Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Jan 11, 2021
Watchable but a little misdirected
Misbehaviour is a 2020 drama directed by Philippa Lowthorpe based on a true story, that follows a group of women from the Women’s Liberation Movement as they attempt to disrupt the 1970 Miss World pageant being held in London.
Misbehaviour has made a decision to follow four separate stories as they eventually intersect at the Miss World pageant, and I think this is to it’s detriment as it seemed to dilute the main issue about women’s inequality. It follows Sally (Keira Knightley), a history student wanting her place at the table, as she joins forces with Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley), a radical feminist from the Women’s Liberation Movement who believes in taking physical action as the plot to disrupt the pageant. It also follows 3 other storylines centred around the pageant itself: Eric (Rhys Ifans) and Julia Morley (Keeley Hawes), the creators of the Miss World Pageant as they attempt to respond to controversies surrounding it; Miss Grenada Jennifer Hosten (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) as she takes part in the contest and; Bob Hope (Greg Kinnear) who is hosting the pageant. All of these stories together, whilst interesting, mean that not enough time and detail is given to each individual storyline, especially with an under two hour run time.
The film begins with some fairly shocking male behaviour from Sally’s university interviewers and Bob Hope, but sadly it doesn’t carry on in this vein throughout. Had the entire film focused on the behaviour and attitudes women had really experienced during the 70s, it would’ve been a lot more hard hitting and engaging. Instead it comes across as a little too light hearted. The most disturbing scenes were those involving Bob Hope and his clearly inappropriate behaviour, and Greg Kinnear plays him very well although the prosthetic nose is a tad distracting. However the problem with Hope is that his scenes, whilst good, are entirely unnecessary when linked to the main plot and are a big contributor to the dilution of the story.
Misbehaviour looks good, the costume and sets are very in keeping with the time period and so is the music. It also has a rather stellar cast, all of whom put in performances that are very good and not to be criticised – Rhys Ifans provides some much needed comic relief as pageant creator Eric Morley. The standout of all of these is Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Jennifer, who brings poise and intrigue to a character with barely any lines and leaves us wanting more. And sadly due to the intersecting storylines, we don’t see enough of her until right at the end, which was far too late. It was also nice to see the real women that inspired this film featured before the credits and find out how they moved forward with their lives.
Overall Misbehaviour is a decent film with good performances with an important message and story to promote. I just wish that instead of trying to tell this story from the point of every key player involved, they had focused on the central subject of the inequality women experienced at the time as this would’ve made Misbehaviour a lot more memorable.
Misbehaviour has made a decision to follow four separate stories as they eventually intersect at the Miss World pageant, and I think this is to it’s detriment as it seemed to dilute the main issue about women’s inequality. It follows Sally (Keira Knightley), a history student wanting her place at the table, as she joins forces with Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley), a radical feminist from the Women’s Liberation Movement who believes in taking physical action as the plot to disrupt the pageant. It also follows 3 other storylines centred around the pageant itself: Eric (Rhys Ifans) and Julia Morley (Keeley Hawes), the creators of the Miss World Pageant as they attempt to respond to controversies surrounding it; Miss Grenada Jennifer Hosten (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) as she takes part in the contest and; Bob Hope (Greg Kinnear) who is hosting the pageant. All of these stories together, whilst interesting, mean that not enough time and detail is given to each individual storyline, especially with an under two hour run time.
The film begins with some fairly shocking male behaviour from Sally’s university interviewers and Bob Hope, but sadly it doesn’t carry on in this vein throughout. Had the entire film focused on the behaviour and attitudes women had really experienced during the 70s, it would’ve been a lot more hard hitting and engaging. Instead it comes across as a little too light hearted. The most disturbing scenes were those involving Bob Hope and his clearly inappropriate behaviour, and Greg Kinnear plays him very well although the prosthetic nose is a tad distracting. However the problem with Hope is that his scenes, whilst good, are entirely unnecessary when linked to the main plot and are a big contributor to the dilution of the story.
Misbehaviour looks good, the costume and sets are very in keeping with the time period and so is the music. It also has a rather stellar cast, all of whom put in performances that are very good and not to be criticised – Rhys Ifans provides some much needed comic relief as pageant creator Eric Morley. The standout of all of these is Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Jennifer, who brings poise and intrigue to a character with barely any lines and leaves us wanting more. And sadly due to the intersecting storylines, we don’t see enough of her until right at the end, which was far too late. It was also nice to see the real women that inspired this film featured before the credits and find out how they moved forward with their lives.
