Search
Search results
Chess Pro - with coach
Games
App
▻ ▻ ▻ Special offer: 50% off TODAY !!! (normal price US$19.99/19.99€/£19.99) ▻ Do you...
IntelliDrink PRO - Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Calculator
Food & Drink and Health & Fitness
App
IntelliDrink is a sophisticated blood alcohol content (BAC) calculator. It has a simple user...
Einstein™ Brain Trainer HD
Games and Education
App
TOP PAID IPAD GAME: #1 in Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium,... #2 in...
Homer - Kids Learn to Read App
Education and Entertainment
App
Welcome to Homer — the #1 learn to read program for kids ages 2-8, shown to increase early reading...
Learn French - MosaLingua
Education and Travel
App
Learn French in no time! MosaLingua's effective and addictive teaching method will help you memorize...
Learn Spanish: MosaLingua
Education and Travel
App
***Learn Spanish in no time! MosaLingua's effective and addictive teaching method will help you...
Motion Math: Fractions!
Education and Games
App
Play the award-winning learning game that puts the action in fraction! * Excellence in Design Award...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lost Daughter (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2022
Strong Acting and Direction
The nice thing about being fanatical about catching all of the Oscar Nominated films in the “Major” categories is that it forces me to watch films that, normally, my interests would not gravitate towards - and, most of the time, I am rewarded and my mind and emotions are expanded because of this.
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Uninvited in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I saw that Liz Jensen had written a new book, I knew I wanted to read it. I loved her book The Rapture and was hoping The Uninvited would be just as good. However, I was disappointed with this book.
Hesketh is a man who has Asperger's Syndrome. He is sent by his company to investigate cases of whistle blowers and sabotage within companies. When Hesketh goes to investigate his first case in Taiwan, he gets more than he bargained for. The supposed whistle blower seems to be talking non-sense. The next day, the whistle blower commits suicide. Soon, this is happening all over the world. Not only that, but it children all over the world are attacking adults. What's going on? Will Hesketh be able to find the answer before it's too late?
The title of The Uninvited suits the book. Like most of my reviews, I don't want to go into too much detail as to why the title fits because I don't want to give away any spoilers.
I found this particular cover to be a bit plain for my liking. The cover didn't catch my attention. (It was the synopsis that did). This cover doesn't really give too much away about what the story is going to be about. To me, the cover just looks like some spoilt child hiding in her room trying to spy on what's going on which has nothing to do with the actual story of the book!!
The world building is very believable. I could actually imagine everything written in the book happening as the author was writing about it. I had no qualms about the world building. The author brings this dystopian world to life beautifully and scarily so!
Unfortunately, the pacing was horrible in this book. I had to force myself to read it and finish it which is a shame because I really wanted to love The Uninvited. The story just went on too slowly for my liking. A lot of the time, I was contemplating giving up on this book, but I've read a lot of books that get better towards the end. However, this wasn't the case with this book. It never got any better. It was a slow read throughout.
The dialogue, to me, confused me. It featured a lot of science jargon that I didn't understand. I found myself completely lost through most of this book. The ending, especially, left me the most confused. I didn't understand why or how. I just felt it was never fully explained which left me feeling rather annoyed.
The characters just felt too one dimensional. I couldn't relate to any of them, and I didn't care what happened to them. The character of Hesketh just came across really annoying. Yes, I understand he has Asperger's but so does my son, and he's no where as annoying as Hesketh. (And I'm not just saying that because he's my son). Throughout the book, Hesketh repeats things to himself three times, and he's constantly talking about his origami. I realise that he has his little quirks, but I felt as if Hesketh's origami was being shoved down my throat. If I had to pick a favourite character, it was be Professor Whybray. He just had that lovely old man quality and came across feeling grandfatherly.
All in all, I think the idea of this story is a great one, but it was just poorly executed. The pacing was too slow, the characters were too dull, and the dialogue was just too confusing. Like I said, I really wanted to enjoy this book as Liz Jenson has written some wonderful books before this one.
I really wouldn't recommend this book, but if you'd like to give it a try, I'd say ages 16+ would be the best ages to try to enjoy it.
I'd give The Uninvited by Liz Jensen a 1.5 out of 5.
(A special thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for giving me a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest and unbiased review).
When I saw that Liz Jensen had written a new book, I knew I wanted to read it. I loved her book The Rapture and was hoping The Uninvited would be just as good. However, I was disappointed with this book.
Hesketh is a man who has Asperger's Syndrome. He is sent by his company to investigate cases of whistle blowers and sabotage within companies. When Hesketh goes to investigate his first case in Taiwan, he gets more than he bargained for. The supposed whistle blower seems to be talking non-sense. The next day, the whistle blower commits suicide. Soon, this is happening all over the world. Not only that, but it children all over the world are attacking adults. What's going on? Will Hesketh be able to find the answer before it's too late?
The title of The Uninvited suits the book. Like most of my reviews, I don't want to go into too much detail as to why the title fits because I don't want to give away any spoilers.
I found this particular cover to be a bit plain for my liking. The cover didn't catch my attention. (It was the synopsis that did). This cover doesn't really give too much away about what the story is going to be about. To me, the cover just looks like some spoilt child hiding in her room trying to spy on what's going on which has nothing to do with the actual story of the book!!
The world building is very believable. I could actually imagine everything written in the book happening as the author was writing about it. I had no qualms about the world building. The author brings this dystopian world to life beautifully and scarily so!
Unfortunately, the pacing was horrible in this book. I had to force myself to read it and finish it which is a shame because I really wanted to love The Uninvited. The story just went on too slowly for my liking. A lot of the time, I was contemplating giving up on this book, but I've read a lot of books that get better towards the end. However, this wasn't the case with this book. It never got any better. It was a slow read throughout.
The dialogue, to me, confused me. It featured a lot of science jargon that I didn't understand. I found myself completely lost through most of this book. The ending, especially, left me the most confused. I didn't understand why or how. I just felt it was never fully explained which left me feeling rather annoyed.
The characters just felt too one dimensional. I couldn't relate to any of them, and I didn't care what happened to them. The character of Hesketh just came across really annoying. Yes, I understand he has Asperger's but so does my son, and he's no where as annoying as Hesketh. (And I'm not just saying that because he's my son). Throughout the book, Hesketh repeats things to himself three times, and he's constantly talking about his origami. I realise that he has his little quirks, but I felt as if Hesketh's origami was being shoved down my throat. If I had to pick a favourite character, it was be Professor Whybray. He just had that lovely old man quality and came across feeling grandfatherly.
All in all, I think the idea of this story is a great one, but it was just poorly executed. The pacing was too slow, the characters were too dull, and the dialogue was just too confusing. Like I said, I really wanted to enjoy this book as Liz Jenson has written some wonderful books before this one.
I really wouldn't recommend this book, but if you'd like to give it a try, I'd say ages 16+ would be the best ages to try to enjoy it.
I'd give The Uninvited by Liz Jensen a 1.5 out of 5.
(A special thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for giving me a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest and unbiased review).