January Film Thread

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Blue Straggler 01 Jan 2019

Starting with one that I saw on 20 December but haven't had time to post a review of.

The Old Man and The Gun. 
7/10
Widely touted as Robert Redford's acting swansong, this film is merely passable. Redford is almost playing himself, but he plays that role well. Sissy Spacek is reliable support as always, and Casey Affleck was very good (I forgot he was in it and didn't really recognise him, had to wait until the credits to see who it was, so I guess that's good). It's just not a very engaging story, about a serial bank robber and career criminal. Got no reason to root for any of the characters. It's still well made, in fact apart from some camera angles and movements and some of the editing style, it could almost BE a film made in the early 1980s (when the story takes place). Nice and grainy and the period detail is great. But not really an essential film.


And two from today, yes I am keen

The Favourite. 8.5/10
The new one from Yorgos Lanthimos and for sure it would be of benefit to have seen at least The Lobster by the same director, to get a sense of his style and humour. This one is getting a lot of press attention so I probably don't need to add much more than "believe the hype", although I'd say it is Emma Stone's film rather than Olivia Colman's. All three leads are great but Stone has to give it more nuance than the more cartoony Colman and Weisz roles. I would score it higher but there is a slight emptiness to it and a pondering as to whether ALL of it is meant to be drily comic or if there is some attempt at making a political point. Regardless, it's fantastic stuff. Great dialogue, direction, cinematography (some very very wide angle shots and night shots look like they were shot just with candle light) and an interesting score and editing. 

Bumblebee. 5.5/10. Don't believe the hype on this. Aside from a strong central performance from Hailee Steinfeld, and some wonderful characterisation of the wordless titular character (basically Sooty with a shell on ) this is an inconsistent jumble that doesn't make sense from moment to moment, and the promised 1980s nostalgia amounts to little more than some musical references, The Breakfast Club, cassettes and a dot matrix printer. Aside from that, it's business as usual for the Transformers franchise (I say this as someone who watched only the first of the live action ones...)

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Ignore all the bad reviews and the awful box office performance of Welcome to Marwen.

It's a great little film

7.5/10. It does lose some points for being a bit schmaltzy and overlong and having an intrusively syrupy score and some clunky expository dialogue and leaving at least three irritating loose ends BUT....

It is a gorgeously made and finely acted study of one man's attempts to deal with a major PTSD or TBI in the wake of a brutal incident, via creating art tableaux of cheesy fantasy Second World War scenarios. I can't say whether the depiction of PTSD/TBI is any way accurate but it at least shows a convincing depiction of isolation and reclusiveness, and a loss of all personality. It could even make you more sympathetic toward the "oddballs" you may see around from time to time.

It is a Robert Zemeckis film so it's not short on budget or visual effects, and it finally finds a brilliant use for Zemeckis' obsession with uncanny Rotoscoping, as the protagonist's doll tableaux come to "life" in major sequences that occupy around 40% of the screen time. It's done really well - the editing on this film is superb. Steve Carell as usual delivers a fine performance and is matched by Leslie Mann in a role that has been unfairly described as being too "manic pixie dream girl" - I think people are missing a point here, that this is how Carell's character may be perceiving her. They share a scene late in the film that is just beautiful and heartbreaking at the same time.

 

Recommended.

 kevin stephens 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

The Old Man and The Gun 5/10. 

Pointless swansong for a once great actor based on an uninteresting true story.  Chuck Norris could have added more emotional depth to the main character

The Favourite 9.5/10

Darkest comedy. Brilliant engaging story and characterisation and wonderful filming to get the claustrophobic and earthy feeling of the house, candle light, go-pro ish  ultra wide angle shots, also a bit rude.  All about deep power play between three women, with the victor only revealed in the final scene.

Post edited at 00:31
 Duncan Bourne 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Watched the Favourite last night. Excellent entertainment (I also enjoyed the Lobster so kind of used to the direction).

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> Watched the Favourite last night. Excellent entertainment (I also enjoyed the Lobster so kind of used to the direction).

Did you see The Killing of a Sacred Deer?

