ‘off the grid’. But noone – friend or foe – is safe when the bumbling English and his faithful helper Bough (Ben Miller) go back into the field.
The Turns
As UK comedy professionals, Atkinson and Miller deliver their English/Bough schtick serviceably enough. The brilliant Emma Thompson though is woefully underused as a straight-woman, being asked to do little more than an exasperated Theresa May impersonation.
If you need a sexy and sophisticated femme fatale for a Bond spoof, what better than a real ex-Bond girl? So the extremely sexy and sophisticated Olga Kurylenko (Camille from “Quantum of Solace”) plays Ophelia Bhuletova, which sounds much funnier when pronounced by Atkinson. And a very good job she does too.
The Review
To emphasise the positive for a moment, the film is suitably glossy, which are table stakes for a spy caper like this or Austin Powers.
But the script by William Davies (who did the previous Johnny Englishes, but nothing much since “Reborn”) doesn’t deliver any real laugh-out-loud moments. My hopes were raised when the “pensioner interviews” happened and Charles Dance, Edward Fox and Michael Gambon turned up. Great, I thought… having the old timers play off Atkinson will be fun. But unfortunately they were nothing but cameos and (although one of the film’s comedy highlights) they came and went in the blink of an eye.
Elsewhere the film relied too much on a few running jokes: ostensibly the need for health and safety in MI7, where guns are rather frowned upon, given their potential to caused injury or worse. A ‘virtual reality’ training mission also delivers smiles but outstays its welcome.
The film is a first-time feature for TV-comedy director David Kerr.
Final thoughts
There are films which are wildly offensive. There are films that are just plain bad. This is neither: it is as Douglas Adams might have described it as “Mostly Harmless”. But to get any more than the rating I have given it, a comedy film has to make me laugh and this one failed miserably. It’s a watchable TV film for a rainy afternoon, but not worth heading out to the cinema to watch.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.