Overall Misbehaviour is a decent film with good performances with an important message and story to promote. I just wish that instead of trying to tell this story from the point of every key player involved, they had focused on the central subject of the inequality women experienced at the time as this would’ve made Misbehaviour a lot more memorable.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pieces of a Woman (2020) in Movies
Dec 29, 2020
Vanessa Kirby (1 more)
The birth scene
Pieces of a Woman stars Vanessa Kirby and Shia LaBeouf as Martha and Sean, a married couple preparing for the imminent arrival of their first child. But a heartbreaking home birth leaves Martha struggling with grief and becoming increasingly isolated from Sean and her family.
If you've heard anything about Pieces of a Woman recently, it will no doubt be in relation to the home birth scene. Coming right at the start of the movie, and following a brief introduction to our two parents to be, the birth is shot in a single 22 minute take, from the point of Martha's waters breaking in the kitchen, to the arrival of the midwife and the eventual birth of the baby. As with any childbirth, there's a lot going on, a lot of emotions as the drama moves between the various rooms of the house. And everyone involved is outstanding, particularly Vanessa Kirby who is completely convincing. With the impressive, extended intro over, we cut to black and the title of the movie appears on screen. We then move onto the aftermath.
At first, we don't know exactly what went wrong with the birth and Martha and Sean do not have all of the answers either, which is essentially where a lot of the grief and tension arise from. Martha returns to work, to the shock of her co-workers, and it's clear that both her and Sean are very quickly beginning to drift apart, dealing with their grief in very different ways. Sean resorts to drinking, sleeping with Martha's cousin and having emotional outbursts, while Martha remains quietly detached from everyone and everything, and even meets with a local university to discuss donating their baby's body to medical science. Dirty plates stack up in the kitchen, house plants become limp from lack of water and attention.
We also discover that, in among all of the grief, everyone seems determined that the midwife who delivered their baby be blamed, prosecuted and sent to jail for five years, due to negligence and manslaughter. This is something which makes absolutely no sense when you first learn of it and even less sense when we finally arrive in the courtroom towards the end.
As we limp from month to month, the writing becomes worse and the film becomes increasingly frustrating and baffling. There's an impressive supporting cast of friends and family, all delivering their melodramatic monologues with flair, but the writing holds them back and prevents the movie from delivering any of the much needed emotional impact. At times, conversations appear to be badly improvised and just as it feels like we're about to get something of significance out of a scene or character, we cut to a different setting or later period in time, and all momentum is lost.
A bold, impressive 30 minute opening and a performance from Vanessa Kirby which continues to highlight just how talented she is. But apart from that, Pieces of a Woman just feels flat.
If you've heard anything about Pieces of a Woman recently, it will no doubt be in relation to the home birth scene. Coming right at the start of the movie, and following a brief introduction to our two parents to be, the birth is shot in a single 22 minute take, from the point of Martha's waters breaking in the kitchen, to the arrival of the midwife and the eventual birth of the baby. As with any childbirth, there's a lot going on, a lot of emotions as the drama moves between the various rooms of the house. And everyone involved is outstanding, particularly Vanessa Kirby who is completely convincing. With the impressive, extended intro over, we cut to black and the title of the movie appears on screen. We then move onto the aftermath.
At first, we don't know exactly what went wrong with the birth and Martha and Sean do not have all of the answers either, which is essentially where a lot of the grief and tension arise from. Martha returns to work, to the shock of her co-workers, and it's clear that both her and Sean are very quickly beginning to drift apart, dealing with their grief in very different ways. Sean resorts to drinking, sleeping with Martha's cousin and having emotional outbursts, while Martha remains quietly detached from everyone and everything, and even meets with a local university to discuss donating their baby's body to medical science. Dirty plates stack up in the kitchen, house plants become limp from lack of water and attention.
We also discover that, in among all of the grief, everyone seems determined that the midwife who delivered their baby be blamed, prosecuted and sent to jail for five years, due to negligence and manslaughter. This is something which makes absolutely no sense when you first learn of it and even less sense when we finally arrive in the courtroom towards the end.
