Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Apr 19, 2018
I think my expectations were too high going into this film. Yes, I laughed, some of the bits were fairly amusing. By far, Jason Isaacs and Rupert Friend were my favorite. Though, Jason Isaacs wasn't in it enough for my liking. I did laugh out loud, which doesn't happen often.
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated At Eternity's Gate (2018) in Movies
Sep 17, 2019
Willem Dafoe (4 more)
Oscar Isaac
Rupert Friend
Mads Mikkelsen
Interesting, if controversial, take on his death
Pacing (1 more)
Cinematography
Beautifully performed, but meandering
Vincent VanGogh is my wife's favorite artist, and so I know a bit more about him than I do most of his contemporaries. The story here is an interesting one, but the film manages to get bogged down with shaky cam shots of Vincent's feet running through fields. The pacing was odd but tolerable, but the cinematography and camera work....I wasn't a fan. The performances, though? Not a bad one in the lot, and Willem Dafoe deserved to win the Oscar for this. I'm not sure what he lost to, but I don't think it was more powerful. Sure, he's too old for the part, but honestly? He was born to play the role. Bottom line: loved the performances, but not the movie itself.
Erika (17788 KP) rated At Eternity's Gate (2018) in Movies
Dec 9, 2018
Willem Dafoe is TOO OLD to be Vincent (1 more)
Accents?!?!
I did have high expectations going into this film, Van Gogh is my favorite painter. The direction was... interesting. There was a lot of shaky-cam work, and I understood that the director was trying to depict things as slightly confused because it was supposed to be from Vincent's point-of-view, but, I don't think it was effective in the end. I liked Rupert Friend as Theo, and Oscar Isaac as Gauguin, and they were close to the actual ages of the characters. BUT, I had a problem with a 60+ year old actor playing Vincent, who was only 37 when he passed away. Dafoe did well at portraying a slightly-off Vincent, but he just looked way too old for me. And finally, the accents. Theo and Vincent had strange American accents? I'm not sure why they didn't opt for Dutch accents? It was very weird, and almost to the point of distracting.
In the end, this film was just ok, and I'm glad I used Regal points for the ticket, and not my own money.
In the end, this film was just ok, and I'm glad I used Regal points for the ticket, and not my own money.
JT (287 KP) rated Starred Up (2014) in Movies
Mar 16, 2020
Violent and to the point (1 more)
Great acting
Prison Isn't Suppoed To Be A Holiday Camp
Prison dramas don’t get much grittier than this. Not since Scum has there been one with as much brutal tour de force. Eric (Jack O’Connell) is ‘starred up’. A term used to describe violent young offenders moved straight into an adult prison. Once he gets inside he comes face to face with the only person that might be able to control him, his father Neville (Ben Mendelsohn).
It’s a major part of their relationship as Nev’s parental tactics involve the cruel to be kind method. It’s the only way that Eric is going to survive and the only way he will walk out in one piece. Eric finds some solace in Oliver (Rupert Friend) whose anger management sessions are a place to unleash a tirade of resentment. It places him within a group where any other individual might find themselves out of their depth – Eric takes it full on.
The film is written by Jonathan Asser, a former prison psychotherapist who worked in HMP Wandsworth. So he more than anyone can inject the film with a massive sense of realism. The prison violence can be hard to watch but you don’t find yourself turning away from the screen.
It’s not shrouded in Hollywood gloss and is shot with graphic precision. Mendelsohn’s performance is excellent playing the psycho and his delivery is spot on. Friend is also a joy to watch and a real talent. The Homeland star-making imprints into the acting elite.
However, this is very much O’Connell’s film and it’s not hard to see why he is fast becoming a standout actor. Grabbing this role in a vice-like grip he battles with his personality, the adoration from his father and a corrupt system who want him eradicated. It doesn’t paint the prison system in a particularly good light but then prison isn’t supposed to be a holiday camp.
It’s a major part of their relationship as Nev’s parental tactics involve the cruel to be kind method. It’s the only way that Eric is going to survive and the only way he will walk out in one piece. Eric finds some solace in Oliver (Rupert Friend) whose anger management sessions are a place to unleash a tirade of resentment. It places him within a group where any other individual might find themselves out of their depth – Eric takes it full on.
The film is written by Jonathan Asser, a former prison psychotherapist who worked in HMP Wandsworth. So he more than anyone can inject the film with a massive sense of realism. The prison violence can be hard to watch but you don’t find yourself turning away from the screen.
It’s not shrouded in Hollywood gloss and is shot with graphic precision. Mendelsohn’s performance is excellent playing the psycho and his delivery is spot on. Friend is also a joy to watch and a real talent. The Homeland star-making imprints into the acting elite.
