Change Your Image
rveight-251-982372
Reviews
Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)
Spoiled by poor acting
It could have been so much better: not the most original comment I know, but there was much to like in the film but the poor acting b Stewart, the key player, made it an effort to watch.
The film was badly paced as well, with stops and starts, songs and drama, all mixed haphazardly. It was definitive, with Avatar and Rings coming to mind often.
The CGI was excellent. The mirror was particularly clever, although a bit off beam by suggesting that Stewart was 'fairer' than Theron. I know beauty and beholder and all that, but really! The dwarfs all but made up for the film's shortcomings. It was worth viewing the 'extras' to see how it was all done.
Holes in the plot abound but then one can say that about so many other films that one can hardly criticise a fantasy for that.
Don't bother.
State of Play (2003)
The BBC at its best
I saw the Crowe film, State of Play, at the cinema, quite liked it (despite his accent) and found what I thought was the DVD in a shop with the price tag of £4. Too good to be true, I thought and I thought right. Imagine my disappointment when I got home to find it was a TV series that I hadn't seen when broadcast. My wife said to give it a go so we settled down to watch.
We saw the first three episodes straight off, just as if it was an unputdownable book. We rushed our dinner the following night and then viewed the remainder. Less than a month later we saw the whole series again. It is that good. Brilliant in fact, the best BBC series since the '95 Pride and Prejudice.
There were no weak performances, as one would expect with the likes of Bill Nighy, who was excellent, Kelly Macdonald, who is always good value but excelled herself here, John Simm, in his best performance so far, David Morrissey, who got the character to perfection, Marc Warren and oh, so many others.
The script was clever, with some lovely one-liners, and the plot developed at a pace that was intriguing. I'm glad I hadn't seen the series when it first came out as I don't think I could have taken the gap between the episodes.
The character development was far superior to the film, but then it was nearly four times longer so it was entitled to be. Some of the actors in smaller parts made them their own, most notably James Laurenson who was really horrible. Deborah Findlay was the perfect secretary. No so bit-part Polly Walker was excellent as well.
There were little running jokes all the way through that lightened the film at just the right moments.
The ending has come in for criticism but it was essential to give a reason for everything. I can't see the problem. Simm's choice, and his reasons, at the end is critical to the story.
Bill Nighy had the best script. He owes the writers a few pints.
I have just seen it again, courtesy of some awful weather, and it was just as brilliant as I remembered it.
I don't want to criticise the film – although as half Irish I did find Crowe's accent, when he decided to try for it, somewhat wearing – by comparison as it has limitations that were not restricting this wonderful series but I have not bothered to buy the DVD of the film.
There are few series/films you must see but this is one of them. I rate it at #2 in my top 10 TV films/series, and I'm not sure it shouldn't be joint #1 with Pride and Prejudice. It is that good. No, not good, classy.
Truly Madly Deeply (1990)
The most painful movie I have ever experienced
I interpreted this film slightly differently to most on here. I first saw it a couple of months after I lost someone close to me and Truly, Madly, Deeply got to me like no other film ever has. It was painful to watch and it brought everything back but somehow there was a little bit of, well not hope, the film shows that, but of understanding I think.
Stevenson and Rickman are superb, faultless in fact. She showed all the agony of a death of a loved one but not as many films do, showing a little tear behind a black veil, but the agony, the railing against fate, the resentment against the person who died for leaving you and then the guilt of that, plus the ultimate pain as you realise they have gone, never to be seen again. It's over and you can do nothing about it. The unfairness of it all . . .
The way I saw it was that Stevenson went a little mad and imagined her loved one had returned. I did as well so that bit rang so very true. The staying away from work, the sudden mood swings, the secretive bits and the loss of days at a time were all there for me. I didn't see my loved one, but I talked to her at times and felt, believed in fact, she replied. That part of the film, which went through most of it, showed me how near I'd got to madness.
Whilst Rickman returns in her mind there are differences, ones she can't cope with. Eventually she manages to move on, so perhaps there was hope after all.
This was one of the most agonising experiences I've ever had watching a film. When the lights turned up I had to just sit there to come back to life myself. Silly though it sounds I had to force myself to breath at times. I've since bought the DVD but it has the cellophane still around it after a number of years.
I'd suggest it is not one to watch if a loss of a loved one is still raw with you, certainly keep sharp knives in a locked drawer, as it is in many ways morbidly depressing. There is a little brightness, a fair bit of humour, some lovely words and beautiful music. But there's no running away from the fact that it can be like someone sticking a finger in a recent wound and digging deep.
Seen without the recent loss of someone close you will experience a gem. Beautifully acted, with a very clever script. The pacing was superb. It is a triumph but one that came too early for me. It took me ages to forgive Rickman.
In some ways a chick-flick, especially given the bloke whom she takes up with, but well worth watching none the less.