As we limp from month to month, the writing becomes worse and the film becomes increasingly frustrating and baffling. There's an impressive supporting cast of friends and family, all delivering their melodramatic monologues with flair, but the writing holds them back and prevents the movie from delivering any of the much needed emotional impact. At times, conversations appear to be badly improvised and just as it feels like we're about to get something of significance out of a scene or character, we cut to a different setting or later period in time, and all momentum is lost.
A bold, impressive 30 minute opening and a performance from Vanessa Kirby which continues to highlight just how talented she is. But apart from that, Pieces of a Woman just feels flat.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Breathtaking and Intense
It's 1940 and the Nazis are overpowering the British army, forcing them to retreat to Dunkirk in an effort to return home to England. The English channel is all that stands in the way of the 400,000 soldiers that are stranded on the beach. The story begins with Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), making his way through the town as propaganda is being dropped from the sky, informing them that the enemy are closing in. After a brief dash to avoid the bullets that begin raining down on him and some fellow soldiers, he barely manages to make it to the beach where the immense desperation of the situation becomes apparent. Thousands of men lined up, waiting for something to free them while bodies wash up on the beach. The cinematic scale is, as you'd expect from Christopher Nolan, impressive. And it doesn't let up from then on.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Everybody Knows (Todos Lo Saben) (2018) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019 (Updated Mar 13, 2019)
Excellent acting from Bardem and (especially) Cruz
I have always liked, but not loved, the English language movies that Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem have been a part of. Part of the issue, I think, is that even though they are dynamic, charismatica and GOOD LOOKING screen presences that embody the very definitioni of the term "MOVIE STAR", they are working in a language that is not their native language, so something, I think, gets lost in translation. So, it was with some excitement that I checked out the Spanish language thriller EVERYBODY KNOWS (Spanish Title: TODOS LO SOBEN).
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I wasn't disappointed. Both Bardem and (especially) Cruz shine in this familial thriller. Cruz stars as Laura, a native of Spain now living in Argentina. She (and her 2 children) come back to her small village outside of Madrid for the wedding of her younger sister. When a bad thing happens on this trip, Laura must find a way out while dealing with lingering family matters and pressures that come to the fore due to the stress of the situation.
Without putting too much of a fine point on this, Cruz is stunning. Not only is she a beautiful woman who commands the screen whenever she is on, but as her character becomes more and more physically and emotionally torn with "the situation" her raw emotions come out and you see a very real portrayal of a mother who will do anything for her children. This performance is (was?) Academy Award worthy - it is that good. This is a strong actress at the top of her game.
She is more than matched on screen by the less showey, nuanced - yet fun, at times - performance of her real life husband, Javier Bardem, who plays a person from Lara's past that is drawn into the events. Bardem won an Oscar for playing the mysterious, scary hitman, Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MAN. This was a a character who barely spoke. In this film, he plays a lively, extroverted fun-loving person who's whole personae is called into question, quite the contrast to the English language characters I have, heretofore, known him for.
Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi (best known for THE SEPARATION) does a good job driving the story - once it gets started - he is sure handed in handling both the suspense/action moments of this movie as well as the family drama during the "many people talking around a table" scenes. This film led off the Cannes Film Festival last year and was greatly lauded.
It's not a perfect film. My friend who saw the movie with me stated (correctly) that he had never seen a movie that "started so poorly but corrected itself and finished as an excellent film" like this one did. The first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes of this 2 hour and 15 minute film is filled with introducing the myriad of characters associated with this family (and the mystery that enfolds), but it is a scattershot approach to film making and character introduction and Farhadi misses the mark more than he hits the mark during this period.
But once the mystery unfolds - and Cruz and Bardem's characters (and acting) kicks into high gear - things get quite good, quite tense and quite engrossing. Well worth the time to check it out.
Letter Grade B+: (C for the first 45 minutes, A for the last hour and a half)
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
Another classic novel that I have no knowledge of, I even own the BBC version on DVD, I'm really not sure how I haven't watched it.
In old English society what was a girl to do with her spare time to stay entertained? Read, learn the piano, paint... act as matchmaker to her friends. When Emma Woodhouse sees a flicker of promise or flirtation she jumps at the chance to fan the flames of romance between her friends and acquaintances, but when wires get crossed and misunderstandings occur, things begin to crack.
