A masterclass in acting from Anthony Hopkins and Olivier Coleman in a movie which catapults the viewer inside the frightening confusion of dementia. A film that explores this highly charged, emotive subject from within and without, and never releases the audience from the ever-changing perspectives of that shifting inner landscape.
Reviews
7 Reviews
The Good Liar
(2019)
How much would you bet...?
21 March 2021
... that the typical review for this movie will suggest that two quality actors save a weak script from total failure?
This stumbling, clumsy script is poor enough to telegraph the movie's true intention early on, whereas towards the end it lurches from contrivance to pure fantasy. Add in the anachronisms, the coincidences and that neither actor is actually old enough (even in the story) to have experienced the actions described, and it's a story that becomes so difficult to believe that one needs less a willing suspension of disbelief and more a full frontal lobotomy.
Shame, because Mirren and McKellen are always a treat, even in something as gossamer thin as this drivel.
Audiences are unlikely to leave the cinema feeling fulfilled by this fare.
This stumbling, clumsy script is poor enough to telegraph the movie's true intention early on, whereas towards the end it lurches from contrivance to pure fantasy. Add in the anachronisms, the coincidences and that neither actor is actually old enough (even in the story) to have experienced the actions described, and it's a story that becomes so difficult to believe that one needs less a willing suspension of disbelief and more a full frontal lobotomy.
Shame, because Mirren and McKellen are always a treat, even in something as gossamer thin as this drivel.
Audiences are unlikely to leave the cinema feeling fulfilled by this fare.
Minari
(2020)
Poetry in motion...
21 March 2021
This is that rare thing, a well-balanced blend of poetic screenplay, perfect pacing, great acting and a storyline that crosses cultural and national boundaries. All parents will find something to relate to in this touching film. I have never rated a movie this highly before but I feel this one merits it. Sit back and enjoy the journey as this family seeks to find itself.
Promising Young Woman
(2020)
Did you find this surprising?
10 March 2021
Surprising, because one doesn't often see actors of the calibre of Carey Mulligan and Alfred Molina in something this simplistic. Surprising, because I would have thought it hard to raise finance for a movie which purports to say a lot but ends up saying very little, and that neither eloquently nor particularly well. Surprising, because I see this screenplay has been nominated for numerous awards, which makes me wonder if it's being judged by more forgiving criteria than is normal? To me, as a filmgoer, this is a first film which looks just like a first film - with all that statement suggests - so it surprises me to see it assessed as if it's something more.
The film, overall, is not bad - one can pass an easy, thoughtless two hours with some popcorn and only an occasional glance at one's phone and not feel too resentful by its end - but there are some glaring weaknesses of the kind which often arise when there is no filter placed between writer and director because they are one and the same person.
It's rare to find screenwriters with sufficient self-control to prevent themselves being overwhelmed by the onerous task of blending message, material and structure, and Emerald Fennell doesn't pull it off. Had the film been directed by someone else, perhaps accompanied by the usual script discussions, rewrites and edits, then it might have been deepened, enriched and considerably improved. Doing it alone is an ambitious project and few writer/directors have the vision, objectivity, dramatic experience and harsh self-critical judgement to match the likes of Orson Welles, Quentin Tarantino or Andrea Arnold.
Let's deal with some of the weaknesses:
* There is no character development to speak of. As the film begins, the lead character has apparently spent seven years working in a coffee shop, frequenting bars, chastising men and keeping score in her journal. By the end of the film she has done little more than move that score-keeping from a book to a phone screen. All other characters are static.
* All characters are woefully clichéd and two-dimensional, mere ciphers that exist to say their words and push the story along. In this simple revenge story the characters exist merely as bearers of oft-repeated complaints and statements. A puff of wind would blow most of them off screen. Most are forgettable within minutes. Carey Mulligan does a first-rate job with weak material but is left, ultimately, to carry a story which is not well crafted.
* Female characters are typically superficial, driven by self-interest, covetous or acquisitive.
* Male characters are either predatory, weak, violent, craven, duplicitous, inconsistent, self-obsessed, unaware, lacking empathy, rapacious or untrustworthy.
* The story takes place in a sterile vacuum. There is no world beyond the coffee shop, the house, the clinic and some bars. These settings are no more than convenient backdrops where authenticity takes second place - the coffee shop's turnover wouldn't support one employee let alone two. They could be painted scenery and would do just as well.
