kitellis-98121's Reviews

Butterfly (2018)

10/10

6 November 2019

This magnificent 3-part series is practically perfect in every way. The writing is of the highest standard, the cinematography is superb, the directing is skilful, the all-round storytelling is truly top-notch, and the performances are extraordinary - in particular the lead role played by a supremely talented young actor named Callum Booth-Ford. His performance was so ultra-real, so confident and assured, so intelligent, so nuanced, so truthful that I actually had to check early in the first episode to see if they'd been cowardly and cast a girl in the role. To their credit they hadn't. They cast a young boy in a complex role that required not only immense self-confidence and supreme acting chops to pull-off, but also a willingness to risk much of the same ignorance, prejudice, and narrow-mindedness in his real life as was being experienced by the character he portrayed. And I'm not just talking about potential bullying from other children - though we all know how cruel and despicable they can be. But also by unenlightened adults, well-meaning or otherwise, or might seek to "protect" him when actually they'd be doing harm.

One of the very few aspects of the modern world that can be regarded as an improvement is the fact that young people in films, TV, and theatre are occasionally allowed to portray all their complex, three-dimensional reality, even if that reality is scary or disturbing for some adults. Back in the early 80's when I was a preteen, I would not have been allowed to play a gay character, or a trans character, or even a cross-dressing character, and I would not have been allowed to see such characters portrayed by others. I wasn't even allowed to be gay or bisexual myself. It was illegal for my teachers to acknowledge that such people even existed, let alone help us through our self-discovery, confusion, and angst. There wasn't even the suggestion that polysexual or non-binary people or lifestyles existed. The world has moved on, thankfully.

So I am overjoyed to see such intelligent, well-made dramas being produced, not as propaganda, or education, but as entertainment for ALL to enjoy, in a free-thinking world where people of all types and persuasions can be represented in a non-fearful way; openly, without shame, and without judgement.

The world has moved on. Not soon enough, not far enough, and not fast enough. But we're getting there. The more "normal" people are given the opportunity to expose themselves to lives and lifestyles that to them are "atypical", the better chance they have to break down their own ignorance and prejudices before they become damaging, and to embrace and explore a wider and more tolerant world. Enlightenment is free and available to anyone willing to let it in. All they have to do is be open to it. And to have available such works of literature, drama, music, and any other art form that can illustrate, elucidate, and inform them. An exquisite drama like Butterfly is most definitely a large step in the right direction. More, more, more!

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ray Donovan (2013–2020)

8/10

Flawless, yet flawed.

24 April 2019

The first two seasons of Ray Donovan were exquisite, with a fabulous cast, strong writing, and a compelling plot that made this a true binge-watch. The third season was very nearly as good, but perhaps not quite so polished. Season Four, however, introduced a major story element that made my heart sink. Cancer. (Yep. That tired old soap-opera trope!)

Now I should point out that my disappointment at the direction the show took was, of course, highly subjective. But I feel that if I had been adequately warned in advance about where things were heading plot-wise, I would NOT have spent the money to buy this otherwise excellent show. Because for very personal reasons I have a deep and powerful aversion to the subject of cancer, and watch shows like Ray Donovan SPECIFICALLY to escape from having to think about it. So my heart sank when it was introduced, and it sank even further when it became clear that the producers intended to use it as the MAJOR storyline going forward.

However, I had paid the money, and the rest of the show continued to be high-quality and riveting. In fact, so compelling - during the brief interludes that didn't involve watching someone slowly dying from cancer - that I couldn't stop watching, even though the show was now a serious downer. I binge-watched the remaining two seasons (4 and 5) in one go. But it was more of an endurance event than the sheer delight that it had started out as.

Season Five was a HUGE departure too, for stylistic as well as narrative reasons, and judged on its own merits would only have scored 2 stars from me. Aside from being a major downer due to the bulk of each episode being about multiple characters dying slowly from cancer, it also changed its storytelling style from a linear, straightforward narrative to a needlessly convoluted and messy miasma of flashbacks and flashforwards, crashing clumsily and confusingly backwards and forwards in time with no particular structure and nothing to ground the viewer or help them orient themselves in the story. Frankly it was a bleak, depressing, confusing mess. It also introduced another stylistic element that had previously been blissfully absent: Dream sequences and hallucinations. I passionately despise these things, as they are a lazy storytelling device, as well as being clichéd and annoying!

