Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) in Movies
Aug 17, 2019
Spooky Scary Roses
The Exorcism of Emily Rose- is a really scary, terrorfying, horrorfying underrated horror movie directesd by Scott Derrickson yes thats right he dircted doctor strange.
The plot: The Rev. Moore (Tom Wilkinson) is prosecuted for the wrongful death of a girl thought to be demonically possessed, because he administered the church-sanctioned exorcism that ultimately killed her. Prosecuting attorney Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott) contends that the young woman, Emily (Jennifer Carpenter), suffered from schizophrenia and should have been medically diagnosed. Meanwhile, defense lawyer Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) argues that Emily's condition cannot be explained by science alone.
Its thrilling, chilling, spooky, and alot more.
I would highly recorddmend this movie.
Sorry this review is a day late.
The plot: The Rev. Moore (Tom Wilkinson) is prosecuted for the wrongful death of a girl thought to be demonically possessed, because he administered the church-sanctioned exorcism that ultimately killed her. Prosecuting attorney Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott) contends that the young woman, Emily (Jennifer Carpenter), suffered from schizophrenia and should have been medically diagnosed. Meanwhile, defense lawyer Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) argues that Emily's condition cannot be explained by science alone.
Its thrilling, chilling, spooky, and alot more.
I would highly recorddmend this movie.
Sorry this review is a day late.
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?
Darren (1599 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Verdict: Interesting Courtroom Drama
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Selma (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Set in 1965, the film follows the voting rights marches from Selma to Montgomery. During the time Black citizens had the legal right to vote, but there were countless strategies put into place to stop them from actually being able to use those voting rights.
The film does a good job of providing back story of what was happening that brought on the marches. It portrays the horrific brutality of a time when blatant hatred ripped through the soul of the nation.
During the Selma march, peaceful protestors dressed in their Sunday’s best were beaten (even killed) by local police. However, even the most hard to watch moments of violence were toned down in comparison to actual footage from the Selma march.
The visceral moments of raw emotion and terrible violence will give the audience chills
Martin Luther King, Jr. (David Oyelowo) would of course be a hard pair of shoes to fill as an actor. But somehow Oyelowo pulls it off with a passion that shows in his eyes. Even the ways in which Oyelowo delivers his speeches were powerful and moving, much in the way of the real MLK, Jr.
An intriguing part of the film is the attention given to MLK, Jr.’s wife, Coretta Scott King (Carmen Ejogo). She is a less talked about figure in history, but perhaps this will now change. She is shown to be a very strong and intelligent woman, who serves as the backbone to the King family. Her role as wife, mother, and political supporter are highlighted.
The cast selection is top notch, making the film very realistic.
Tom Wilkinson, who plays Lyndon B. Johnson, practically resurrects the late President. His physical appearance and vocals make the actor almost indistinguishable from the real LBJ. .
However, there is some controversy over the historical accuracy of certain aspects of the film. This especially is true in regards to the portrayal of LBJ.
He is portrayed as under pressure to pass legislation in favor of Black voters, but he himself comes off as a racist whose heart is not in the cause. This portrayal paints a picture of a dishonest man, wielding political power to save face. It is contradicting to the more well-known image of the LBJ who actually cared very much about civil rights and poverty.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is thought to be his most important piece of legislative work. It was certainly not just a mere political reaction to protestors, though they surely had a strong impact on making it happen.
No one can deny the power of MLK, Jr.’s work. It is a profound historical example of the possibility for political transformation through the will of the people.
Another point of question is whether or not it was JFK or LBJ who originally ordered the FBI surveillance of MLK, Jr. and those associated with him.
A slightly troubling aspect of the film is that it lacks showing any tinge of gender inequality, which was a pervasive part of that era. Also, it was hinted at that MLK, Jr. had infidelity issues. Personally, I had some question as to whether or not this was true, or if it was even a useful piece of information to include. Perhaps it was included to show a more human side to MLK, Jr.
All of these questions aside, “Selma” is an amazing and moving piece of work.
A finely crafted cinematic reflection of a deep and painful scar on American history, I give “Selma” 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The film does a good job of providing back story of what was happening that brought on the marches. It portrays the horrific brutality of a time when blatant hatred ripped through the soul of the nation.
During the Selma march, peaceful protestors dressed in their Sunday’s best were beaten (even killed) by local police. However, even the most hard to watch moments of violence were toned down in comparison to actual footage from the Selma march.
The visceral moments of raw emotion and terrible violence will give the audience chills
Martin Luther King, Jr. (David Oyelowo) would of course be a hard pair of shoes to fill as an actor. But somehow Oyelowo pulls it off with a passion that shows in his eyes. Even the ways in which Oyelowo delivers his speeches were powerful and moving, much in the way of the real MLK, Jr.
An intriguing part of the film is the attention given to MLK, Jr.’s wife, Coretta Scott King (Carmen Ejogo). She is a less talked about figure in history, but perhaps this will now change. She is shown to be a very strong and intelligent woman, who serves as the backbone to the King family. Her role as wife, mother, and political supporter are highlighted.
The cast selection is top notch, making the film very realistic.
Tom Wilkinson, who plays Lyndon B. Johnson, practically resurrects the late President. His physical appearance and vocals make the actor almost indistinguishable from the real LBJ. .
However, there is some controversy over the historical accuracy of certain aspects of the film. This especially is true in regards to the portrayal of LBJ.
He is portrayed as under pressure to pass legislation in favor of Black voters, but he himself comes off as a racist whose heart is not in the cause. This portrayal paints a picture of a dishonest man, wielding political power to save face. It is contradicting to the more well-known image of the LBJ who actually cared very much about civil rights and poverty.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is thought to be his most important piece of legislative work. It was certainly not just a mere political reaction to protestors, though they surely had a strong impact on making it happen.
No one can deny the power of MLK, Jr.’s work. It is a profound historical example of the possibility for political transformation through the will of the people.
Another point of question is whether or not it was JFK or LBJ who originally ordered the FBI surveillance of MLK, Jr. and those associated with him.
A slightly troubling aspect of the film is that it lacks showing any tinge of gender inequality, which was a pervasive part of that era. Also, it was hinted at that MLK, Jr. had infidelity issues. Personally, I had some question as to whether or not this was true, or if it was even a useful piece of information to include. Perhaps it was included to show a more human side to MLK, Jr.
All of these questions aside, “Selma” is an amazing and moving piece of work.
A finely crafted cinematic reflection of a deep and painful scar on American history, I give “Selma” 4.5 out of 5 stars.