Let me first say that I am a huge fan of both Colin Firth and Nicole Kidman. I am also a big WW2 enthusiast. So why did I dislike this film so much? Well, put simply, its a bore. It is a long sequence of angst ridden scenes, where very little actually happens, occasionally interrupted by scenes of brutal torture inflicted by the Japanese guards on British soldiers in a WW2 labour camp. The opening scene where Firth's character meets Kidman's on a train in 1980s England is embarrassingly bad. The scripting is so contrived as to be mechanical. From there, the movie sinks into a mire of self pity and torture, mostly endured by the audience. A ray of hope arrives when Firth's character returns to the camp many years later to confront the guard who tortured him and who is now working as a tour guide in the camp which is now a museum. But this showdown becomes an inevitable anti-climax and a movie which started badly and got bogged down in the middle ends on a bewildering feel good note. I know it is based on a true story and some people might say it is churlish of me to criticize any movie based on real events. But some stories, no matter how true, just aren't that interesting. This is one of them.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Wide Open Spaces
(2009)
Terrible
30 August 2012
Probably the worst Irish film ever made. "Father Ted" creator, Arthur Matthews penned this awful script and in the DVD extras he confesses to being "plot dyslexic". One is left wondering why a writer who is "plot dyslexic" gets to have his witless ramblings turned into a movie. Seriously, there are thousands of very clever plot writers out there who can't get a break. Anyway, there is no plot, no character development and no meaning to this mess of a movie. Yet, it brings together some fine actors. Gerald Mc Sorely and Owen Rowe are two of Ireland's best actors and its just as well that their careers are established because getting associated with this nonsense could really ruin an actor's career. There is not one proper laugh in what is supposed to be a comedy film. Attempts at Beckett type, minimalism fall embarrassingly flat. There are one or two Laurel and Hardy type visual moments which just look like bad impersonations. The pace of the whole movie is unbearably slow, so slow in fact, that at times it seems as if the director was making it up as he went along. I could go on and on but it really gives me no pleasure to be so critical.
Anonymous
(I) (2011)
Anonymous? Abomnible
26 January 2012
I saw this movie last night and was hugely disappointed. Being a Shakespeare fan, I was always going to be a bit sceptical about any movie that supported the theory that the great man did not write his own plays. But if there was any fear that this movie would lend weight to the countless conspiracy theories that have littered history for centuries, then those fears were soon dispelled. True, Shakespeare is made to look a complete idiot. But that says more about the director and writer than it does about the Immortal Bard. If Shakespeare is treated badly, then Ben Jonson is positively lampooned. Watching the movie, I occasionally got the feeling that its producers did not know who Ben Jonson really was. Historical accuracy was not high on the list of priorities for the makers of this movie. They engage in dynastic and historical gymnastics in order to support the pathetically weak plot, mainly, that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the 37 plays attributed to Shakespeare. By the time the movie finished, I think the Earl of Oxord had turned out to be his own father and Queen Elizabeth i was his mother. This will only count as a spoiler if you have attempted to follow the entwined family trees of the Cecils, Tudors and de Veres through irritating jumps back and forward in time which totally confuse the audience. Having said all this, the movie does boast an outstanding cast and Elizabethan London is excellently recreated with both costumes and sets. Just a pity that they also decided to manufacture the historical events.
The King's Speech
(2010)
Not a big enough story
20 January 2011
Colin Firth gives a flawless performance as George VI in this very British tale all about the unlikeliest King in British history. There's a distinct historical atmosphere set very early in the movie and it does manage to keep you interested right up until the movie's slightly sickly sweet ending. I am sorry to say though that terrific talents like Helena Bonham-Carter and Geoffrey Rush are a bit wasted here. The story just isn't big enough to justify having heavy weight actors like Bonham-Carter and Rush in supporting roles. There's also a cameo role for Michael Gambon as George's father George V. The period is very well created in the movie and if Oscars are being handed out there may well be one for the costume designers. Guy Pearce gives a believable enough performance as George's abdicating brother, Edward VIII and there's lots of familiar faces from British TV and film popping up. No doubt it will be a huge hit with American audiences who can't seem to get enough of "British Posh" these days. Good luck explaining the "constitutional crisis", to them by the way. For this reviewer though, there's just too much incongruity between the very simple story and the heavy dramatic production. A more light hearted production might have been more appropriate. But none of my criticisms should detract from a beautiful performance by Colin Firth.