I always had the impression that Emma was a light comedy drama from hearing people talk about it, and while that did come across, I was surprised to come out feeling negatively towards my namesake. I had assumed that Emma was a delightful and whimsical character [as most Emmas are] and when I spent a lot of the film feeling like she was, frankly, a bit of a bitch, I wanted to banish her from the exclusive "Emma Club". Apart from besmirching the good name the attitude didn't seem to fit with the humour of the film.
Emma. is charming, but it didn't quite get me over the line. There seemed little reason for it to be over 2 hours long, while most of the film was engaging you could have taken out 15 minutes or so and tightened it up, I genuinely think that would have added a star to my rating.
Actually, hold off on that star for a moment, let's talk about the casting first.
Rupert Graves, yeeeeeeeeeeees. That's it for him, he's a delight, put him in everything.
Bill Night and Miranda Hart both gave great comedic performances, with Hart also getting an agonising scene that got me right in the feels. Their talent for humour added a great lightness to the film and was perfectly aligned to the period setting.
Johnny Flynn, or Mr Tasty Debrief for the Cineworld-goers out there. He was tastefully de-briefed, and the reason for the card warning: "Brief natural nudity". Flynn had some good moments, particularly around the picnic scene but for me this strong character becomes too sappy as we roll downhill to the ending.
Emma herself, Anya Taylor-Joy... I have already said that I found Emma to be a bit of a bitch, for the light-hearted nature of the film I really felt the time was off. I know there isn't a lot that would be different in this setting to modern day but I found the sly nature to feel far more modern than everything else. I think that is mainly down to the casting, Taylor-Joy's acting frequently has that vibe too it and it doesn't always endear me to her films, this makes me slightly nervous to see her in Radioactive and The New Mutants over the next couple of months.
The setting is of course as delightful as you would expect, grand houses and rolling hills. Paired with the costumes you have a wonderful overall feel of the era, though I would say that the costumes do have an almost modern touch to them that makes them very noticeable.
The charming base for Austen's novel has to battle with Emma's Mean Girl performance and the slightly overlong runtime, while it does give a mildly entertaining watch it's cowering in the shadow of Little Women and I don't think I'd need to see it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/emma-movie-review.html
In old English society what was a girl to do with her spare time to stay entertained? Read, learn the piano, paint... act as matchmaker to her friends. When Emma Woodhouse sees a flicker of promise or flirtation she jumps at the chance to fan the flames of romance between her friends and acquaintances, but when wires get crossed and misunderstandings occur, things begin to crack.
I always had the impression that Emma was a light comedy drama from hearing people talk about it, and while that did come across, I was surprised to come out feeling negatively towards my namesake. I had assumed that Emma was a delightful and whimsical character [as most Emmas are] and when I spent a lot of the film feeling like she was, frankly, a bit of a bitch, I wanted to banish her from the exclusive "Emma Club". Apart from besmirching the good name the attitude didn't seem to fit with the humour of the film.
Emma. is charming, but it didn't quite get me over the line. There seemed little reason for it to be over 2 hours long, while most of the film was engaging you could have taken out 15 minutes or so and tightened it up, I genuinely think that would have added a star to my rating.
Actually, hold off on that star for a moment, let's talk about the casting first.
Rupert Graves, yeeeeeeeeeeees. That's it for him, he's a delight, put him in everything.
Bill Night and Miranda Hart both gave great comedic performances, with Hart also getting an agonising scene that got me right in the feels. Their talent for humour added a great lightness to the film and was perfectly aligned to the period setting.
Johnny Flynn, or Mr Tasty Debrief for the Cineworld-goers out there. He was tastefully de-briefed, and the reason for the card warning: "Brief natural nudity". Flynn had some good moments, particularly around the picnic scene but for me this strong character becomes too sappy as we roll downhill to the ending.
Emma herself, Anya Taylor-Joy... I have already said that I found Emma to be a bit of a bitch, for the light-hearted nature of the film I really felt the time was off. I know there isn't a lot that would be different in this setting to modern day but I found the sly nature to feel far more modern than everything else. I think that is mainly down to the casting, Taylor-Joy's acting frequently has that vibe too it and it doesn't always endear me to her films, this makes me slightly nervous to see her in Radioactive and The New Mutants over the next couple of months.