Such weaknesses often arise when a lack of writerly controls allows the core message to overwhelm the story, relegating normal dramatic structure, character development and plot pacing to a distant second place. The screenplay reminded me of commendable efforts by film students.
As such, this film presents less like a dramatic tour de force and more like a series of points which the writer was so keen to get off her chest that she forgot to construct a proper framework on which to display them. I imagine its central (indeed only) message will resonate with a female audience but that, unto itself, doesn't turn it into a well-crafted film.
Writing a screenplay is tough. Writing and directing one's own screenplay is much, much tougher. Fennell does a creditable job on her first go, but no more than that. There's a considerable gap between that and creating an accomplished movie which is well written, properly structured and then realised on screen. She has some way to go to reach that level. How surprising...
The film, overall, is not bad - one can pass an easy, thoughtless two hours with some popcorn and only an occasional glance at one's phone and not feel too resentful by its end - but there are some glaring weaknesses of the kind which often arise when there is no filter placed between writer and director because they are one and the same person.
It's rare to find screenwriters with sufficient self-control to prevent themselves being overwhelmed by the onerous task of blending message, material and structure, and Emerald Fennell doesn't pull it off. Had the film been directed by someone else, perhaps accompanied by the usual script discussions, rewrites and edits, then it might have been deepened, enriched and considerably improved. Doing it alone is an ambitious project and few writer/directors have the vision, objectivity, dramatic experience and harsh self-critical judgement to match the likes of Orson Welles, Quentin Tarantino or Andrea Arnold.
Let's deal with some of the weaknesses:
* There is no character development to speak of. As the film begins, the lead character has apparently spent seven years working in a coffee shop, frequenting bars, chastising men and keeping score in her journal. By the end of the film she has done little more than move that score-keeping from a book to a phone screen. All other characters are static.
* All characters are woefully clichéd and two-dimensional, mere ciphers that exist to say their words and push the story along. In this simple revenge story the characters exist merely as bearers of oft-repeated complaints and statements. A puff of wind would blow most of them off screen. Most are forgettable within minutes. Carey Mulligan does a first-rate job with weak material but is left, ultimately, to carry a story which is not well crafted.
* Female characters are typically superficial, driven by self-interest, covetous or acquisitive.
* Male characters are either predatory, weak, violent, craven, duplicitous, inconsistent, self-obsessed, unaware, lacking empathy, rapacious or untrustworthy.
* The story takes place in a sterile vacuum. There is no world beyond the coffee shop, the house, the clinic and some bars. These settings are no more than convenient backdrops where authenticity takes second place - the coffee shop's turnover wouldn't support one employee let alone two. They could be painted scenery and would do just as well.
Such weaknesses often arise when a lack of writerly controls allows the core message to overwhelm the story, relegating normal dramatic structure, character development and plot pacing to a distant second place. The screenplay reminded me of commendable efforts by film students.
As such, this film presents less like a dramatic tour de force and more like a series of points which the writer was so keen to get off her chest that she forgot to construct a proper framework on which to display them. I imagine its central (indeed only) message will resonate with a female audience but that, unto itself, doesn't turn it into a well-crafted film.
Writing a screenplay is tough. Writing and directing one's own screenplay is much, much tougher. Fennell does a creditable job on her first go, but no more than that. There's a considerable gap between that and creating an accomplished movie which is well written, properly structured and then realised on screen. She has some way to go to reach that level. How surprising...
Yesterday
(III) (2019)
Nothing you haven't seen before. Here's why...
1 December 2019
It's a Richard Curtis script, so cue:
The film's premise (someone passing off others' work as their own) has been done many times, so that's not new. The film also rests wholly on the questionable (and shaky) assumption that the Beatles's songs alone would guarantee world fame for a solo performer with limited on-stage presence in 2019, rather than four cheeky chappies who exemplified the emerging teen freedoms of the 1960s and then defined the musical zeitgeist of the generation with a synergistic group personality that coalesced into a thing called 'The Beatles'. As such, it separates content from performer, music from star image/personality, when in fact the two are inextricably entwined. To suggest otherwise is to say that in public consciousness Mozart's music lives a life wholly separate from the legend (and myth) that is the tragedy of Mozart, or that E=MC2 exists totally apart from the legend (and myth) that is the 'genius' of Einstein. This is a major plot flaw.
Curtis' scripts are increasingly predictable so you can easily fast forward in chunks and not miss the story-line. You know there will be a moral dilemma which love will finally resolve.