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)
A delight but could have been much better
***No may about it. Lots of spoilers***
There is a lot that can be criticised in Marigold Hotel. The story was weak, there were plot holes and the innumerable sudden changes in the characters were not supported by the script.
Maggie Smith, always excellent, took her part as one would expect, but even she struggled with the change from horrid racialist to something more normal after just a visit to the home of a staff member. The same problem occurred with the life-changing moment for Dev Patel's mother.
We really could have done with Tom Wilkinson's reason for going to India explained in more depth. It ended up little more than a bit weird.
The change from Lothario to sympathetic new man in the time it took Celia Imrie to visit the loo was a big stretch of the imagination.
There was also an overlying air of the self indulgent. One came away from the film with the feeling that it had been written specifically to give old British actors a job.
It is probably one of the most predictable films since Titanic. There can be very few who expected Dev to lose the hotel and once Maggie Smith told us her previous role we all knew she would be at the accounts.
However on the plus side we had the beautiful scenery of India, superb acting even given a script that was less than perfect, a gentle pace which suited the story precisely and, most importantly, it was a feel-good movie par excellence.
There were some classic moments. Maggie Smith's script gave her some shocking lines early on. There were some delightful one-liners, unfortunately not included on the quotes page for this film. There were some subtle times as well which were entrancing.
What the film did not do was to demonstrate what it is like to grow old, and almost impossible feature in a feel-good movie. So I'm glad it did not even try.
I would have preferred it if the film has focused on perhaps one or maybe even two of the residents of the hotel and developed their characters. We were left not so much wanting more information as needing more. Judi Dench was almost two-dimensional, so a bit of a waste of her undoubted talents. The same went for Bill Nighey, Tom Wilkinson and the other guys in the band.
Reading through this review I find it rather more critical of the film than I intended. I enjoyed it. It was two hours of gentle humour. However I feel it could have been so much more. It is well worth seeing as the vast majority of people will enjoy it.
Can one grade a film on black of fulfilling its potential? I think 7 out of 10 is reasonable given the faults but a little harsh given how delightful the film was. With a little bit more work it could have reached nine.
Exile (2011)
Not much to add to the other reviews
I had recently seen Simm in State of Play, in which he was first class, an I wrote a review of it. Flicking though Simm's IMDb entries I found Exile and read the reviews. Less than £5 later my wife and I settled down to watch the DVD with an alternative handy if it turned out to be rubbish.
We were both entranced.
I agree that there were one of two times when belief had to be suspended just a bit but, as I used to be a police officer, I have to do that for many series. Beyond that it was very good TV drama.
The story unfolded steadily, keeping my wife and me watching for two hours before it got too late. The following morning we talked about it, it was that involving. The final episode maintained the decent plotting, the excellent acting and the very good script.
The Alzheimers was an important part of the script and really was touching. If you have ever known anyone dismembered by this terrible disease then be prepared to have it opened out in front of you again. Heartbreaking isn't a big enough word.
Simm takes the part of failed journalist very well but perhaps not quite as good as he did in State of Play. Broadbent is well worth the money in whatever he does, a real gem. Olivia Colman is up there with him in acting ability. She was superb.
All three deserve the plaudits. They really did work well together.
After seeing the end of the series my wife and I ended up talking about it for an hour afterwards. It is the sort of film that will stay with you for some time. It does nothing remarkable or revolutionary. It is nothing more than an excellently written script acted to perfection.
So I fall in line with most other reviewers on here, if not quite so generous with stars as most. Well worth the money I paid, less than £2 and hour. Top quality drama.
The Cruel Sea (1953)
The tregedy of this film is that we have not learnt from it
The Cruel Sea, produced in the depth of rationing and cuts, was the first adult-themed film I saw, being taken to it by an aunt when I was around ten. It was a re-showing, rare in those days – 1956 or so, and the chap on the till tried to stop my aunt bringing me in as it was an A, so I needed to be 15 or so. She said that the film was about 'his five dead uncles.' We were allowed in.
My father was one of eight brothers, just three of whom survived the war. Of the five, one was killed in the bombing of Portsmouth, the other four torpedoed, two on the same day in two different RN ships.
The Cruel Sea has, therefore, a deep meaning for me. My aunt, then a widow, her husband being killed in the first two months of WWII, cried during the film, the only overt sign of emotion I ever saw in her.
None of my family rejoiced in the war, or mentioned bravery or heroes. One uncle who survived, despite volunteering for fuel tankers to get extra money, was on the Atlantic convoys. He slept on deck regardless of weather, too terrified of being caught below and burnt to death.
He saw a vessel hit by a torpedo. It caught fire, silhouetting his ship against the flames. He said he still, 15/20 years later, felt guilty that all he did was pray that they wouldn't stop for survivors.