 Duncan Bourne 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

got that on order

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Bird Box - Netflix

You have seen all the memes, so you might as well watch the movie to see what the fuss is about. I enjoyed it actually. A whiff of Day of the Triffids about it. I don't analyse movies in detail so can't tell you anything insightful other than it's a pretty tense ride as long as you can over look some absurdities.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I don't have Netflix but I might get it.

 hokkyokusei 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I agree, I enjoyed it much more than I expected to. The ending was a bit shit. It wasn't really a resolution in any way, but it seemed to be pretending that it was.

 hokkyokusei 03 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Films I've watched over the xmas and new year:

Bird Box - end of the world with (deliberately) unseen monsters and Sandra Bullock. As I mentioned above, better than expected but with a naff end.

Roma - a deceptively simple tale about a Mexican maid and the family she works for that starts to grip you as it progresses. And the photography is fantastic, I could probably enjoy watching it without the subtitles.

 Calibre - two old school friends meet up to go hunting in a (very) rural Scotland. What could possibly go wrong? And if, about half way through, you start to think you're watching the wickerman - don't worry, you're not.

The Endless - my favourite of the lot. Two blokes that escaped a cult where they grew up and revisit to see what was really going on. I found this to be novel and entertaining as the two brothers come to terms with what seems to be a series of impossible occurances.

The Big Short - film about some of the players involved in the 2007/8 property crash in the US. Really enjoyed this as it lifted the curtain for me on some of the (obviously dramatised) goings on behind the crash.

 

Mary Poppins Returns
7.5/10
As I said last year regarding The Greatest Showman, it is hard for me to score and review a musical as I don’t really like it appreciate the genre. However I thought MPR had a cracking first hour but then started to lag a bit - the first song after the animated escapade in the China bowl was the first weak point and I would say that most of the songs in the second half were inferior to those in the first half. The whole thing felt overlong but I appreciate that in a musical, the songs will slow things down. I actually thought the story was good (*) and amazingly the kids were likeable throughout. I didn’t really get the appeal of Lin-Manuel Miranda, he was serviceable but had zero presence or charisma.
Emily Blunt was fantastic though. Dare I say it, better than Andrews? She is certainly a natural at the whole smug superior smirking thing which really suits Mary Poppins ???? she was distractingly sexy though, which was super-weird

* it’s obvious that she could so much more easily save the day and save all that bother but obviously she has to let everyone have their life lesson....but then there’s no real acknowledgement of that by the characters at the end

Colette. 4.5/10
Nice costumes and a couple of decent performances but honestly it was like they’d they filmed the 1893-1912 section of the Wikipedia page about her (seriously I just looked at it and 95% of the film is in there, you can read it in 17 seconds)
Knightley seemed to be phoning it in. Can’t blame her. Dominic West at least tried to give it a bit of colour. Eleanor Tomlinson’s American accent was exaggerated by a factor of twelvety million. Denise Gough was very good though.
The whole thing was so episodic, and the end was sudden (if very welcome)

and another DVD review, I only post these for standouts

Blow-Out, 9.5/10

Happy to report that Blow-Out is the masterpiece I suspected it was  (seen it only once before, many many years ago)

It’s better than I remembered actually. Aside from an unforgivable continuity thing toward the end, it works brilliantly and is reasonably believable. It’s a nasty little story peppered with losers and lowlifes. There’s not really one “good” character on screen. Travolta’s character is maybe a bit sympathetic but not without problems and baggage.
Speaking of Travolta, he’s fine throughout although doesn’t seem to be having to do all that much, but in the last 15 minutes he acts the shit out of it.

Couple all this with some amazing art direction and camera work (not just DePalma’s moving shots but also the compositions and colouring), that amazing score and the departure from the usual formula on this sort of thing (don’t want to do spoilers)

9.5/10 , DePalma’s best work

would be interested to hear Gordon Stainforth’s opinion on this one

 MonkeyPuzzle 07 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Went to see The Favourite yesterday and loved it. If it does make a political point I only got one indirectly: The Lobster is based around an incredible conceit and the characters' actions make broad sense once you've accepted that conceit. The Favourite works in the same way, except that the conceit (the complexities of early 18th Century nobility and favour) is all the more bonkers for the fact that it actually existed in the real world for a time. All the acting was predictably excellent. 8.5/10

 graeme jackson 07 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Mary Poppins Returns

> 7.5/10

I think you're being a bit generous there.  I've dropped it a couple of points purely because the lovable cockney lamplighters put a whole load of BMX style bike stunts into their big number. Totally unjustified in Victorian london IMO and smacked of the last big 'theme of the month' i.e. bunging in a parkour sequence into every action movie.