The Girl Next Door
(2007)
very disturbing
24 June 2010
It would have been very easy to do this film badly. Thankfully, they didn't. The one question I kept asking while watching this movie was: "why is this happening"? Its hard to understand the motivations of Aunt Ruth or why she has such a loathing for her nieces. Whenever the subject of child sexual abuse is tackled in a movie it has to be treated very, very carefully. This movie manages to give sufficient gravitas to the subject, and, at the same time, pull no punches in its explicitness. If you were to read the synopsis of this movie and see words like "kidnapping" "torture" "gang rape" and "extreme sexual violence", you might be forgiven for thinking it was a low budget horror film. But the truly disturbing thing about this movie is how normal the kids seem in every aspect other than their treatment of Megan. There is certainly a question about just how much are the kids to blame, when they are encouraged by the Aunt. The character of David, the boy next door who witnesses Megan's torture, is a complicated one. There are moments in the movie when he has the opportunity to tell his parents or the police about what's going on. Indeed, at the beginning, he almost seems to be a willing participant in the humiliation Megan first receives. The story is told through his eyes and, as an adult, he certainly carries the burden of guilt. Another disturbing thing about this film is that it is set in the 1950s. One simply doesn't associate 1950s, suburban America with the afore mentioned themes of child abuse and sexual violence. Also, the fact that there are other young girls present during the sexual humiliation of Megan is quite bizarre. If you are at all squeamish, then I would seriously recommend that you do not watch this movie. The best thing I can say about it is that I am now going to try get hold of the book.
The Last Station
(2009)
Real Russian drama
9 June 2010
If you want to enjoy proper Russian drama performed in the great Chokovian tradition, then see this movie. Helen Mirren and Christopher Plummer thrill the audience in this comic, often melodramatic, but always engrossing biopic of Count Leo Tolstoy and his eccentric wife. The only criticism I could have of this movie is that it didn't run an hour longer and give us a more in depth exploration of one of the greatest minds in the history of fiction. But the movie is more about the volatile relationship between the Tolstoys than it is a homage to the Russian literary giant. Don't expect to see the great man toiling over his "hand written" manuscripts or his long suffering wife dutifully typing out the novels. This movie concentrates on the last years of Tolstoy's life when he lived a kind of hippie existence and agonized over whether he should share his wealth with Russia's starving peasantry or enjoy his nobleman status along with the royalties from his writings. Plot, however, takes a backseat in this movie to allow Mirren and Plummer portray a truly great piece of drama, the kind you simply won't see in cinema anymore. Husband and wife, James Mc Avoy and Anne Marie Duff, despite their notable acting skills, are mere satellites to the two leads in this cast. Mc Avoy plays the Count's idealistic new secretary and Duff the devoted daughter, caught in the middle of her parent's frequent rows. I read another review on IMDb which complained of "too much school girl giggling about sex". That's a fair comment. The sex scenes between Mc Avoy and Kerry Condon who plays Mascha, a worker on the Tolstoy estate, are entirely superfluous and add nothing other than brief female nudity to the story. For drama purists though, its the best example of mannered acting you're likely to see in a modern movie.
Agora
(2009)
proper historical drama
29 April 2010
One of the best movies I have seen for a very long time! From the opening shots of an ancient Greek academy right through to the tragic, yet totally fitting conclusion, this movie just builds and builds to create historical cinema gold. I don't want to say too much about the acting, mainly because Rachel Weisz is the only actor in it whose work I am familiar with. But when a plot is as gripping and full of historical information as this is, the acting just seems to happen. It has everything. History, science, romance, fight scenes and even a brief bit of nudity, if that's what floats your boat. But no subject is overdone or incongruous to the plot. The balance between the plot's contending themes is always maintained as is the screen time for the movie's predominant characters. It's the kind of movie where you don't want to talk too much about the plot for fear of spoiling sheer joy of uncovering the story's events with it's characters. GO AND SEE IT!!!!!
The Blind Side
(2009)
how did this win an award?
