Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Twist (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2021
I'm not sure what grabbed me about this one to make me watch... probably the cast. When will I learn?
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Twist has been fending for himself for a long time, but when he crosses paths with Dodge and Batesy, he finds himself a family on the wrong side of the law.
The trend for updating stories is one I've enjoyed in the past, but Twist felt like a weird hybrid of a film that... well, let's get into it.
It may have been based on Oliver Twist, but I genuinely don't think they should have made is such a big splash. Yes, there are similarities, but the majority of the time it just felt like it was the character names being thrown in at random to make the connection. And is it the sort of connection you need to exploit? I don't think that you've naturally got a crossover between what the story of Oliver Twist is and what is represented here.
As an ensemble it's got some pretty big names attached. Caine, Clarke and Headey are generally a good call when it comes to picking something to watch... this is definitely how I got tricked into watching Twist.
Caine was... Caine, if you know, you know. Headey was a psycho that came across so excessively over the top, maybe to give the film wider appeal in other markets? I'm not entirely sure to be honest. And Clarke at least made for some enjoyable watching.
Our other, younger cast members, were such a random group. Rafferty Law as Twist didn't give a lot, and I know that by the nature of his character origin and backstory his nature was supposed to be on a different level to the others, but I didn't find it very believable. Dodge and Batesy played by Rita Ora and Franz Drameh fit well together initially, but I quickly found Drameh to be much more skilled as Ora's acting became a little lacklustre.
Overall there's weren't many moments in Twist that worked for me because of this odd mix of cast. The biggest anomaly being Leigh Francis as the traffic warden. Had the tone of the film been different then I absolutely could have seen a place for him in it, but as it was his role stuck out like a sore thumb.
We witness a lot of freerunning (or parkour, I'm not sure which term is more appropriate here) through the film and they used this as an opportunity to fling the camera around too and put in some fancy moves. Generally I'm not a fan, and while they fit in the moment, they seemed out of place given that the rest of the camerawork felt a little more generic. I noted down that it seemed to almost be missing at some points, but I'm not sure if that's because I just sighed and ignored it or if it was only used on certain types of shots... I will not be watching it again to find out.
Twist feels like it's what you would get if you took the TV series Hustle and mixed it with a London gangster movie... but without the same level of finesse. There is definitely something in this film but I think I was severely distracted by the attempt to capitalise on a bizarre reworking of a classic tale.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/twist-movie-review.html
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Naked Lunch (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2019
Exterminate all rational thought.
The closing line from Roger Ebert's TV review of Naked Lunch was "I love what he did, but I hate it!"
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
Director David Cronenberg has always been known as someone who pushes the envelope of film storytelling to its limit. This is not more on display in maybe any of his films more than it is in Naked Lunch.
In 1952 New York, pest exterminator Bill Lee has an problem in his life. His wife, Joan, has begun using and is now addicted to his "bug powder" he uses in his job. She shoots it into her veins for her narcotics addiction. She is so full of the intoxicant she can even breath on cockroaches to kill them . Bill is arrested for his involvement and begins to trip himself.
His high continues as he now believes he is a secret agent who has been told he must murder his wife. He returns home and actually accidentally does so in a case of ironic accomplishment.
His trip takes him to North Africa where he meets a slew of bizarre and unsavory characters in his attempt to complete his ongoing "mission". He writes a series of articles using a typewriter which continually morphs into a giant cockroach. He finds another man who lets him borrow his typewriter in which his living typewriter is maimed and killed by Bill's device. Another man Bill meets may actually be a giant killer centipede in disguise!
If this doesn't make a lot of sense, I don't think it is really supposed to. Cronenberg's film, according to the writer/director himself, is an amalgam of not only the source material novel by William S. Burroughs, but also other works by the author and even some aspects of Burroughs' own life including the wife shooting incident.
Pretty much right from the start you know you are in for something very unusual when Lee starts having a conversation with his bug typewriter 15 minutes into the film. Then add another conversation with a giant "mugwump" sitting at a bar, a bug that bizarrely speaks in a voice from his bulbous anus and the fore mentioned giant centipede, you have a film in which you never are fully aware of what is real or what has become a drug-filled fantasy.