However, and here's the thing with Ray Donovan; the bits of the show that actually focused on dodgy deals, hiding bodies, blackmailing scumbags, and managing the various disasters created by Mickey and his sons, remained as compelling as ever, and I still couldn't stop watching - despite not enjoying the majority of each episode.

The show lost its way badly after its third season. But it is still a great series, with a top cast, excellent writing, and a gripping story. And based on what happened in the Season Five finale, I'm going to lay out more of my precious money to buy the next season ASAP - despite mostly hating the last 24 episodes I've watched. That's how good it is.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bodyguard (2018)

10/10

Exciting, gripping, tense, thrilling. I loved it!

24 April 2019

Jed Mercurio has done it again! The man behind such thrilling rides as Strike Back, Line of Duty, and Critical has once again brought his unique blend of adrenaline, sex, and intellect to a top-quality UK drama series. He's done soldiers. He's done police officers. He's done surgeons. And now he's added politicians to his ever-expanding catalogue of everyday people in tense and death-defying situations.

Bodyguard gets off to a nerve-jangling start, and doesn't let go. The pressure builds. The action intensifies. The corruption and ineptitude of people in power is once again highlighted in all its ugliness and hypocrisy. Action and thrills are counterbalanced with politics and intrigue. And behind it all, a set of interesting and well-drawn human characters.

More, more more!

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Deepsea Challenge (2014)

8/10

Strangely uncomfortable, but worth a watch.

24 April 2019

There's something about James Cameron, as a person, that always makes me feel a little uneasy. He has oodles of talent, creativity, and drive, and has the power and money to make his many dreams and ambitions come true. And his passions are both ambitious and worthy. He has an awful lot to contribute to the world, in the fields of cinema, exploration, science, and ecology. He is a man who gets things done.

But somehow he just doesn't seem very nice. He doesn't exude much warmth or kindness. He seems slightly dangerous and unpredictable. Which is a shame. I'd like to like him as much as I respect and admire him. But there's just something...off...about him. But hey, I have Asperger's Syndrome so what do I know? People think I'm "off" too.

However, despite him making me feel discomforted, I still find him a fascinating individual, and his deepsea adventures are of great interest to me. I've seen a couple of other documentaries following his exploits and this was on a par with them in terms of interest factor and general excitingness. But, as another reviewer mentioned, the final underwater scenes were a little disappointing. I still look forward to his next project. I hope there's a documentary of it, but get the feeling that he'd rather be left alone and not have a camera in his face. Perhaps that's the discord that bothers me: he'd rather have his adventures alone, but needs to document them in order to justify (and finance) them, requiring the intrusive presence of a camera crew, who he probably views as parasites. Or I may be completely wrong. Who knows?

7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Flash Gordon (1980)

10/10

As Fabulous As I Remembered.

24 April 2019

After a gap of maybe 20 years or so, I randomly decided to watch this old favourite again. And unlike most fondly remembered films that are often disappointing to revisit, this one was exactly as I remembered it - and just as much fun.

It is uber-ridiculous, and doesn't make any pretence of taking itself seriously, which in these depressing times is just what I needed! The costumes and sets are exquisitely over the top, with sumptuously bombastic production design. The casting is sublime, with an odd assortment of hammy British thespians, strippers, European arthouse actors and B-list Americans, all spouting hilariously cheesy dialogue with tongues planted firmly in cheeks. The visual effects are gloriously clunky, originating as they do from a world cheerfully devoid of CGI. The skies in every shot are created using coloured dyes in a tank of water, and they are beautiful!

For myself, and probably most other people who grew up with this film, there are probably three main ingredients that make it a timeless classic: The music by Queen, which is awesome. Brian Blessed, who is a booming, bearded, beloved behemoth. And the endlessly quotable dialogue.