However, this is very much O’Connell’s film and it’s not hard to see why he is fast becoming a standout actor. Grabbing this role in a vice-like grip he battles with his personality, the adoration from his father and a corrupt system who want him eradicated. It doesn’t paint the prison system in a particularly good light but then prison isn’t supposed to be a holiday camp.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hitman: Agent 47 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Clinical and incomprehensible
The transition from video game to movie is notoriously difficult to get right. From box-office disasters like Super Mario Bros. to the poorly received Resident Evil franchise, it appears no film is spared from either financial woe or critically panning.
Hitman has become one of the most popular game series’ ever but the 2007 film of the same name failed to kick-start the franchise’s transition to the silver screen. Now, eight years later, Rupert Friend stars as the red tie-wearing assassin in Hitman: Agent 47, but does it succeed as a reboot?
Friend stars as the titular character, an emotionless killer hell-bent on tracking down the creator of the ‘Agent Program’ from which he was created. Alongside him for the ride is Hannah Ware’s Katia Van Dees, a young fearful woman searching for a man she does not know.
The usually excellent Zachary Quinto (Star Trek) also stars as a clichéd villain in a thankless role blighted by stilted dialogue and cardboard emotions. This most certainly isn’t his finest work.
The story is incredibly simple, barely fitting into the film’s slender 96 minute running time and the clinical filming style of director Aleksander Bach really doesn’t help. Beautiful locations like Berlin and Singapore are wasted in favour of sleek office sets, populated by one-dimensional characters that we couldn’t care less about.
Nevertheless, Friend plays the emotionless Agent 47 with ease and is one of the highlights in a film lacking in any real punch – it’s all been done before, and better.
Ware is disappointingly wooden, though her veneer seems to crack towards the finale and we get to see the character she could have played. It’s a shame that for the majority of Hitman’s running time we see no real prowess in her performance.
The action sequences are slick and nicely choreographed but Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation did them only last month and in a more detailed and ultimately successful style.
However, clever gun-work is mixed nicely with the film’s 15 certificate and each barrel discharge feels much more real. It’s certainly more interesting than the two sequels to Taken and many other action thrillers that sport the 12A rating.
The climax leaves things wide open for a sequel, but the ending is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t played the games and leaves a bad taste in the mouth – probably not a great thing when trying to get audiences excited for a follow up.
Overall, Hitman: Agent 47 is much like its titular character. A slick outer shell hides not a lot underneath with a cast of wasted talent and a been-there-done-that attitude to the stunts. There’s some great sequences, but you’ll have to dig deep to find any real merit here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/30/clinical-and-incomprehensible-hitman-agent-47-review/
Hitman has become one of the most popular game series’ ever but the 2007 film of the same name failed to kick-start the franchise’s transition to the silver screen. Now, eight years later, Rupert Friend stars as the red tie-wearing assassin in Hitman: Agent 47, but does it succeed as a reboot?
Friend stars as the titular character, an emotionless killer hell-bent on tracking down the creator of the ‘Agent Program’ from which he was created. Alongside him for the ride is Hannah Ware’s Katia Van Dees, a young fearful woman searching for a man she does not know.
The usually excellent Zachary Quinto (Star Trek) also stars as a clichéd villain in a thankless role blighted by stilted dialogue and cardboard emotions. This most certainly isn’t his finest work.
The story is incredibly simple, barely fitting into the film’s slender 96 minute running time and the clinical filming style of director Aleksander Bach really doesn’t help. Beautiful locations like Berlin and Singapore are wasted in favour of sleek office sets, populated by one-dimensional characters that we couldn’t care less about.
Nevertheless, Friend plays the emotionless Agent 47 with ease and is one of the highlights in a film lacking in any real punch – it’s all been done before, and better.
Ware is disappointingly wooden, though her veneer seems to crack towards the finale and we get to see the character she could have played. It’s a shame that for the majority of Hitman’s running time we see no real prowess in her performance.
The action sequences are slick and nicely choreographed but Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation did them only last month and in a more detailed and ultimately successful style.
However, clever gun-work is mixed nicely with the film’s 15 certificate and each barrel discharge feels much more real. It’s certainly more interesting than the two sequels to Taken and many other action thrillers that sport the 12A rating.
The climax leaves things wide open for a sequel, but the ending is incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t played the games and leaves a bad taste in the mouth – probably not a great thing when trying to get audiences excited for a follow up.