The setting is of course as delightful as you would expect, grand houses and rolling hills. Paired with the costumes you have a wonderful overall feel of the era, though I would say that the costumes do have an almost modern touch to them that makes them very noticeable.
The charming base for Austen's novel has to battle with Emma's Mean Girl performance and the slightly overlong runtime, while it does give a mildly entertaining watch it's cowering in the shadow of Little Women and I don't think I'd need to see it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/emma-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2019
Caught in a bad Roma
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been a long while since I watched a film deserving of a truly, harshly negative review. I have gotten so close so many times, and I’ll be damned if Netflix hadn’t gotten close to earning that with the fridge-logic that ruined Bird Box. Even Bird Box, though, feels enjoyable in retrospect compared to another Netflix exclusive: Alfonso Cuarón’s Roma.
Since I’m in a clear minority on this film, I feel obligated to preemptively address some common criticisms. If Roma had been produced in English, presented in color and with any score, it couldn’t fix the fact that I simply dislike Roma’s genre. Sure, I’ve liked slice-of-life drama films, and modern period pieces do fine by me. Pretentious Oscar-farming arthouse flicks like this, though, never win my praise.
Roma follows Cleo, a housemaid in Mexico City. Cleo has gotten pregnant and the presumed father, Fermín, leaves her to buy cigarettes before the baby’s even born. Her employer, Sofía, is dealing with a cheating spouse. What follows is two hours of both of these women marginally helping each other with their respective situations. As slice-of-life films do.
Since it's a slice-of-life film, much of the story just basically happens. You'll remember a scene here or there that happened, even if it was ultimately insignificant. In one scene for instance, Cleo goes to confront the baby daddy, who’s at a huge martial arts class. She spectates and proves to be the only one able to perform a certain yoga pose. Which is important because it helped add another few minutes to the film.
Cleo goes into labor not long after this confrontation, but her daughter ends up being stillborn. This all happens in the midst of the Corpus Christi Massacre. What the heck was the Corpus Christi Massacre, you may ask? According to this film, it was a brutal inconvenience on Cleo’s way to the hospital after her water breaks. This actual historical event simply happens and is never addressed for one second more. You know, just like in Titanic where the shipwreck just makes things inconvenient for Rose and Jack.
The last major scene in the film comes when Sofía invites Cleo to come with her family on a trip to the beach, not as staff but to help Cleo cope with the tragedy of losing her child. While they’re there, Sofía leaves the children in Cleo’s care for two freaking minutes, and two of the kids nearly drown. Cleo, though, can’t swim, and so she stands out in the water as the kids rescue each other. And that's about as close as Roma gets to a cohesive plot. Cleo only came with them to help her grieving, which meant she could be there to be powerless while her employer’s kids save each other’s lives. Bad things happen to us, the film teaches, so that good things can coincidentally happen in our proximity.
In fact, coincidence seems to be the running theme, here. Remember the Corpus Christi Massacre? No? What if I call it “the scene where Cleo goes into labor”? Maybe that helps? Fermín briefly held Cleo at gunpoint in the middle of it. Again, mere coincidence. Just like it’s a mere coincidence that she goes into labor the same day as a massacre that killed 120 people. As coincidences do.
Roma isn’t an aggressively bad film. There are a rare few moments within Roma’s 2-hour runtime where you think, “I can see that clip showing up during a Facebook video binge,” but again: These are moments more rare than our current president ordering a rare steak. That rarity has everything to do with the fact that the movie has so few moments, at all. The rest is shots that linger too long from angles that repeat themselves all too often. It’s like Cuarón asked someone, “What does a movie like Juno need to be better?” They responded, “Nothing.” So Cuarón packed Roma with nothing.
Which brings up one of my biggest criticisms of Roma: The cinematography is bland. Cuarón shot practically the entire film on one camera, set a specific distance from the subject, and kept takes running as longer than they should have, padding out a short-film’s worth of content to feature length. It’s bland cinematography that somehow earned an Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Gravity showed us what Cuarón was capable of. Beyond bringing a seemingly authentic view of space to the big screen, Gravity offered variety. Yes, the huge collision scene in Gravity takes on the feel of a one-take scene, but even then, the camera moves with the action. And if your attention moves away from the foreground the shot, you’re able to see other important things going on. With Roma, though, your foreground is your film. Period. And to be sure, you'll be kept at arm's length from that foreground at all times, both metaphorically and cinematically.