8 March 2010
I think the Acadamy is being very kind to Sandra Bullock by giving her the best actress award for this movie. Rarely have I seen a more irritating, feel good fetish. It is so predictable that it would be almost impossible to include spoilers in the review, but for the benefit of the mentally deficient I'll try not to give away too much. Basically, its the story of a gentle giant who gets adopted by the most nauseatingly nice family since the Brady Bunch. Our hero, "Big Mike" is a misfit kid from the projects who gets accepted into a high performing high school. One night, as he's making his way to the gym, were he sleeps, the Touhey family take pity on him and take him into their perfect family home. This is were Sandra Bullock takes control of the plot and of the whole movie. There's no doubt in my mind that Director John Lee Hancock molded this movie to make Sandra Bullock look like the award winning actress she isn't. Her husband, Sean, played by Tim McGraw, is the most pointless character in movie history. Even a henpecked husband would be more humorous than the impotent piece of passivity this man represents. Son, S.J., played by Jae Head, is one of those annoying child characters who gets way too much screen time and daughter, Collins, played by Lily Collins has to be the most understanding teenage girl ever to feature in a Hollywood movie. Quinton Aaron, who plays "Big Mike" does as good a job as he's let, given that he dare not steal attention from Sandra Bullock's dominance. There's one good scene when he returns to the bad guys in the projects were he grew up. It's the only good scene actually, probably because Sandra Bullock is not in it. I won't bore you with the details of the whole football plot, you'll guess were its going very early on; especially when Sandra Bullock's character starts telling the coach what to do. Apart from the "Boys in the Hood" in Mike's old neighborhood, there's just one other bad guy, but he's just a loud mouth racist at a football game who Sandra Bullock deals with predictably. There's shades of "Mr. Holland's Opus" "Good Will Hunting" and even "Shine" in this movie. Sadly though, those shades are quickly obliterated by Miss Bullocks ego.
The Lovely Bones
(2009)
pretentious drivel
21 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
So they got a popular novel, persuaded the Lord of the Rings director to come on board and even assembled a very impressive cast. Then, the movie happened! But, I firmly believe that nobody watched this mess before inflicting it on the public. For the first fifteen or twenty minutes there's a glimmer of hope that it might just be going somewhere. The specter of a middle American happy family is just about cozy enough to pull you in. Even the fact that the narrator is dead doesn't altogether unsettle the optimistic viewer. In fact, one is reminded of Kevin Spacy's character narrating "American Beauty" from beyond the grave. We know, pretty early on in the story, where the plot is heading and what the cute teenager's fate is going to be. Enter the most stereotypical pedophile in movie history. Stanley Tucci's character lives alone, sports an anorak, wears a very false looking mustache and glasses. He's overweight and has lanky hair parted perversely. He's the kind of man the police would investigate just for looking like a nonce. Now, most modern teenage girls would run a marathon if this man even turned up on the t.v. So let's give Saoirse Ronan's character the benefit of the doubt and say that in the 1970s youngsters were probably more trusting. The movie is set in 1973 after all. A fact the film makers only elude to when it suits them. Anyway, she agrees to go down into a sort of underground camp with this gruesome pervert and the obvious happens. Except it doesn't. In the book, Susie Salmon (Ronan) is raped and killed. But there is absolutely no illusion to the sexual motive anywhere in the film. Apart from the fact that the murderer looks, talks and behaves like a sexual deviant, there is no ripping of clothes or attempts to seduce the teenager. It just looks like a motiveless murder, or it would, if we got to see the murder taking place. Sadly this whole scene is shot in such a shoddy way that you might be forgiven for thinking that the girl actually manages to escape from her attacker. I'm thinking that director Peter Jackson didn't want to emphasize the sex and violence of the attack, given the fact that his leading actress is only fifteen. So, why not use a more mature actress? Once we actually establish that Susie Salmon is dead then you might imagine that the movie becomes a tale of tracking down and bringing her killer to justice. Well, it isn't really. Because now we are entering the world of CGI heaven. I have read one review of this film that likens it to spending two hours in purgatory. The murdered Susie Salmon is not quite a ghost and not exactly passed on. She dances around in limbo making friends with other murder victims and periodically checking back in with her living relatives to see how her murder investigation is going. Back on Earth, her parents are separating, her sister is playing Nancy Drew and her grandmother is cleaning the house. Perhaps the most astonishing thing about this film is the fact that an actress of Susan Sarandon's caliber agreed to such a pointless role. A cameo in "The Simpsons" would quite honestly have read better on her C.V. Mark Whalberg is unconvincing as the father on the edge of a nervous breakdown and Rachel Weisz, as the mother, looks like she couldn't care less. Rose McIver gives a watchable performance as the murdered girl's sister and one wonders if she wouldn't have handled the lead role more maturely. As if all the above wasn't bad enough, there's a teenage romance and first kiss subplot to really have you reaching for the bucket.
Tell Your Friends