But additionally - and here I was surprised - it is still very sexy! As a callow, sweaty-palmed adolescent, I quite naturally found the skimpily-costumed cast somewhat... alluring. But back then I found anyone in a leotard and leg warmers appealing, so my youthful judgement is not to be trusted. Yet even now, watching as a jaded, cynical, grumpy middle-aged man, this movie still made my trousers dance. (Well, almost). Unlike just about every film dating from the 70's or 80's, the pretty young cast of this movie don't look godawful by modern standards. And that is borderline miraculous!

Overall, this is a film to be cherished. A true cult classic.

8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Homecoming (2018–2020)

9/10

Creepy. Unsettling. Dischordant. Hyper-stylized.

24 April 2019

If I had watched "Homecoming" back in the 1980's when I was an earnest young film student, I would have creamed my pants! This show is exactly the sort of thing I would have made, if I'd had access to unlimited technical resources and top-tier Tinsel Town talent. Visually, it is a love letter to the great filmmakers of a bygone age, with cinematography reminiscent of many a much-studied classic. Every shot is a piece of artwork, lovingly realised, inspired by historical masterpieces and reborn in a digital melting pot.

Unfortunately for me, I am no longer an earnest young film student. My back aches. My mind wanders. My life is complicated and stressful. When I settle down to watch a film or binge on a TV series, I have different needs.

I need to be sucked-in; immersed in a compelling and riveting story; emotionally invested in the characters; excited by exquisite writing, stirring performances, and overall excellent narrative storytelling.

Yes, I want to see stunning cinematography and have my emotions expertly puppeteered by a magnificent music score. But not at the expense of good storytelling.

In "Homecoming" I felt that the creators tried too hard to impress the viewer with their filmmaking prowess, rather than simply using that prowess to tell a good story well. It was, for me, a case of style over substance. I found the visual style more distracting than illuminating. Rather than aiding the storytelling, it had me constantly searching through my memory banks for which film I had seen a certain camera set-up or lighting technique used before. I had almost no idea at all what the story was or who the characters were. And worse, I didn't feel compelled to find out. I wasn't drawn-in. I was left standing outside the restaurant in the cold, peering through the window at plates full of delicious-looking food, but unable to smell or taste any of it, or enjoy a spirited conversation with my fellow diners.

But it sure looked good!

So why the 9 stars? Because watching "Homecoming" split me in half: The earnest young film student of the 1980's, and the grumpy middle-aged cynic of the 21st century. So I reviewed it from both perspectives, and awarded stars based on its merits as I would have seen them back then, when I had a greater appreciation of art, and less desire for comfort.

And that's about as fair as fair can be.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Suits (2011–2019)

10/10

Starts great. Gets better each season.

24 April 2019

I've now watched every currently available episode at least twice, from the pilot through to season 8, episode 10, and this show just keeps getting better and better. And that's an amazing thing considering that it got off to a flawless start! Unusually for a long-running TV show, there isn't a single bad episode. There are one or two that may be a little overburdened by flashbacks, but I'm nit-picking to even mention it, as they're still great episodes. It really is a very classy show.

Part of its success is that aside from the excellent foundations of strong, intelligent, witty writing; compelling narrative; well-drawn three-dimensional characters; and masterful direction; it also has the courage to evolve beyond the original limitations set out by the pilot. What started as a fun, light-hearted, witty show about a slick, arrogant lawyer and his fraudulent but genius sidekick has grown steadily into a dark and intense study of human strength and frailty, and the swirling miasma of conflicting emotions and behaviours that are born out of damaged psyches. And yet it never gets too heavy. It still manages to maintain a perfect balance of intense drama, witty banter, occasional absurdist moments, and an ongoing narrative arc about the ups and downs of a top-level legal firm and the cases they work.

There really isn't much that could be improved upon with "Suits". The show is so substantial and rests upon such solid foundations that it easily survived losing three main cast members in season seven, and has come back just as strong in season eight. Long may it continue.

4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Romanoffs (2018)

6/10

Sumptuous, with high production values, yet tedious.

24 April 2019

This is not the sort of thing I usually watch, as it is an anthology series rather than something with an ongoing narrative arc, and I prefer to binge on one giant and addictive story rather than dip in and out. However, "The Romanoffs" had an intriguing premise, an impressive cast, and sufficient budget for international locations, so I thought I'd give it a try.

