Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A charming adaptation
Wolves, witches and giants all appear in the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s popular musical which takes all the best bits of our favourite fairytales and mashes them together in one engaging, song-filled rollercoaster.
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
For those seeking a big dose of magic this holiday season, Disney’s “Into the Woods” aims to deliver just that. Adapted to the silver screen from the original Broadway musical production by Stephen Sondheim, the plot intertwines several of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales to create one story.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law return once again as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows“. In this installment, a series of bombings across Europe has positioned the nations of the world on the brink of war. Holmes is convinced that there is a criminal mastermind behind the numerous, seemingly unrelated events and he believes it is renowned scholar James Moriarty (Jared Harris).
Watson, well-accustomed to Holmes’ eccentric and erratic behavior, is dubious of Holmes claims. Besides, Watson has his upcoming wedding to focus on, and only deigns to spend time with Holmes at the promise of a stag party at an upscale gentlemen’s club. While the bachelor party includes an entertaining Stephen Fry playing Holmes’ brother, Mycroft, Holmes has ulterior motives for taking Watson to this particular club. Early in the film, Holmes had cleverly intercepted a message from Irene Adler (Amy McAdams), that led him to a fortuneteller named Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace), a woman Holmes believes has been targeted for death by Moriarty, who just happens to be working at the gentlemen’s club.
Eventually a meeting with Moriarty is arranged for Holmes. The two intellectuals spar with one another verbally in a civilized manner, with menacing undertones. Holmes isn’t able to convince Moriarty that Watson is no longer a partner in any of his endeavors and, Holmes is forced to take drastic measures to ensure the doctor and his new wife stay out of harm’s way. From Paris to Germany and other European locales, Holmes, Watson, and Simza and her gypsy friends race against time to uncover the diabolical plot that Moriarty has set for their demise in his quest to drive nations to war.
The film is an absolute delight and is a rare sequel that is even better than the previous film in the series. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have amazing chemistry with one another and their timing is absolutely perfect. The duo deftly mix action and comedy as well as the serious subject matter of the plot line and are utterly captivating and enjoyable to watch every step of the way. Rapace continues to impress in a much softer character than her Lisbeth Salandar role in the “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Swedish trilogy. and is poised to become one of Hollywood’s new leading ladies.
Having become familiar with Harris’ work on the series Mad Men, I was delighted to see him expertly portray such a complex character as Moriarty: a gentleman scholar of impeccable upbringing and education who is also a twisted and evil genius. Harris plays Moriarty perfectly and never lets you forget the dark and sinister side of him without ever becoming a campy or cartoony vaudeville villain.
Guy Ritchie returns as director and lets his stars carry the film. The action has been ramped up this time around with some spectacular action sequences but the action never overshadows the character-driven story. The film was well-paced and an absolute thrill ride from beginning to end mixing fantastic action and some great humor for a very winning combination that is not to be missed. I am already looking forward to future outings of Holmes and Watson on the big screen as this was a truly enjoyable experience that shows you how action comedies are supposed to be made.
Watson, well-accustomed to Holmes’ eccentric and erratic behavior, is dubious of Holmes claims. Besides, Watson has his upcoming wedding to focus on, and only deigns to spend time with Holmes at the promise of a stag party at an upscale gentlemen’s club. While the bachelor party includes an entertaining Stephen Fry playing Holmes’ brother, Mycroft, Holmes has ulterior motives for taking Watson to this particular club. Early in the film, Holmes had cleverly intercepted a message from Irene Adler (Amy McAdams), that led him to a fortuneteller named Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace), a woman Holmes believes has been targeted for death by Moriarty, who just happens to be working at the gentlemen’s club.
Eventually a meeting with Moriarty is arranged for Holmes. The two intellectuals spar with one another verbally in a civilized manner, with menacing undertones. Holmes isn’t able to convince Moriarty that Watson is no longer a partner in any of his endeavors and, Holmes is forced to take drastic measures to ensure the doctor and his new wife stay out of harm’s way. From Paris to Germany and other European locales, Holmes, Watson, and Simza and her gypsy friends race against time to uncover the diabolical plot that Moriarty has set for their demise in his quest to drive nations to war.
The film is an absolute delight and is a rare sequel that is even better than the previous film in the series. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have amazing chemistry with one another and their timing is absolutely perfect. The duo deftly mix action and comedy as well as the serious subject matter of the plot line and are utterly captivating and enjoyable to watch every step of the way. Rapace continues to impress in a much softer character than her Lisbeth Salandar role in the “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Swedish trilogy. and is poised to become one of Hollywood’s new leading ladies.