Strong acting from Himesh Patel and Lily James - by-the-numbers acting from everyone else playing two-dimensional characters whose job is to push the plot along.
An OK movie if you've nothing else to do for a couple of hours. Settle down with some popcorn, but don't expect to carry memories of the movie for years or quote parts of it by the water cooler.
Great possibilities which ended up in a vaguely disappointing result.
- Awkward pauses between lovers.
- Sudden interruptions at moments of romantic tension.
- Gauche friends who don't fit in to society but have hearts of gold.
- Inexplicably asexual/ non-libidinous people who suddenly discover their romantic/sexual sides.
- A dash through traffic to stop a lover departing.
- The lead actress confessing she's been waiting to be loved.
- Emotion poured on in gargantuan dollops.
The film's premise (someone passing off others' work as their own) has been done many times, so that's not new. The film also rests wholly on the questionable (and shaky) assumption that the Beatles's songs alone would guarantee world fame for a solo performer with limited on-stage presence in 2019, rather than four cheeky chappies who exemplified the emerging teen freedoms of the 1960s and then defined the musical zeitgeist of the generation with a synergistic group personality that coalesced into a thing called 'The Beatles'. As such, it separates content from performer, music from star image/personality, when in fact the two are inextricably entwined. To suggest otherwise is to say that in public consciousness Mozart's music lives a life wholly separate from the legend (and myth) that is the tragedy of Mozart, or that E=MC2 exists totally apart from the legend (and myth) that is the 'genius' of Einstein. This is a major plot flaw.
Curtis' scripts are increasingly predictable so you can easily fast forward in chunks and not miss the story-line. You know there will be a moral dilemma which love will finally resolve.
Strong acting from Himesh Patel and Lily James - by-the-numbers acting from everyone else playing two-dimensional characters whose job is to push the plot along.
An OK movie if you've nothing else to do for a couple of hours. Settle down with some popcorn, but don't expect to carry memories of the movie for years or quote parts of it by the water cooler.
Great possibilities which ended up in a vaguely disappointing result.
Catch-22
(2019)
Catch-22 fans unlikely to be fulfilled by this wasted opportunity...
19 May 2019
If you were apprehensive about how well this was going to turn out, you were justified.
The good: As an adaptation, it's not too bad. Scenery and props look authentic. A couple of the scenes (particularly combat in the bombers) are well realised and tense. It's MUCH better than Mike Nichols' abortive film attempt of 1970.
The less-good: This is definitely NOT Catch-22. This is 'Catch-22 Lite' - a much simpler version in easy-to-understand and easy-to-digest morsels. Nothing too bitter, sharp, complicated or controversial here. Key satirical targets of the book (incompetence - of government administration, security forces, army commanders - the blindness of capitalism, gung-ho patriotism, systemic racism, etc.) are either watered down or omitted. Several key characters are conflated, so they lose their individual characteristics and become bland stereotypes. Other important characters are simply missing. So many story strands are left out that if this was a sock someone would be constantly darning it. The key storyline of Yossarian's significant journey is weakened in places by the lack of those supporting strands.
The book is a blazing and merciless satire filled with devices to make the reader empathise with the emotional and psychological trauma Yossarian is going through (temporal displacement; juxtaposed but dissimilar scenes linked by common dialogue; frighteningly indifferent rules, regulations, administrators; people in positions of corrupting power whose main concern is their own welfare; Kafka-esque terror at the surrender of personal control to unseen powers). This series jettisons most of that and replaces it with a simple chronological story using some of Heller's material where it suits and making up new things where it doesn't (witness the weak but perhaps more socially acceptable revised ending. Ouch!)
Casting, directing and screenplay opt for some poor choices here which don't help. Clooney is too old to play Scheisskopf. Laurie could never be the intimidating Major __ de Coverley. Cathcart, Korn, Aarfy, Major Major, McWatt, Nately, Orr and several others neither look nor act like their literary counterparts, weakening the story still further and making them into filler parts.
Summary: Catch-22 will always be a major challenge to film, its scope making it all but impossible to realise in a 90-minute movie. However, this is nearly 4.5 hours of TV which dragged in places because the pace was too slow and the story too tightly focused and limiting. In serial form like this it should be much easier to realise something similar in scope, message and power to Heller's extraordinary book. As such, it's rather a wasted opportunity.