In reply to graeme jackson:

I was wondering about the bike stunts but they are hardly flavour of the month and I quietly wondered whether people were actually doing this in the mid 1930s, before commenting on it. Still don’t know. Probably other anachronisms too but you know . Musical fantasy about a pan dimensional witch and we complain about some bike tricks, really?

Post edited at 16:49
 climb41 08 Jan 2019
In reply to hokkyokusei:

>  Calibre - two old school friends meet up to go hunting in a (very) rural Scotland. What could possibly go wrong? And if, about half way through, you start to think you're watching the wickerman - don't worry, you're not.

Yep, enjoyed this. Well, enjoyed might be the wrong word, as I was a wee bit tense all the way through! But defo worth watching. I have read one or two not so good reviews as well as the good ones, but I always like make my own mind up...

 

 Offwidth 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Thought this was worth a mention as a British sponsored Indie movie.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/spaceship_2016/

I  found it  mostly impenetrable:and  in that, pretty funny at times (almost Mighty Boosh like) in its uncompromising and intense belief and delivery, in whatever it was intending to get over. Visually impressive and well acted and I'd admit hard to forget: almost hypnotic at times, so much easier to watch all the way through than I expected from the start. One for fans of teenage visions of unicorns fighting through radiocative rainbows.

In reply to Offwidth:

That has some of the worst poster artwork I've ever seen  

 lbachir2000 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Ignore all the bad reviews and the awful box office performance of Welcome to Marwen.

> It's a great little film

> 7.5/10. It does lose some points for being a bit schmaltzy and overlong and having an intrusively syrupy score and some clunky expository dialogue and leaving at least three irritating loose ends BUT....

> It is a gorgeously made and finely acted study of one man's attempts to deal with a major PTSD or TBI in the wake of a brutal incident, via creating art tableaux of cheesy fantasy Second World War scenarios. I can't say whether the depiction of PTSD/TBI is any way accurate but it at least shows a convincing depiction of isolation and reclusiveness, and a loss of all personality. It could even make you more sympathetic toward the "oddballs" you may see around from time to time.

> It is a Robert Zemeckis film so it's not short on budget or visual effects, and it finally finds a brilliant use for Zemeckis' obsession with uncanny Rotoscoping, as the protagonist's doll tableaux come to "life" in major sequences that occupy around 40% of the screen time. It's done really well - the editing on this film is superb. Steve Carell as usual delivers a fine performance and is matched by Leslie Mann in a role that has been unfairly described as being too "manic pixie dream girl" - I think people are missing a point here, that this is how Carell's character may be perceiving her. They share a scene late in the film that is just beautiful and heartbreaking at the same time.

> Recommended.

I like traditional folk but am not too fond of the Scousified version,

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Re. Blow-Out -- you wanted my opinion. I recall that I very much liked it, but have to confess that I can't remember very much at all about the film itself, because it was so long ago. (I saw it when it first came out). Certainly a film I should see again.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Thanks

 aln 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I like the poster, 80's nostalgia.

In reply to aln:

I disagree that it is 80s nostalgia style. It’s too “photo-real”. Any nostalgia there is to mid-late 1990s bad straight to video sci fi crap. Which might describe this film, depending on your approach (according to a skim read of a few RT reviews there)

 

i saw an 80s poster today. High Spirits. That’s a proper 80s nostalgia style!

 aln 17 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

You may well be correct, I'm reaching an age where mid 80's to mid 90's is starting to look much the same....

 Offwidth 17 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

It's not  Sci Fi and a lot of straight to video Sci Fi was actually OK (with good ideas rejected by the studio for major release so low budget and less editorial concerns). Saw another recently I quite liked :

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cypher

If taken seriously its a bit odd but it seems to me the film firmly has a self regarding tongue in its cheek a lot of critics missed, lots of other sci fi references (always good) and more twists than a curly wurly.

Post edited at 14:25
In reply to Offwidth:

> It's not  Sci Fi 

I know. I was commenting on the artwork, not the film.

> and a lot of straight to video Sci Fi was actually OK

I know. A lot of the BAD straight to video sci fi had bad artwork. The good stuff probably did as well
 

Vice - a very strong 9/10
Glass - 6.5/10 or 7/10

 

Longer reviews over the weekend regardless of whether anyone cares. 