Having become familiar with Harris’ work on the series Mad Men, I was delighted to see him expertly portray such a complex character as Moriarty: a gentleman scholar of impeccable upbringing and education who is also a twisted and evil genius. Harris plays Moriarty perfectly and never lets you forget the dark and sinister side of him without ever becoming a campy or cartoony vaudeville villain.
Guy Ritchie returns as director and lets his stars carry the film. The action has been ramped up this time around with some spectacular action sequences but the action never overshadows the character-driven story. The film was well-paced and an absolute thrill ride from beginning to end mixing fantastic action and some great humor for a very winning combination that is not to be missed. I am already looking forward to future outings of Holmes and Watson on the big screen as this was a truly enjoyable experience that shows you how action comedies are supposed to be made.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Snatch (2001) in Movies
Dec 20, 2020
Hilarious
Film #7 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Snatch
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.
Snatch (2000) is Guy Ritchie’s second film following on from his hugely successful debut, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Critically Snatch wasn’t quite as well received as it’s predecessor but the general movie going public found it a lot more enjoyable, and personally I agree with the public. I’ve always loved Snatch and prefer it over Lock, Stock.
Snatch tells a rather convoluted and twisting tale about gangsters, diamonds and unlicensed boxing. In a number of intersecting storylines, we see unlicensed boxing promoters Turkish (Jason Statham) and Tommy (Stephen Graham) get pulled into the world of match fixing with violent bookmaker Brick Top (Alan Ford), recruiting Brad Pitt’s gypsy Mickey along the way. And then you have inept criminals Sol (Lennie James), Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade) as they attempt to steal a valuable diamond from Franky Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) on behalf of Russian Boris the Blade (Rade Serbedzija), also involving Vinnie Jones’s Bullet-Tooth Tony, Mike Reid’s Doug the Head and Dennis Farina’s Cousin Avi along the way. As you can see, the plot isn’t exactly straight forward but despite it’s complexity, it’s a fun and entertaining watch to see all of these separate storylines come together.
What makes this complex and quite frankly bonkers story so good to watch is the script and absolutely superb dialogue. Considering this isn’t what you’d class as a typical comedy fun, it is downright hilarious. No matter how many times I’ve seen this film, it still makes me laugh every time with it’s smart, witty and funny dialogue. From Turkish’s narration to Cousin Avi’s scathing remarks about London and pretty much every interaction between Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, Snatch is extremely amusing. Admittedly there are some lines and exchanges that feel a little too forced and staged, and I think this may be due to some questionable acting and the sometimes unnatural sounding London accents.
Guy Ritchie has undoubtedly put together a stylish and slick film, and Snatch definitely encompasses the dark and gritty feel of London. Maybe a little too much as it can feel a bit gloomy at times. It has a great soundtrack and this really works with Ritchie’s directing style for the most part. There are some questionable camera angles and not all of these work – the most grating for me was in the opening scenes with Franky Four Finger’s heist where the camera jumped around far too much.
Despite this, his style works well in general and is aided by the fantastic cast that has been assembled. I’ve never been a fan of Jason Statham, but this is by far his best work, although the star of Snatch is certainly Brad Pitt, who is virtually unrecognisable as gypsy Mickey, both in looks and with his purposely indecipherable Irish accent. Snatch came out the year after Fight Club at a time that would likely be classed as the peak of Pitt’s career, so to see him play a character like Mickey was surprising to say the least. But the entire cast shine with the material they’ve got to work with.
Snatch isn’t a film for everyone and definitely not for the easily offended. For me, I could watch this repeatedly and still laugh every time, and it’s absolutely deserving of a place on this list.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avatar: The Way of Water (2021) in Movies
Jan 2, 2023
Strong Visuals - Weak Everything Else
See AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER on the biggest 3D Screen, with the best Sound System possible. It is a technical marvel…way ahead of anything that has, thus far, been seen on a movie screen.
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 6, 2019 (Updated Sep 6, 2019)
Bloated, messy at times, not quite as good as chapter 1 :(
It's fair to say that IT Chapter 2 has been one of my most anticipated movies this year. The trailer, which I've probably watched just as many times now as I watched the Endgame trailer, gives me goosebumps every time, and I couldn't wait to rejoin the losers club for another battle with Pennywise the clown. I was lucky enough to secure tickets to the immersive IT experience in London last weekend, adding further fuel to my excitement, and I decided to book the double bill showing of both chapters at the cinema in order to fully enjoy the complete story. Watching chapter 1 up on the big screen again proved to be just as enjoyable for me as the first time I saw it. Sadly though, I feel that chapter 2 didn't quite measure up to chapter 1.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