There's a number of reasons why Roma wasn't the Best Picture, this year. Gravity proved that Roma is not Cuarón’s best film. Bo Burnham–yes, that Bo Burnham–wrote and directed a better slice-of-life film with Eighth Grade. And Roma might not even be the past year’s best black-and-white film; I dare suggest that Cold War may have been better.
To give it the credit it’s due, Roma’s cast rightly earned nominations for their performances. Yalitza Aparicio and Marina de Tavira earned Best Actress nominations for their roles, and for their part, their performances were authentic as can be. It's the least the Academy could do for having them endure Cuarón's lengthy takes.
But now that I've given it credit, I demand my time back for the scene of Fermín going Star Wars Kid meets Full Monty.
Since I’m in a clear minority on this film, I feel obligated to preemptively address some common criticisms. If Roma had been produced in English, presented in color and with any score, it couldn’t fix the fact that I simply dislike Roma’s genre. Sure, I’ve liked slice-of-life drama films, and modern period pieces do fine by me. Pretentious Oscar-farming arthouse flicks like this, though, never win my praise.
Roma follows Cleo, a housemaid in Mexico City. Cleo has gotten pregnant and the presumed father, Fermín, leaves her to buy cigarettes before the baby’s even born. Her employer, Sofía, is dealing with a cheating spouse. What follows is two hours of both of these women marginally helping each other with their respective situations. As slice-of-life films do.
Since it's a slice-of-life film, much of the story just basically happens. You'll remember a scene here or there that happened, even if it was ultimately insignificant. In one scene for instance, Cleo goes to confront the baby daddy, who’s at a huge martial arts class. She spectates and proves to be the only one able to perform a certain yoga pose. Which is important because it helped add another few minutes to the film.
Cleo goes into labor not long after this confrontation, but her daughter ends up being stillborn. This all happens in the midst of the Corpus Christi Massacre. What the heck was the Corpus Christi Massacre, you may ask? According to this film, it was a brutal inconvenience on Cleo’s way to the hospital after her water breaks. This actual historical event simply happens and is never addressed for one second more. You know, just like in Titanic where the shipwreck just makes things inconvenient for Rose and Jack.
The last major scene in the film comes when Sofía invites Cleo to come with her family on a trip to the beach, not as staff but to help Cleo cope with the tragedy of losing her child. While they’re there, Sofía leaves the children in Cleo’s care for two freaking minutes, and two of the kids nearly drown. Cleo, though, can’t swim, and so she stands out in the water as the kids rescue each other. And that's about as close as Roma gets to a cohesive plot. Cleo only came with them to help her grieving, which meant she could be there to be powerless while her employer’s kids save each other’s lives. Bad things happen to us, the film teaches, so that good things can coincidentally happen in our proximity.
In fact, coincidence seems to be the running theme, here. Remember the Corpus Christi Massacre? No? What if I call it “the scene where Cleo goes into labor”? Maybe that helps? Fermín briefly held Cleo at gunpoint in the middle of it. Again, mere coincidence. Just like it’s a mere coincidence that she goes into labor the same day as a massacre that killed 120 people. As coincidences do.
Roma isn’t an aggressively bad film. There are a rare few moments within Roma’s 2-hour runtime where you think, “I can see that clip showing up during a Facebook video binge,” but again: These are moments more rare than our current president ordering a rare steak. That rarity has everything to do with the fact that the movie has so few moments, at all. The rest is shots that linger too long from angles that repeat themselves all too often. It’s like Cuarón asked someone, “What does a movie like Juno need to be better?” They responded, “Nothing.” So Cuarón packed Roma with nothing.
Which brings up one of my biggest criticisms of Roma: The cinematography is bland. Cuarón shot practically the entire film on one camera, set a specific distance from the subject, and kept takes running as longer than they should have, padding out a short-film’s worth of content to feature length. It’s bland cinematography that somehow earned an Oscar for Best Cinematography.