 

 aln 18 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Some of us care

In reply to Blue Straggler:

At last I've seen 'Free Solo', because I'd been told before Xmas just how good it was. It is quite simply the best climbing film I've ever seen, by a very long way. OK, maybe I'm biassed, but it's a straight 10/10.

It's nearly impossible to imagine how it could be better. Partly because it's somehow more than a climbing film - it delves quite deeply into Honnold's psychology; and his relationship with his girlfriend, Sanni McCandless, plays an important part. Technically, it's absolutely outstanding and it would be an unfair world were it not to get Oscar nominations, at least, for Best Direction (Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi), Cinematography (Jimmy Chin), and the exceptionally good editing by Bob Eisenhardt.

I've never seen a film that conveys climbing nearly as well, but beyond that, I found it curiously moving. Everything about it is so completely honest. No fakery. No one who's seen the film will ever forget the Karate Move (having seen him fall off it many times on a top-rope, and even Tommy Caldwell not managing it.) The final drone shot when he gets to the top has to be one of the greatest in movie history.

OK, I'll stop now

 

1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Why do you say you may be biased?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Because I'm a climber, and love everything to do with climbing.

 climb41 18 Jan 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Gordon, I just read your review to my wife and she absolutely wholeheartedly agrees with you.....and she is a non-climber! I dragged her along to see it a couple of weeks ago and she loved it, though had nightmares afterwards. 

She has now been to see it a second time with our nephew (strong climber) and still loves it. She says she managed to watch the bits of it that she missed first time (too scared) and still found it an amazing film. 

I, and she, agree,  a straight 10/10. 

 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

>  it would be an unfair world were it not to get Oscar nominations, at least, for Best Direction (Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi), Cinematography (Jimmy Chin), and the exceptionally good editing by Bob Eisenhardt.

Well it’s an unfair world then, unless something has changed. Last time I checked, documentaries were eligible only for the Best Documentary nomination. There may have been an exception or two for Best Picture, not sure. But usually it’s only “Best Documentary” and I think the director is named as the nominee.

It would be quite extraordinary if you were not already aware of this

 

1
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> It would be quite extraordinary if you were not already aware of this

Senility, my dear BS. I had completely forgotten that. So in that case, let's hope that Vasarhelyi and Chin get jointly nominated (as they share the directing credit).

 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I can see it getting a nod for Best Documentary. I haven’t seen it but it has seemingly been a major “crossover” film (rather like what happened with the book Touching the Void which I’ve seen shelved in the business/management section of an academic Dillons/Waterstones!)

 Tom Valentine 21 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Just watched Unsane.

I enjoyed it. 

I expected to be underwhelmed by the gimmicky photography but it worked quite well and I was especially impressed that Soderberg kept his thumb out of the frame for a full ninety minutes

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I don't agree at all with your opinion of Colette, which I saw tonight. I thought it was superb in every way, at least 9/10. A very good script, superlatively realised by Westmorland. Photography/lighting (much of it seemed like Degas paintings brought to life), great music score making superb use of classic pieces woven into something much more complex, immaculate editing and great performances all round (surely Knightley's best so far?)

Post edited at 23:05
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Glad you liked it. What are they putting in the water in Belper?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I don't know but, whatever it is, it must be the same stuff they happen to have put into the water of 187 people who've reviewed it on Rotten Tomatoes:  https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/colette_2018

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Free Solo has just got an Oscar nomination (c. 2 mins ago) for Best Documentary Feature.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Rotten Tomatoes. Offwidth’s favourite tool for “debate”  

 

(this all goes back to when I said Paul Verhoeven’s Black Book / Zwartboek was excellent and an acquaintance who had not even seen the film,  replied by simply posting a link to Peter Bradshaw’s cretinous 1-star review)

 Phil1919 22 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Just saw The Favourite. The plot and storyline weren't my 'favourite' but it was quite brilliantly made and acted.

 Offwidth 22 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Where did that come from? I rarely use it for debate.. ...it's normally just a link to further info on the films (that I prefer to IMDB as it gives seperate audience and critics ratings upfront and a better movie overview). People can compare and contrast:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ill_manors

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1760967/

Anyhow, that film is my latest recommendation from last nights viewing: an excellent  if very gritty tale of life on poor London estate.  A must for fans of Plan B.... love the way they link in rap lyrics as a narrative. Plus the punk poet  John Cooper Clark makes a guest appearance.