The good: As an adaptation, it's not too bad. Scenery and props look authentic. A couple of the scenes (particularly combat in the bombers) are well realised and tense. It's MUCH better than Mike Nichols' abortive film attempt of 1970.
The less-good: This is definitely NOT Catch-22. This is 'Catch-22 Lite' - a much simpler version in easy-to-understand and easy-to-digest morsels. Nothing too bitter, sharp, complicated or controversial here. Key satirical targets of the book (incompetence - of government administration, security forces, army commanders - the blindness of capitalism, gung-ho patriotism, systemic racism, etc.) are either watered down or omitted. Several key characters are conflated, so they lose their individual characteristics and become bland stereotypes. Other important characters are simply missing. So many story strands are left out that if this was a sock someone would be constantly darning it. The key storyline of Yossarian's significant journey is weakened in places by the lack of those supporting strands.
The book is a blazing and merciless satire filled with devices to make the reader empathise with the emotional and psychological trauma Yossarian is going through (temporal displacement; juxtaposed but dissimilar scenes linked by common dialogue; frighteningly indifferent rules, regulations, administrators; people in positions of corrupting power whose main concern is their own welfare; Kafka-esque terror at the surrender of personal control to unseen powers). This series jettisons most of that and replaces it with a simple chronological story using some of Heller's material where it suits and making up new things where it doesn't (witness the weak but perhaps more socially acceptable revised ending. Ouch!)
Casting, directing and screenplay opt for some poor choices here which don't help. Clooney is too old to play Scheisskopf. Laurie could never be the intimidating Major __ de Coverley. Cathcart, Korn, Aarfy, Major Major, McWatt, Nately, Orr and several others neither look nor act like their literary counterparts, weakening the story still further and making them into filler parts.
Summary: Catch-22 will always be a major challenge to film, its scope making it all but impossible to realise in a 90-minute movie. However, this is nearly 4.5 hours of TV which dragged in places because the pace was too slow and the story too tightly focused and limiting. In serial form like this it should be much easier to realise something similar in scope, message and power to Heller's extraordinary book. As such, it's rather a wasted opportunity.
The Boondock Saints
(1999)
The World's First 70-Hour Movie?
3 March 2011
This movie should come with a warning that it will absorb more than 70 hours of your life. Here's how that time expenditure breaks down:
* 2 hours to watch the movie (or 3 hours if you've had to pause it several times to resettle yourself, grit your teeth and carry on)
* 2 hours to prepare and soak in a long, hot bath to remove the soiled feeling that you've been 'had' by the director, the producers and the 'friends' who recommended it and said it was 'great'.
* 6 hours to read the reviews on IMDb and elsewhere, to see if others in the world agree with your feeling that this was a terrible experience.
* 60 hours of therapy because you're finding that you keep replaying some of the worst scenes over and over in your mind at the most inconvenient times. The distraction is constant and you can't work, sleep or make love to your spouse.
In desperation you seek out a therapist to find answers to the questions that plague you: How did this film get made? Who sanctioned it? Has Willem Dafoe experienced any subsequent embarrassment? Who designed his suit? Have I seen any other movies this bad? Does the writer/director really believe my IQ is sub-92? Who makes that kind of orangey fake blood, and why do they still use it when it looks so false? Have I seen acting this poor since our high school production of Grease? Has any previous movie stolen so widely, so indiscriminately, so artlessly and so cynically from forerunners upon whose success it's hoping to hitch a free ride? Why don't directors tell the actors to stop moving their eyes after they've been killed? Is it really true that all evil people in the world are bald, tall and weigh 300 pounds? Has Billy Connolly ever been worse than this? OK, accepting that he has - because even Connolly's huge ego must remember his string of dire performances in such things as Timeline, Beverly Hills Ninja and The Man Who Sued God - will he now go back to supplementing the Connolly millions only through stand-up comedy, which he does exceptionally well, and give a real actor a chance to make a few shillings in the acting world? Or is Connolly committed to raking in the shekels no matter how dishonestly earned?
I could spend time critiquing this film's dubious and infantile morality, the hokum posited as philosophy, the poor writing, the self-indulgent, careless and flabby directing, the 'by-the-numbers' acting, the terrible Irish accents ('to be sure, to be sure ... ah begorrah!') and the immature plot, but I won't because it's already been done in numerous other reviews on this site. This film is poor. Very poor. To get sucked in and carried along by this storyline you don't so much need a suspension of disbelief as a full lobotomy, and the Director is shameless about reminding you of that every few minutes because he really is an arrogant man who genuinely believes you're far too dumb to notice.