Overall, Hitman: Agent 47 is much like its titular character. A slick outer shell hides not a lot underneath with a cast of wasted talent and a been-there-done-that attitude to the stunts. There’s some great sequences, but you’ll have to dig deep to find any real merit here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/30/clinical-and-incomprehensible-hitman-agent-47-review/
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Mar 12, 2020
did i speak too soon?
Contains spoilers, click to show
If you've read my other reviews, you know that I'm currently in a Hitchcock film class. I've been dreading watching his films because of the ones I've seen, with the exception of Psycho, have been the same story told in different ways. I was equally as dreadful when it came to watching this film. However, I was pleasantly surprised.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
In Psycho, while we saw a serial killer, it was almost as if Norman had no choice because he'd been overtaken, so to speak, by Norma Bates. Norman knew what had been done, what his mother had done, and he cleaned up after her, defended her, took care of her. In Shadow of a Doubt, while Uncle Charlie was also a killer, Hitchcock played with the likable villain scenario that we talked about last week. He was this dapper, well-liked, well-respected man that seemed like he could never be capable of the things he was accused. And even when he did die, only little Charly and the detective really knew the truth of who Uncle Charlie was. In Sabotage, we saw murder but it wasn't purposeful. The bomb that was meant to explode, wasn't meant to explode where it did - on a public bus, killing not only the nephew but several strangers and a puppy.
Rope is glaringly different in comparison. We see Brandon who is ecstatic, almost euphoric about what he and Phillip had done. He almost gets off on the idea that they just killed a man, a friend of theirs, and invited that man's family, friends, and fiance over for a party while that man's dead body lying there, unbeknownst to the guests. Brandon was excited by that. In contrast, Phillip is paranoid, drinking rapidly and in excess trying to calm himself down, but really only making himself more suspicious. The nuance and the contrast of Brandon and Phillip's characters are different than anything we've seen from Hitchcock thus far, but even further than that, we see Rupert come in and kind of save the day. He puts the pieces together, observant of both Brandon and Phillip's awkwardness and behavior throughout the party, then noticing the hat and the rope, he comes back and realizes what they have done. Instead of taking vengeance into his own hands, something that we saw in Sabotage, he fires 3 shots out of the window, causing passersby and neighbors to call the police. Rupert than sits next to the chest that holds David's body, almost protecting him, while he waits for the authorities to arrive for Brandon and Phillip.
This film, more than any other one besides Psycho, has been my favorite to watch and the one that kept me drawn in. This film does not fit the original narrative I've held. It's in a completely different game entirely.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2018 (Updated Sep 25, 2018)
Simply Messy
So I went to see A Simple Favor at the weekend, which was my girlfriend's choice and I actually ended up enjoying some parts of it. I hate everything else that Paul Feig has done, so I was going into this expecting to hate every aspect and I surprisingly didn't. Anna Kendrick plays the same character that she does in everything else, but she is good at it and it works well for this film too. Blake Lively's character is funny in a cruel way at certain points, but at other points the mean spirited nature of the character feels forced and tacky. The rest of the cast are forgettable and Rupert Friend isn't given nearly enough to do in his role.
There are certain points that this movie made me legitimately laugh, granted the majority of the time it was because Blake Lively's character would say something vulgar and Kendrick's character would respond with something innocent and cringey and this joke would be rinsed and repeated a lot throughout the movie, but still I laughed way more during this than I thought I would.
The absolute worst thing about the movie is it's tone. It's not just inconsistent, it is absolutely all over the place. For the first two thirds of the film it is a weird mix of serious suspense and absurd comedy and then in the last third it absolutely cannot decide what it wants to be. From the point that Anna Kendrick's character leaves to go and dig around in Lively's character's past to the end credits, this movie is an utter mess.
Overall, I was surprised I didn't hate the movie and actually enjoyed parts of it. Anna Kendrick is great in everything she does, even if she does do the same thing in everything. Unfortunately this doesn't make the film a great comedy, nor is it a great suspense movie either, but hey, at least it's better than the Ghostbusters reboot.
There are certain points that this movie made me legitimately laugh, granted the majority of the time it was because Blake Lively's character would say something vulgar and Kendrick's character would respond with something innocent and cringey and this joke would be rinsed and repeated a lot throughout the movie, but still I laughed way more during this than I thought I would.
The absolute worst thing about the movie is it's tone. It's not just inconsistent, it is absolutely all over the place. For the first two thirds of the film it is a weird mix of serious suspense and absurd comedy and then in the last third it absolutely cannot decide what it wants to be. From the point that Anna Kendrick's character leaves to go and dig around in Lively's character's past to the end credits, this movie is an utter mess.