In reply to Offwidth:

> Where did that come from? I rarely use it for debate.. ...

 

i think the most recent was in December on Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald.

 

 

Ladies and gentlemen. We have a new front-runner for lowest score for a film I chose to watch at the cinema. A film with proper production values and so on (ie not a Sharknado)

It is Tulip Fever. Adapted by Tom Stoppard and Deborah Moggach from the latter’s novel. Starring Alicia Vikander, Dane DeHaan, Christoph waltz, Jack O’Connell, Tom Hollander, Zach Galifianikis and Judi Dench.

Its score is lower than Red Sparrow, Unsane, Scorsese’s Silence, and even the 2014 RoboCop.

I give this film 1/10 and that is solely for the Tom Hollander performance 

It is unbelievably bad. The first two minutes almost inspired me to walk out and looking back I wonder if I should have done ????

I didn’t expect it to be great but I do love DeHaan, and Vikander is generally a stamp of quality, but oh my this was a stinker.

 Tom Valentine 23 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I must have missed your review of Unsane. Can you point me to it?

Post edited at 00:24
In reply to Tom Valentine:

From June probablt

 

 

“Unsane, 4.5/10

 the latest offering from oft-feted director Steven Soderbergh. Getting some attention for being filme entirely on an iPhone and for starring Claire Foy

It is utter rubbish 

Nice lead performance from Foy, but the whole thing is nonsense. Don’t waste time by going to see it out of curiosity. The cinematography is adequate (bear in mind it was iPhone plus professional lighting) but obviously all feels a bit wide angle. If you want to see a feature film for the sake of novelty filming, watch Hardcore Henry”

 Tom Valentine 23 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes the wide angle thing was my first and lasting impression and it was fine for some scenes but completely wrong for others.

Having said that, if it's the worst film I see this year I'll be surprised.

 Hat Dude 24 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Saw The Favourite last night & generally agree with previous comments.

Great performances from the three leads and I thought Nicholas Hoult was really good too.

Filmed beautifully and some great scenes  but somehow the whole wasn't as satisfying as it could have been.

And why oh why did they put that Elton John song over the closing credits? It really jarred after the closing scene.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Vice. A very strong 9/10. 
I was almost going to score it slightly lower as it was all kind of "information overload" BUT then I decided it is unfair to mark down a film solely due to my inability to keep alert. 
This is Adam McKay's film charting various White House shenanigans of Dick Cheney. It is not a full biopic along the lines of Oliver Stone's Nixon and "W." but goodness me it has the energy and humour of the latter, and the (if you will) educational "value" of the former. And it is certainly an eye-opener. 
Adam McKay previously made The Big Short, another densely-packed-with-information entertaining film about real life shenanigans that affect the world. 
All the hype at the moment is about the acting and, yes, Christian Bale is quite brilliant. Indeed the whole cast is, albeit there is one moment where Alison Pill does fail to convince as an early-20-something student. Rockwell has the Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, which I think is an injustice to Steve Carell who is brilliant and scary as Donald Rumsfeld. 
But the hype should be about the film itself. It is actually quite frightening - its core message is that when people in power have an understanding of mass media and how to control and manipulate it, they can achieve whatever they want. The film has some example "focus group" scenes, presumably condensed down from reality for the sake of emphasis and dramatic effect. These show how "global warming" became "climate change", and "estates tax" became "death tax", and "Al-Qaeda" became "Afghanistan and/or Iraq". 
Also, like in The Big Short, McKay has a few "break the fourth wall" scenes including a hilarious false ending to the film . 

Absolutely essential viewing. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Having good an Ealing Comedy binge and if anyone hasn't seen.....

The lavender Hill mob

Whiskey galore (the original) 

The ladykillers  (original - although the coen bros remake was fun too) 

Then do...... ?

Next up, kind hearts and coronets 

Also dug out the brilliant bbc doc of Wally Herbert's arctic crossing epic on youtube - across the top of the world. Highly recommended 

In reply to JJ Krammerhead III:

I had fond memories of The Man in the White Suit, from watching it when I was about 14. 

A couple of years ago I bought it and it just isn't comedic at all - maybe the climactic farce chase ending is funny but I didn't get that far - turned off after 50 minutes as it was basically playing like a boring lecture on unions! Crappy transfer as well

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Perhaps one to avoid, I remember it being dull from watching it in my teens,  also remember the union bashing which I didn't much care for.