The film encapsulates the attitude of those I met post war. There was nothing gung-ho about what they did. They were frightened, put upon, and crippled. They saw their friends being killed, burned and drowned. This film shows some of that. No trumpets for the sailors. They just returned to bombed out homes and a struggle to find loved ones.
The cast do their bit wonderfully. They are tired, bitchy, irritated and irritating. They are frightened. They are people like you and me in extraordinary circumstances. What is remarkable is that they were, in the most sensible meaning of the term, heroes.
My family were violently anti-war. Every one of my father's sisters lost a husband or boyfriend during the two world wars. Most were in the navy. One, aunty Enid, married in 1940, was parted the next day and within the year she got was a visit from the navy.
This film shows part of the agony that families and individuals went through. Watch it an wonder what you would do in similar circumstances. Would you be the one who opted out for the lecture circuit? Who could blame you.
A chilling film, especially if you realise that we've learnt nothing from the horror. We still go to war, we still sing patriotic songs, we still call those who kill foreigners heroes.
I've become my aunt. I cried at times during the film and so should we all.
Persuasion (2007)
Repression rather than persuasion
I agree with those reviewers who suggest that it is pointless comparing the film adaptations with source novels. I would add that they do not live and die in comparison to previous adaptations either.
The acting of the two leads has been criticised for lacking chemistry but I thought that the repression, surely a better title, is a vital part of the story. Here are two people who are afraid of expressing their true feelings.
The scene near the end where Anne goes running is her expressing herself. The letter from Wentworth was the same for him. It is a love story of the time and should be viewed as such I think.
I enjoyed it. Against my better judgement I agreed to see the BBC adaptation the following evening and will accept that it was better overall. But that doesn't take away the enjoyment that the ITV version can bring.
It is a difficult to accept some of the mores from 200 years ago. I felt like kicking Wentworth's beam ends and telling him to act like a man. But then, nice though Anne is, I have to say that she's not the most exciting of heroines. I can accept that part of the story is how a brave and fearless sea captain, fresh from battles with the Spanish and French, can be put onto the back foot by love for a women, and the accepted norms of society, but even so one does feel like shaking him at times. My wife reckons he's the best looking Wentworth ever (a bit like a younger me she said but modesty forbids me to repeat it.) The camera-work was intrusive. In the opening scenes, with Anne running around, reflected at the end of the adaptation, I could see the point of hand held but it did get in the way at other times. And long lingering looks do not do it for me unless there is some deep need for them.
An interesting take on a well established favourite so a brave attempt.
The adaptation is well worth the few pounds the DVD costs. The only advice I'd give is to see it before the BBC one.
6 stars might be seen as a little harsh but it is not a classic.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
Diverting but a case of image over substance.
I went to see this at a local cinema but noisy neighbours ruined my enjoyment. I left after 15 minutes, albeit with a ready refund. What I saw looked good and there was a thrilling assignation that went wrong. I awaited the DVD release with anticipation.
I am a big fan of Oldman. I've seen all his films and enjoyed most. This is the first one where his participation disappointed me. He was deadpan and mumbling all the way through. There was no character development, no revelation. There are only so many meaningful looks you can take. The one time he seemed to liven up, when recounting an interview with a Russian master spy, it was full of pauses. His expression was one of an Essex botox addict. A shame as it was a waste of talent.
The rest of the crew, mostly major British actors at the peak of their form, in the case of Cumberpatch on the way up but so fast, did their bit and were everything one would expect. But the film itself failed to deliver.
It's saving grace was that you had to concentrate to get the full story. The timelines intermixed confusingly and the triggers as to which were which were not always apparent instantly. This might have been deliberate, if so it was not a good idea. At the end one felt that it had been an effort to watch.
Visually it was very good, the seedy interiors and the depressing exteriors reflecting what is such a seedy and depressing profession. Further, the suspicion that most of us must have is that MI5 and 6 are self serving and this film ran with that. So nothing surprising.
A movie is much more than just moving pictures. The script, which must have taken two people to carry, was good enough but the film didn't engage. There were no lovable characters, none to sympathise with, and certainly no one to envy. It was all very depressing. Even the bits that could have been edge of the seat stuff, like Cumberpatch virtually breaking into MI6 HQ, were very low key. The only exciting bit was right at the start and I had already seen that.
The real test of a film is if you want to see it again and I have to say one that Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is unlikely to pass.
Worth watching but do not expect to be overwhelmed.
Paul (2011)
A Marmite film it would appear
If you review the reviews on IMDb you will find that there is a divide between those giving Paul 8 and above and those awarding a grudging two or three, or less. This is a little confusing for such a good natured, mildly humorous film until you read the comments. It would appear that some see it as anti-Christian and so mark it down. I've got Paul on DVD and have watched it three times and there is no real anti-Christian sentiment that I can see.