Overall, I was surprised I didn't hate the movie and actually enjoyed parts of it. Anna Kendrick is great in everything she does, even if she does do the same thing in everything. Unfortunately this doesn't make the film a great comedy, nor is it a great suspense movie either, but hey, at least it's better than the Ghostbusters reboot.
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated The Canal (2014) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Canal (2014)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated At Eternity's Gate (2018) in Movies
Feb 16, 2019
A slow meditation of the last days of a tortured artist
he artist as a tortured soul.
How many films have been made on this subject? Too many to count. Add AT ETERNITY'S GATE to this list as it tells the tale of the tortured final days of Vincent Van Gogh - including cutting his own ear off - so perhaps no one deserves the title of "tortured artist" more than he.
Directed by Julian Schnabel (THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY) and starring Willem DaFoe (AQUAMAN) in an Oscar nominated turn as Van Gogh, AT ETERNITY'S GATE follows Van Gogh in the final weeks of his life. Since it is a film by Schnabel, you get an introspective, languid, haunting, beautifully shot meditation on life, art, madness and misunderstanding. Which, of course, is both the blessing and the curse of the film. Schnabel trains his camera - sometimes for long stretches - on the mundane...Van Gogh walking through a field, Van Gogh looking out at a landscape, Van Gogh thinking and, most importantly. Van Gogh painting...and painting...and painting...
Do you know how exciting it is to WATCH someone paint? About as exciting as watching paint dry.
Thank goodness DaFoe is mesmerizing as Van Gogh, for he really holds the film - and attention - throughout. His Academy Award nomination is justified for he brings a haunted, world weariness quality to his portrayal. - check this film out just for this performance. Rupert Friend, Oscar Isaac, Mads Mikkelson and Mathieu Amalric all show up in glorified cameos to punch a little dialogue and forward momentum into this narrative. But, mostly, we watch DaFoe - as Van Gogh - walk and think and look and paint and paint and paint...
I know I am repeating myself, but I felt the film repeated itself over and over again as well. I think there is about 1/2 of interesting film in this 1 hour 54 minute movie. The rest is just "art" and "artistic expression" of images on the screen by Schnabel. If that sort of thing is up your alley, you'll enjoy this. For the rest , it will just become repetitive and boring.
I will say, however, that after seeing this film, I have a greater appreciation for Van Gogh's work, how he made them and how his style differs from ANYBODY else. I am now going to make it a point to find a museum that shows some of his works and check it out.
So, I guess, that's a good thing.
Letter Grade: B- (it is a well made and acted film)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
How many films have been made on this subject? Too many to count. Add AT ETERNITY'S GATE to this list as it tells the tale of the tortured final days of Vincent Van Gogh - including cutting his own ear off - so perhaps no one deserves the title of "tortured artist" more than he.
Directed by Julian Schnabel (THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY) and starring Willem DaFoe (AQUAMAN) in an Oscar nominated turn as Van Gogh, AT ETERNITY'S GATE follows Van Gogh in the final weeks of his life. Since it is a film by Schnabel, you get an introspective, languid, haunting, beautifully shot meditation on life, art, madness and misunderstanding. Which, of course, is both the blessing and the curse of the film. Schnabel trains his camera - sometimes for long stretches - on the mundane...Van Gogh walking through a field, Van Gogh looking out at a landscape, Van Gogh thinking and, most importantly. Van Gogh painting...and painting...and painting...
Do you know how exciting it is to WATCH someone paint? About as exciting as watching paint dry.
Thank goodness DaFoe is mesmerizing as Van Gogh, for he really holds the film - and attention - throughout. His Academy Award nomination is justified for he brings a haunted, world weariness quality to his portrayal. - check this film out just for this performance. Rupert Friend, Oscar Isaac, Mads Mikkelson and Mathieu Amalric all show up in glorified cameos to punch a little dialogue and forward momentum into this narrative. But, mostly, we watch DaFoe - as Van Gogh - walk and think and look and paint and paint and paint...
I know I am repeating myself, but I felt the film repeated itself over and over again as well. I think there is about 1/2 of interesting film in this 1 hour 54 minute movie. The rest is just "art" and "artistic expression" of images on the screen by Schnabel. If that sort of thing is up your alley, you'll enjoy this. For the rest , it will just become repetitive and boring.
I will say, however, that after seeing this film, I have a greater appreciation for Van Gogh's work, how he made them and how his style differs from ANYBODY else. I am now going to make it a point to find a museum that shows some of his works and check it out.
So, I guess, that's a good thing.
Letter Grade: B- (it is a well made and acted film)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)