Cronenberg's fascination with the "body horror" style of film goes way back to some of his earlier films including The Brood and Scanners as well as They Fly remake. All his skill at creating one of a kind images are on full display here and you can't take your eyes off the screen as a result.
The entire cast really inhabit their roles including Peter Weller (who turned down Robocop 3 for this role) as Lee. His monotone, stoic delivery and minimalist physicality is perfect for this role. Throw in supporting performances by Ian Holm, Judy Davis and even Roy Scheider and you have found a perfect ensemble for this strange acid trip of a film.
The jazz soundtrack is also legendary including saxophone maestro Ornette Coleman off a score from Howard Shore. The improvisation and inconsistent melodies are a partnership with the unusual story taking place and form a symbiosis with the film.
You definitely leave the film wondering what you have just watched; however, sometimes that s a good thing. The director makes you think about what you have watched and decide for yourself the important elements what what is actually true.
I wish more films were like this!
ClareR (5667 KP) rated The Testaments (The Handmaid's Tale #2) in Books
Sep 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 23, 2019)
This was well worth the wait!
The Testaments is the book that many people have been waiting for since the TV series first aired (me!). It seems that everyone likes a sequel. Well, most people anyway, because for every person that I’ve seen rave about how good this book is, I’ve seen as many say that it doesn’t live up to the original. Personally, I’m glad that it’s not written in the same style as the first book. The Handmaid’s Tale was written at a different time. 1985 is a lifetime away. We were entering a time then, where women felt hope for the future - equality seemed achievable. I’m really not so sure that we feel the same way in 2019. Certain developed countries are making it more difficult for women to have abortions, more US states are making it illegal, female children are still being married to adult males in many developing countries; climate change is having a huge impact on the poorest countries and as Margaret Atwood has said, with any disasters, natural or otherwise, it’s always the women and children who suffer the worst deprivation. So Margaret Atwood had all of these things at her disposal when she wrote The Testaments. Everything that happens to the women in Gilead has happened, or is happening, somewhere in the world.
The Testaments is written from three different perspectives. I was delighted to see the return of Aunt Lydia - and she seems to have hit her stride. She’s much more sure of herself here, even though she is still having to watch her back. Gilead may be ultra-religious, but that doesn’t stop the literal back-stabbing. Aunt Lydia shows just how high the poison has spread. We see more than the subservient Aunt that she seems to be in front of The Eyes, and her backstory is fascinating.
Then there is Agnes, a child brought up in Gilead in a high profile family. We see how girls are ‘educated’ in a world where women and girls aren’t allowed to read and write. Agnes is contrasted with Daisy, a teenaged girl living in Canada, who was smuggled out of Gilead by her mother as a baby. There are obviously some pretty big differences. I don’t actually want to say too much, because I hate having my own reading experience ruined.
I loved this book. I really liked that by the end we couldn’t actually be sure whether Aunt Lydia’s records were genuine or fabricated. The symposium at the end (just as there was at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale) casts doubt on the authenticity of the papers that were found. Just like any written records found in this situation, historians have to be open minded about who could have written them. So we’re left wondering at the end whether what we’ve just read is actually what happened.
So does this deserve to be on the Booker Prize 2019 shortlist? Yes, I think it does. I believe it’s well written, I finished feeling thoroughly entertained and emotionally exhausted! I liked the open end too. Whether Atwood does anything with this open ending is up to her really, isn’t it. But I won’t be disappointed if she decides to leave the world of Gilead here. This book is a great way to end the story.
The Testaments is written from three different perspectives. I was delighted to see the return of Aunt Lydia - and she seems to have hit her stride. She’s much more sure of herself here, even though she is still having to watch her back. Gilead may be ultra-religious, but that doesn’t stop the literal back-stabbing. Aunt Lydia shows just how high the poison has spread. We see more than the subservient Aunt that she seems to be in front of The Eyes, and her backstory is fascinating.