Gravity showed us what Cuarón was capable of. Beyond bringing a seemingly authentic view of space to the big screen, Gravity offered variety. Yes, the huge collision scene in Gravity takes on the feel of a one-take scene, but even then, the camera moves with the action. And if your attention moves away from the foreground the shot, you’re able to see other important things going on. With Roma, though, your foreground is your film. Period. And to be sure, you'll be kept at arm's length from that foreground at all times, both metaphorically and cinematically.
There's a number of reasons why Roma wasn't the Best Picture, this year. Gravity proved that Roma is not Cuarón’s best film. Bo Burnham–yes, that Bo Burnham–wrote and directed a better slice-of-life film with Eighth Grade. And Roma might not even be the past year’s best black-and-white film; I dare suggest that Cold War may have been better.
To give it the credit it’s due, Roma’s cast rightly earned nominations for their performances. Yalitza Aparicio and Marina de Tavira earned Best Actress nominations for their roles, and for their part, their performances were authentic as can be. It's the least the Academy could do for having them endure Cuarón's lengthy takes.
But now that I've given it credit, I demand my time back for the scene of Fermín going Star Wars Kid meets Full Monty.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pompeii (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The disaster movie has always been a genre guaranteed to create incredible box-office returns. If you look at Roland Emmerich’s impressive blockbuster hit 2012, which grossed over $750million, it is clear that destroying well-known landmarks = bums on seats.
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/
However since 2012‘s 2009 release the genre has fallen into a dormant state. Nevertheless, four years later Paul W.S. Anderson attempts to reawaken this box-office behemoth with his take on the tragic true events at Pompeii, but does the film succeed in its task?
Partially is the short answer. Anderson’s first film since 2012’s disaster Resident Evil: Retribution is as cheesy as a Dairylea triangle, but it also has some stunning special effects to give it some life.
Game of Thrones’ Kit Harington stars as Milo, a slave captured by the Romans after they wiped out his entire family. He is taken to a gloriously recreated Pompeii and immediately sets his sights on the very beautiful Lady Cassia, played by a rather dull Emily Browning, who just so happens to be the daughter of the city ruler, Severus. I’m sure you can guess the plot…
What ensues is a cheesy mess of terrible acting and stilted dialogue that jars with the period nature of the film. Only the knowing of what is to come from Mt Vesuvius, which is beautifully rendered in CGI, stops the film from grinding to a halt.
Kiefer Sutherland dons a downright ridiculous English accent for the role of Senator Corvus, the chief antagonist in the film. He is on business in Pompeii to see if trade can be established and investment can be agreed with the great city of Rome – though this plot point gets lost along the way.
Another issue is the true story which Pompeii is based on. The great tale of tragedy and mother nature showing her ruthless side is one we all know – but all we really want to see is the mountain going boom. Unfortunately we must wait whilst Anderson tries his best to make us care about the characters with their sickly back-stories, for which he fails in breathtaking fashion.
Finally after nearly an hour of what feels like a poor-mans Gladiator we are treat to a stunning spectacle, as Mt Vesuvius explodes in rip-roaring style. As the mountain blows and the fireballs rage Anderson once again tries to get us interested in the paper-thin story, thankfully not pushing too hard this time, and he lets the special effects take over.
Historical accuracy is, surprisingly, very good. According to the director, Pompeii was faithfully recreated for the film with aerial shots of the city as it stands today topped up with CGI to show the thriving metropolis we see in the film.
Unfortunately, scientific accuracy takes a back-seat for the sake of high drama, which is the case with many films of this nature. The iconic pyroclastic flow, attributed to killing the majority of Pompeii’s inhabitants due to its huge speed and massive temperatures is slowed right down to ensure the film can last another ten minutes or so – though this is perhaps to be expected.
Overall, Paul W.S. Anderson has created a film which certainly looks the part, but is lacking in so many other areas. Kiefer Sutherland’s villain is completely upstaged by the constant shots of the volcano, which are almost pantomime like in their ‘it’s behind you’ staging, and the rest of the cast are wooden and not particularly likeable.
However, what it lacks in story and acting finesse it makes up in the beautiful special effects and engaging cinematography. It’s worth a watch just to see Pompeii get obliterated – which is probably not a very nice thing to say at all.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/05/03/pompeii-3d-review/