 Hat Dude 24 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

The couple of posts ref Ealing comedies have reminded me that Rachel Weisz must have taken inspiration for the tone of her role as Sarah Churchill from Margaret Lockwood in The Wicked Lady, the old Gainsborough melodrama.

Glass. 6.5/10

Almost pointless to review this sort of thing, as M Night Shymalan is somewhat divisive and his films welcome pre-judging. 
This is the conclusion of a trilogy that allegedly started with Unbreakable, although it feels slightly cash-cow - Split was made 2 years ago and had what looked like a tacked-on ending made up to link it to Unbreakable. And now this film, bringing together Bruce Willis' reluctant and haggard vigilante, James McAvoy's multiple personalities and near-superhuman capabilities, and Samuel L Jackson as the smart geek in the wheelchair. 
It seems very contrived as the three are brought together for psychiatric evaluation and typical shenanigans ensue, leading to - you guessed it - a massive reveal during the final act. 
Yet it is strangely watchable with some pretty good performances, and it seems churlish to fault it, so it doesn't get a bad score at all. The final act does let it down somewhat. 

I recently re-watched Unbreakable for the first time since seeing it at the cinema. I said at that time that it was a much better film than The Sixth Sense and I stand by that. It's an interesting slow film in which not very much really happens at all and atypically for Shymalan, there isn't a massive twist/reveal. 
Glass jettisons all of that in favour of BIG SCENES etc. 

If you like the whole Shymalan thing, this would be worth watching 
 

> "If you like the whole Shymalan thing, this would be worth watching "

I've just realised this looks as patronising as when Mark Kermode says stuff like "look - you either GET David Lynch, or you DON'T"....or more topically, it is like when I see all the M Night Shymalan worshippers saying "you will LOVE this or HATE it, and it is fine either way, some people just can't get their heads around Shymalan"


I'm not in those camps. 
It is merely an acceptable, decent watchable film.

 

Mary Queen of Scots. 
4.5/10

Seems to be the season of lame-duck period costume dramas (with the exception of The Favourite).
Colette, Mary Queen of Scots, and Tulip Fever (of which, more later...)

Mary Queen of Scots is being sold on the notion of bringing together Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie, rivals for the Best Actress Oscar last year, as rival queens. Casting aside the oft-cited poetic licence (yadda yadda Mary wouldn't have a Scots accent or even speak strong English, yadda yadda Mary and Elizabeth never met in person), this is just a poorly conceived film that doesn't convey much of anything. It tries to describe total power, and a power struggle, but just comes across as an under-budgeted muddle, with some pretty aerial shots of the Scottish countryside. The actors do well with some ludicrous and portentous lines but it's all quite unengaging. And the Scottish court comes across as something from the Dark Ages, and looks like cosplay in the ruins.
The one-on-one meeting of Mary and Elizabeth is quite strong stuff with some decent dialogue and the strongest acting, but weirdly stylised in a way that doesn't fit the rest of the film, and even this scene loses its way and throws in some lumpen dialogue at the end. 
Most notably though is the fact that across the 16-year timeline, nobody really ages. Even The Shawshank Redemption made the token gesture of putting some icing sugar into some actors' hair to mark the passing of twenty years. Apparently this was too much effort for Mary Queen of Scots (Oscar-nominated for make-up and hairstyling, and for costumes. Yikes!)

 

1

quick one for now, I'll write more about it later....

 

Ladies and gentlemen. We have a new front-runner for lowest score for a film I chose to watch at the cinema. A film with proper production values and so on (ie not a Sharknado)

It is Tulip Fever. Adapted by Tom Stoppard and Deborah Moggach from the latter’s novel. Starring Alicia Vikander, Dane DeHaan, Christoph waltz, Jack O’Connell, Tom Hollander, Zach Galifianikis and Judi Dench.

Its score is lower than Red Sparrow, Unsane, Scorsese’s Silence, and even the 2014 RoboCop.

I give this film, quite seriously and not exaggerated for effect, an all-time low of 1/10 and that is solely for the Tom Hollander performance

It is unbelievably bad. The first two minutes almost inspired me to walk out and looking back I wonder if I should have done 

I didn’t expect it to be great but I do love DeHaan, and Vikander is generally a stamp of quality (Tomb Raider notwithstanding), but oh my this was a stinker.