Then there is Agnes, a child brought up in Gilead in a high profile family. We see how girls are ‘educated’ in a world where women and girls aren’t allowed to read and write. Agnes is contrasted with Daisy, a teenaged girl living in Canada, who was smuggled out of Gilead by her mother as a baby. There are obviously some pretty big differences. I don’t actually want to say too much, because I hate having my own reading experience ruined.
I loved this book. I really liked that by the end we couldn’t actually be sure whether Aunt Lydia’s records were genuine or fabricated. The symposium at the end (just as there was at the end of The Handmaid’s Tale) casts doubt on the authenticity of the papers that were found. Just like any written records found in this situation, historians have to be open minded about who could have written them. So we’re left wondering at the end whether what we’ve just read is actually what happened.
So does this deserve to be on the Booker Prize 2019 shortlist? Yes, I think it does. I believe it’s well written, I finished feeling thoroughly entertained and emotionally exhausted! I liked the open end too. Whether Atwood does anything with this open ending is up to her really, isn’t it. But I won’t be disappointed if she decides to leave the world of Gilead here. This book is a great way to end the story.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Fantastic (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Dysfunctionally functional.
The second of my catch-up films for next Sunday’s Oscars, this time featuring Viggo Mortensen who is up for a Best Actor Oscar.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Knock at the cabin (2023) in Movies
Mar 31, 2023
Disappointing Ending
Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan is a hit or miss film maker and that is because his films (usually) rely on a “twist” in the proceedings that make the movie you are watching turn into something different. Sometimes it works (the classic THE SIXTH SENSE), sometimes it doesn’t (THE HAPPENING). But, at least he has the courage of his convictions and you have to respect him for that. However, in KNOCK AT THE CABIN, Shyamalan is doing something that might undercut those twists – he’s beginning to pull his punches.
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Lilies of the Field (1963) in Movies
Jan 31, 2022
Strong Performances by Poitier and Skala
The film that Sidney Poitier won his Best Actor In A Leading Role Oscar for (becoming the first Black Man to do so) is the type of film that is rarely made these days - a simple film of love, faith, friendship and inspiration.
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written by James Poe from the Novel by William E. Barrett, LILIES OF THE FIELD tells the tale of a drifter who is the answer to a Nun’s prayer. Praying to the God that she believes in, she asks for help in getting a Church built in the desert in Arizona.
Simply Directed by Ralph Nelson (fresh off his success with REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT), Lilies of the Field is a positive life (and faith) affirming film from start to finish that will touch your heart…and your soul.
Poitier stars as handyman Homer Smith who’s car breaks down where a group of Nuns are trying to start a parish (and get a church built). Following the machinations of Mother Maria (Lilia Skala - in an Oscar nominated turn of her own), Homer never leaves and ends up being inspired - and inspiring others - to get this church built.
But it is the journey - not the destination - of this film that matters. Homer is thwarted time and time again by Mother Maria in his attempts to leave and his protestations that this is the “final job, then I’m leaving” is met with steeled determination by Mother Maria who has an unflappable belief that Homer is the answer to her prayers.
This film hangs on the relationship between Homer and Mother Maria and these 2 fine actors deliver the goods. Poitier is a deserved winner of the Best Actor Oscar (though he would fret for years that his win was a “token” win - which it is not). His Homer Smith is charming and forceful with a “lost” look in his eyes when he first arrives in the desert. This, in turns, changes to fierce determination to get that church built.
The real hero of this film is the under-rated performance of Skala (who did a series of TV Guest star appearances in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s but never really had a movie role - before or since - that would rival this one). It would have been tempting to make Mother Maria a one-note ice queen in her dogged determination - and belief - that Homer was sent by God, but in the hands of Skala there is a warmth in her eyes that serves as a counterbalance to her resolve.
It is the relationship of these 2 characters - and the ramifications of this relationship to the parish community - that is the soul of this film, and this soul runs deep. The relationship between Homer and Mother Maria is not, exactly, a friendship, but more of a strong work bond. 2 persons united in a common goal - for the common good.
Not the fastest moving of all films you will view, but the heart and soul that is at the center of this film - along with 2 very strong central performances - will warm your heart.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)