In conclusion, here's the main question: How exercised about a film do you need to be to go and write a review about it? For most people, I think the answer is 'pretty gol'darned exercised'. For the majority of us with bars to visit, drinks to drink, lives to live and no interest in the hobby of review writing, we either need to really love, or really hate, a movie before we can be motivated to share that love or vent that spleen.
This movie has 800+ reviews on IMDb alone. To put that in context, major movies like Godfather II with 500+ reviews, The Good the Bad and the Ugly (540+), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (500+), Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (680+) and Goodfellas (750+) are all lagging waaaay behind this gem!!
I believe that you, as a potential viewer, need to ask yourself why that is. And when you go on to check those reviews you'll notice with a start that a lot of them exist purely because their writers needed to vent their spleen. Look at mine ... I don't normally write reviews but felt I had to do something cathartic to try and rid myself of the noxious residue left by this pestilential offering.
And now I feel cleansed. It worked! The therapist was right.
* 2 hours to watch the movie (or 3 hours if you've had to pause it several times to resettle yourself, grit your teeth and carry on)
* 2 hours to prepare and soak in a long, hot bath to remove the soiled feeling that you've been 'had' by the director, the producers and the 'friends' who recommended it and said it was 'great'.
* 6 hours to read the reviews on IMDb and elsewhere, to see if others in the world agree with your feeling that this was a terrible experience.
* 60 hours of therapy because you're finding that you keep replaying some of the worst scenes over and over in your mind at the most inconvenient times. The distraction is constant and you can't work, sleep or make love to your spouse.
In desperation you seek out a therapist to find answers to the questions that plague you: How did this film get made? Who sanctioned it? Has Willem Dafoe experienced any subsequent embarrassment? Who designed his suit? Have I seen any other movies this bad? Does the writer/director really believe my IQ is sub-92? Who makes that kind of orangey fake blood, and why do they still use it when it looks so false? Have I seen acting this poor since our high school production of Grease? Has any previous movie stolen so widely, so indiscriminately, so artlessly and so cynically from forerunners upon whose success it's hoping to hitch a free ride? Why don't directors tell the actors to stop moving their eyes after they've been killed? Is it really true that all evil people in the world are bald, tall and weigh 300 pounds? Has Billy Connolly ever been worse than this? OK, accepting that he has - because even Connolly's huge ego must remember his string of dire performances in such things as Timeline, Beverly Hills Ninja and The Man Who Sued God - will he now go back to supplementing the Connolly millions only through stand-up comedy, which he does exceptionally well, and give a real actor a chance to make a few shillings in the acting world? Or is Connolly committed to raking in the shekels no matter how dishonestly earned?
I could spend time critiquing this film's dubious and infantile morality, the hokum posited as philosophy, the poor writing, the self-indulgent, careless and flabby directing, the 'by-the-numbers' acting, the terrible Irish accents ('to be sure, to be sure ... ah begorrah!') and the immature plot, but I won't because it's already been done in numerous other reviews on this site. This film is poor. Very poor. To get sucked in and carried along by this storyline you don't so much need a suspension of disbelief as a full lobotomy, and the Director is shameless about reminding you of that every few minutes because he really is an arrogant man who genuinely believes you're far too dumb to notice.
In conclusion, here's the main question: How exercised about a film do you need to be to go and write a review about it? For most people, I think the answer is 'pretty gol'darned exercised'. For the majority of us with bars to visit, drinks to drink, lives to live and no interest in the hobby of review writing, we either need to really love, or really hate, a movie before we can be motivated to share that love or vent that spleen.
This movie has 800+ reviews on IMDb alone. To put that in context, major movies like Godfather II with 500+ reviews, The Good the Bad and the Ugly (540+), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (500+), Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (680+) and Goodfellas (750+) are all lagging waaaay behind this gem!!
I believe that you, as a potential viewer, need to ask yourself why that is. And when you go on to check those reviews you'll notice with a start that a lot of them exist purely because their writers needed to vent their spleen. Look at mine ... I don't normally write reviews but felt I had to do something cathartic to try and rid myself of the noxious residue left by this pestilential offering.
And now I feel cleansed. It worked! The therapist was right.
Tell Your Friends