 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sorry I didn't remember I'd already posted my Tulip Fever "pre-review" a couple of days ago! I think I'll just leave it at that. Minor addition, one of the main characters might as well simply not be in the film, the tulip dealing might as well not be in the film, and the apparent main plot about a pregnancy switcheroo, is just farcical.

 Offwidth 25 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

They say trauma can induce amnesia.

In contrast I just rewatched In Bruge... better even than I remembered it. An amazing black comedy.

In reply to Offwidth:

> They say trauma can induce amnesia.

> In contrast I just rewatched In Bruge... better even than I remembered it. An amazing black comedy.

Were those hookers really that manky though?

In reply to Offwidth:

Coming up for its sixth birthday, one of the best compact UKC threads ever (and he never did thank me for my useful reply later)

 

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/things_to_do_in_bruges-553710

In reply to Blue Straggler:

The Old Man and The Gun. 
4/10

As you say, 'this film is merely passable.' So I'm not quite so sure why you gave it such a high score. Just about everything you say in your mini-review of Jan 1 I agree with, except when you say it's very well made. Not really. I found a lot of it to be second-rate film-making (with the actors encouraged, far too much, to resort to Method Acting to enliven dull scenes.) The two big snags with it for me were: 1. it failed to deliver on its premise – it quite simply didn't know how to end. 2. It glamorised crime in a very old-fashioned way ('I'm not making a living, I'm living') that I found slightly puke-making.

 Offwidth 26 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I must have thought Bruges was a f*cking shithole and like a stupid c*nt ignored that f*cking thread.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Another quick one for now , will write it up later

 

The Mule

4/10

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Have just seen Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid again on the big screen (having last seen it in the early 1970s). Fascinating after seeing The Old Man and the Gun two nights ago. I'm not going to waste words saying how good it is, and how well it stands up. My score will do, because it still works in every respect as a classic piece of film-making. 10/10.

 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

One of very few consistently good things that Goldman wrote.

Interesting that there is no complaint about Butch and Sundance being career criminals

 Padraig 27 Jan 2019
In reply to JJ Krammerhead III:

 "Next up, kind hearts and coronets" 

Bizarrely, i saw this for the first time couple months ago. 

Thot it was awesome!

Recent film I've seen which was memorable ....

Red Sparrow..hard to watch in places BUT some great acting.

 

 

 

The Mule. 4/10
Early disclaimer, I am rarely impressed with Clint Eastwood's directorial outings, I haven't seen them all - am missing some key works actually - and some (The Bridges of Madison County, Flags of our Fathers) are indeed excellent but "quality control" is not something he seems to exercise. 
This one had an intriguing trailer, and with the involvement of Michael Pena and Bradley Cooper I was somewhat interested. 
It was pretty feeble. A nice premise, an intriguing true story (near-bankrupt old horticulturalist takes on a drug-running job, he's ideal for it as he attracts no attention being a careful old driver in a pick-up truck, but the DEA get themselves an informant and start to close in on the cartel....)

That premise is wasted due to some of the most awful expository dialogue ever. I know it seems like I have a bee in my bonnet about expository dialogue and for ten minutes I kind of forgave it, I thought "fair enough, efficient set-up to get the story going" but then it just goes on like that. Characters are cardboard cutouts and some decent actors are unable to make this dialogue convincing (Taissa Farmiga comes off worst). 
Huge elements of the story don't make sense, the way they are depicted on screen.
It retains some points because it at least blends humour into the drama quite neatly, and Clint himself is quite good in it, and you can't help but admire the man for putting together a major film and starring in it, at the age of 88! 
However, I don't do a sympathy vote and if this is his swansong, as The Old Man and the Gun has been Redford's, then it's a case of "out with a whimper"

 

