Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Gatecrash (2021) in Movies
Feb 19, 2021
Enjoyably strange
Gatecrash is a 2021 psychological thriller from Lawrence Gough, based on a play by Terry Hughes. It opens with a rather beautiful and picturesque shot of the English countryside at dusk, when a speeding car disturbs the peace and alongside a prominent score, promises us a rather tense and thrilling start to the film.
And in this aspect it doesn’t disappoint. Gatecrash disposes with any preamble and pitches us straight into the action. A couple return to a rather maze-like and futuristically styled home in the middle of an argument, but what at first seems like a domestic argument is in fact much more serious: the husband, Steve (Ben Cura), has just committed a hit and run. He’s drunk, abusive and wants his wife, Nicole (Olivia Bonamy), to take the blame. And it wasn’t just an innocent accident as Steve not only knocked someone over, he drove over them again in his rush to flee.
The first 15 minutes follows this argument and then as it ends as Nicole and Steve separate inside the house; him to clean up any evidence from the accident and her to discretely take a pregnancy test. This soon begins to drag, and fortunately we’re saved by a sinister phone call from the landline, that appears to be coming from Steve’s mobile, that he hasn’t seen since the hit and run. This soon escalates into something verging on horror territory as we follow Nicole around their now claustrophobic house.
It’s this middle act that I enjoyed the most as Gatecrash turns into a tense and almost terrifying thriller, as Nicole and Steve have to face off against a mysterious and menacing police officer (Samuel West) who arrives on their doorstep. West is possibly my favourite part of this film, his character is completely over the top and ridiculous yet still portrays this strange, ominous air. It’s strange to find a character who is immensely fun to watch yet still manages to terrify you. He’s further helped by his character’s unexplained and questionable motives that give this thriller an intriguing air of mystery.
Following on from the aftermath of the hit and run, the film jumps to a later time after Nicole has had her baby and again the couple are visited by another mysterious stranger, this one called Sid (Anton Lesser). At first Sid seems like a kind, lovely old man but his unusual air and conversation soon unveil yet more hidden and sinister motives that culminate in a tense finale.
It’s this final act that I was least keen on. At first the dialogue between Sid, Nicole and Steve is gripping but it seems to drag on and keep going round in circles before it finally gets to some dramatic piece of action. This dragging dialogue is definitely Gatecrash’s biggest flaw, and this is in no doubt down to it’s theatre origins. On the stage I can see dialogue like this working well, but as a film it needs a lot more oomph to keep our attention. The cast do well to keep us entertained though, Olivia Bonamy puts in a very understated performance as Nicole and Ben Cura was delightful to watch as Steve purely because the character is a rather despicable excuse for a man. And fortunately Gough’s cinematography works well with the few action scenes to try and make up for the slumps in the dialogue heavy earlier scenes.
Overall Gatecrash is a fairly enjoyable thriller and is worth watching purely for its general air of mystery and the tense and exciting second act.
And in this aspect it doesn’t disappoint. Gatecrash disposes with any preamble and pitches us straight into the action. A couple return to a rather maze-like and futuristically styled home in the middle of an argument, but what at first seems like a domestic argument is in fact much more serious: the husband, Steve (Ben Cura), has just committed a hit and run. He’s drunk, abusive and wants his wife, Nicole (Olivia Bonamy), to take the blame. And it wasn’t just an innocent accident as Steve not only knocked someone over, he drove over them again in his rush to flee.
The first 15 minutes follows this argument and then as it ends as Nicole and Steve separate inside the house; him to clean up any evidence from the accident and her to discretely take a pregnancy test. This soon begins to drag, and fortunately we’re saved by a sinister phone call from the landline, that appears to be coming from Steve’s mobile, that he hasn’t seen since the hit and run. This soon escalates into something verging on horror territory as we follow Nicole around their now claustrophobic house.
It’s this middle act that I enjoyed the most as Gatecrash turns into a tense and almost terrifying thriller, as Nicole and Steve have to face off against a mysterious and menacing police officer (Samuel West) who arrives on their doorstep. West is possibly my favourite part of this film, his character is completely over the top and ridiculous yet still portrays this strange, ominous air. It’s strange to find a character who is immensely fun to watch yet still manages to terrify you. He’s further helped by his character’s unexplained and questionable motives that give this thriller an intriguing air of mystery.
Following on from the aftermath of the hit and run, the film jumps to a later time after Nicole has had her baby and again the couple are visited by another mysterious stranger, this one called Sid (Anton Lesser). At first Sid seems like a kind, lovely old man but his unusual air and conversation soon unveil yet more hidden and sinister motives that culminate in a tense finale.
It’s this final act that I was least keen on. At first the dialogue between Sid, Nicole and Steve is gripping but it seems to drag on and keep going round in circles before it finally gets to some dramatic piece of action. This dragging dialogue is definitely Gatecrash’s biggest flaw, and this is in no doubt down to it’s theatre origins. On the stage I can see dialogue like this working well, but as a film it needs a lot more oomph to keep our attention. The cast do well to keep us entertained though, Olivia Bonamy puts in a very understated performance as Nicole and Ben Cura was delightful to watch as Steve purely because the character is a rather despicable excuse for a man. And fortunately Gough’s cinematography works well with the few action scenes to try and make up for the slumps in the dialogue heavy earlier scenes.
Overall Gatecrash is a fairly enjoyable thriller and is worth watching purely for its general air of mystery and the tense and exciting second act.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)