The film has the same intent as Galaxy Quest. It pokes fun at SciFi films but with no viciousness. Indeed, as with GQ, it would seem to have been written by fans of the genre for people of the same ilk. I am one such. I enjoyed trying to find the references that run throughout, not only in visuals and script, but music as well. It was fun.
There are a number of little running jokes, one being the 'cool' alien with a foul mouth, another fainting, and a third is that there are two nerds who have dreamt of meeting an alien and when it actually happens they react out of character, one even being resentful.
Another thread is what seems to confuse those who suggest the film is anti-Christian.
The two leads are hardly on vacation from a stint on the Large Hadron Collider. They are nerds, fans of comic books, with a smattering of scientific knowledge. Many of their beliefs are based on myth and poor understanding of science but they know the words. But the one thing they understand fully is evolution and can come out with all the proper arguments to support their scientifically based beliefs.
Paul, the alien, is directly contrary to creationism per se and this is put over in a funny scene. The female romantic lead has been brought up with a strict creationist father. Her reaction to being confronted by something which contradicts everything she believes in is also a theme.
If you believe in creationism then this film might not be for you although, of course, the pair in the film who are adamant that it is false are just as weird and loopy and the ones supporting it. You can take you choice. It is hardly an overwhelming tour de force for atheism. They are nutters. I would assume atheists could well be resentful if they felt the two males leads were representative of their group.
No group come out of the film without looking silly, the CIA especially. Why should creationists be treated any differently?
For the rest of us it is a diverting film, very clever in places, but not enough of them. I've seen it three times in six months and enjoyed it each time. My wife, not a fan of SciFi, watched it with me and enjoyed it each time, so its attraction is quite wide.
A lot of it is underplayed, including the first meeting with Paul and the nerds, maybe a dig at Close Encounters, and this is, I think, one of its strengths. No SciFi fan can help but put themselves in the place of Pegg and wonder what they would do in such circumstances.
Is it classic cinema? Hardly. Is it laugh out loud funny? Only once or twice. Is it for SciFi fans? Definitely. Should those who favour the Abrahamic religions avoid it? If you can lighten up then certainly not. Is it worth watching? It's a diverting 90 mins or so with lots of little fun parts that you will miss on even the second viewing. Is it fun? You bet.
Is it worth eight stars? It is to me.
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
Still a masterpiece despite its age
- - This review DOES contain lots of spoilers but the film is not about the plot or story - -
My (new) son-in-law visited for Christmas, saw the well-thumbed DVD case in my film rack and asked what Kind Hearts was like. There was only one thing to do: put it on.
He was entranced and it made me a little jealous that I will never see the film for the first time again, to be overwhelmed by its script, the acting and the subtleties.
For its time it was very close to the mark sexually. The 'fate worse than death' comment when concern was expressed over what we would now call collateral damage, and the 'I know' when it was remarked how lucky the man marrying his mistress was, were very risqué for the time. The eight murders were not thought to be a reason for criticism.
As with so many Ealing comedies there was an undercurrent of political comment, mainly against the ruling elite. The title itself, a compression of 'kind hearts more than Norman blood', is a little dig at the class system. Many people in the lords claimed superiority for being descended from the 11thC invaders who enslaved the population of England.
The series of murders is delightfully naughty even now. Everyone empathises with Dennis Price's put down persona (he plays two parts but this is normally ignored and not credited) despite him becoming a serial killer but Guinness's characters are almost universally pompous and perhaps deserving of their fates.
There are little twists all the way through, the main one being the fact that he is put on trial because of a lie from his mistress about a murder he did not commit. How could he argue about it? He is also tried by his peers – again a nice little point as the only way he earned such distinction was by multiple murders.
Some of the scenes are perfectly formed. Price's little shake of the teacup when the shed explodes, killing the husband of the woman sitting opposite him, is deliciously understated.
I know I'm going against the flow here but I can't help thinking that the film's weakest bit is the multiple roles taken by Guinness. It was rather pointless and the suspicion is that it was done for reasons of cost. Ealing never spent more than was absolutely necessary and often nowhere near what was required. Perhaps two or three might have been funny.
The film is a delight. My son-in-law asked to borrow the DVD and I gave it to him, my wife working out that the reason I did so was to give me a reason to buy the enhanced digitally remastered version.
I was very happy that my son-in-law watched the film and enjoyed it. I would have resented it if he'd been too slow to appreciate such a masterpiece.
I have ranked this as 10 stars, an almost impossible rating I agree. However, it is my favourite comedy. The script is classic, faultless: the story clever and subtle: the on-liners hilarious: the acting (I haven't mentioned the delicious Valerie Hobson who took her part to perfection – now I have) spot on: the political comment nicely barbed and easily ignored should the mood take: and it is all so delightfully silly.
If this film isn't worth 10 stars then no film is.
This is no Hollywood blockbuster. It is, however, the perfect black comedy.