 Andy Clarke 28 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Destroyer: 8/10. I thought this was a fine, well-constructed movie with - as has been well trailed - a riveting central performance from Nicole Kidman as a cop haunted by past guilt and present fear. The film opens with her bleak and bleached face and the whole landscape of modern-day LA is made to match: drained of colour, ravaged by the harsh light, littered with debris. Kidman manages a real physical transformation to youthfulness in the skilfully interwoven flashback scenes, and the cinematography once again matches, with more saturated colours. Unsympathetic characters have come up for quite a bit of discussion on the film thread of late: Kidman's cop has certainly done some bad things - but I found it impossible not to empathise and care about her fate. (Mind you, I really liked Hell and High Water so maybe my moral standards aren't all they should be!) Although the movie is much more than a brilliant individual performance, I predict her eyes will follow you around for a long time after you've left the cinema.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Looks very good. Kidman seems to be on a very strong comeback trail these past few years after nearly a decade of somehow being both out of public favour (for whatever reason) and appearing in various films that ended up duffers (critically or commercially or both)

 

When the worst thing I’ve read about Destroyer is that Kidman’s physical appearance in it is a bit too “try-hard”, it just makes me wonder whether the critic in question had an agenda to find something to criticise. Not sure when I’ll get a chance to see Destroyer though ...

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Saw yet another really great film tonight at out local cinema: Stan & Ollie. 9.5/10 (I'd give it 10 if the ending hadn't been a bit hollow - but it was stuck with being true to history). Outstanding in every way and very moving (surprisingly few movies actually move me). The story and screenplay was superb and the leading performances amazing. I read some silly review somewhere that said that Reilly was superb as Ollie, but Coogan as Stan was less convincing. Utter bollocks. They were both outstanding, but Coogan's part was in many ways more difficult and was the standout part really. Very sad that they both didn't get Oscar nominations, particularly Coogan.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Is this review a petty dig at my review of Stan & Ollie?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Eh? I haven't seen your review of it. Where is it?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

December film thread. I gave Reilly high praise and said Coogan only GETS TO SHINE in the final third of the film (but I didn't ever say he was unconvincing, I just said it was a less showy and more complex role and thus harder to impress with, which is of course praise in itself but a lot of people don't read things properly and wrongly see it as a statement that he "wasn't that good")

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Ah, I see now that you saw a preview of the film. I was puzzled because the film only came out about a fortnight ago, so looked in this month's film thread for your review.

 Offwidth 31 Jan 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

My latest recommendation.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_sessions

A delightful tale of how someone with a strong catholic faith and severely disabled by polio (on an iron lung) decided to lose his virginity with a sex therapist: very human and really funny at times. Superbly acted.

 

 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

If Beale Street Could Talk. 
8/10

From writer-director Barry Jenkins who made a big impact three years ago with Moonlight. I was not really enamoured of Moonlight, but I found this new film to be a lot more engaging even though not a huge amount actually happens. It seems to be a study of love itself, focusing on a young couple from Harlem who have known each other since infancy. Inevitably it touches on themes of class division and - dominantly - race, but it never feels as if some agenda is being shoved down your throat. 
It is SUPERBLY acted; I am surprised that Kiki Layne is not up for Best Actress at the Oscars. 
I'd almost like to score it higher, as the points I've knocked off are for relatively trivial things (an unnecessarily "showy" camera style, which was also a flaw in Moonlight, and a far-too-intrusive score. Also a bit of a slow start and I'd have liked to have seen a bit more time spent on Fonny's mother in order that she didn't just appear a bit cardboard). These are niggling points though, it is a great film and I was surprised that I liked it actually, as it did not appear to be my cup of tea (especially after Moonlight)

 Offwidth 31 Jan 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Highly recommended from today, particularly for fans of photography:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_salt_of_the_earth

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salt_of_the_Earth_(2014_film)

An astonishing portrait of the the works of the Brazilian photographer Sebastião Salgado. The most moving was the middle section when he seemed to be stuck on repeat recording the human fallout of droughts and genocides, Eithiopia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Congo. The ending, when exhausted from recording death and the destruction of man, was a returned home to Brazil and reinventing himself through photography of ecology, and including the reforestation of his drought ridden family farm. Co-directed by Wim Wenders with his usual panache.

 

Post edited at 21:07
In reply to Offwidth:

I do like and admire Wenders but "panache" is not a word I've ever associated with him! Assured, solid, reliable, yes. Panache seems more a Scorsese or Baz Lurhmann adjective  

 Offwidth 01 Feb 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

The thought process in my head went something like .... ummm... maybe panache isn't quite right ... he's more distinctively confident in his style than flamboyantly ...but hey lets leave it and see if someone bites

In reply to Offwidth:

"someone"

Ha!

 

Mmm might watch Land of Plenty again tonight. Any excuse for a Williams fix. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...