I got a good feeling from the opening titles, which were stylish and suggested fine things to come. However, the first episode quickly devolved into a tedious French soap opera, with a pace so slow that it threatened to put me in a coma, and a group of cookie-cutter characters that failed to engage me as either good guys or bad. The heavy-handed scenario of the new Muslim servant (with a heart of gold) unwillingly hired by a rich, xenophobic heiress (who quickly warms to her new headscarfed friend) was almost as over-played and leaden as the concurrent thread featuring the greedy and manipulative relatives waiting to swoop in and inherit the Faberge egg. (Yes, really!)

I wanted to like it. I wanted to at least make it to the end of the season, to see if despite it being an anthology they might tie all the stories together in the finale. But by the 48th minute, I was already checking to see how much longer it would be until the end of episode one. And when I discovered that there was another half-hour to go, I gave up.

It wasn't my type of show, and I gave it a good try. But I found it unbearably tedious, despite high production values and the possibility that future episodes may be much better. (I may still in the future try again.) It didn't grab me, and I also found it a real pain having to spend 90 percent of the time with my eyes glued to the bottom inch of the screen reading subtitles, as despite being an American show with an English-speaking cast, the vast majority of it was in French. And I find it even harder to connect with the characters and become invested in their stories if I can't look at their faces when they're talking.

Pros: Great cast. Overseas locations. Sumptuous sets. Nice cinematography. (Hence six stars). Cons: Dull story. Unimaginative characters. Too reliant on subtitles. Anthology format. (Hence no more than six stars)

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Americans (2013–2018)

10/10

Gripping, intense, sometimes disturbing, always thrilling.

24 April 2019

This is a fully-rounded, three-dimensional espionage thriller, which explores the deeply complex lives of an array of American, Soviet, and "Illegal" spies, diplomats, and bureaucrats during the murky Cold War era of the 1980's.

And it is very nearly flawless.

Unusually for an American TV show, it not only gives an in-depth view of the "enemy" (Soviet) side, but through most of its six seasons it presents the narrative largely from their perspective, drawing the audience's sympathies towards the Russian, rather than the American characters - until the final season which explodes its (and the audience's) sympathies in all directions, fully inhabiting and examining the "grey" areas.

This is a show that demands the full attention of its audience, with multiple story threads that unravel slowly and deliberately - sometimes across several seasons. It also expects its audience to have an open mind and a willingness to have their attitudes and preconceptions challenged. It doesn't shy away from any aspect of Cold War spy-craft, and presents the often cruel and frequently despicable actions of both sides with an even, unbiased hand. Sometimes it is hard to know who to root for. But it is always a thrilling ride.

Apart from season 5, which suffered from some occasionally yawn-inducing pacing issues.

But overall, The Americans is one of the finest pieces of television you could hope to see, with exquisite writing and directing - including some stand-out scenes that are several minutes long and contain no dialogue at all (who could forget the spine-tingling tooth extraction scene, for example?) - and also some beautifully crafted scenes of intimacy and introspection. And there is also, of course, plenty of adrenaline-soaked action, martial arts, heists, dead-drops, car chases, and...

WIGS!!!! Lots and lots (and lots and lots and lots) of wigs!!!

And other disguises too, of course. This show is possibly the most disguise-rich environment ever created for television. Where do they all come from? It's a never-ending cornucopia of top-quality keratin. Beards. Moustaches. Probably merkins too, although the camera annoyingly never catches sight of any. But I bet they were there! Permed, waxed, or braided!

And despite ticking every conceivable genre box (and inventing a few new ones), this show never seems anything but totally new, original, and authentic. The mood is consistently dark and intense throughout, and doesn't fall into the trap of injecting comedy for light relief. It stays true to itself, and doesn't fear alienating the audience. It is bold and unflinching. And, without wanting to spoil anything, it has a refreshingly non-pandering ending.

I've re-watched it all the way through several times, and it just gets better and better. It is, to use a food analogy, rare steak and a good red wine. Not McDonald's. (Which is ironic, given the final episode!)

Well worth investing in the full six-season package. It's good for many binges!

5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jack Ryan (2018–2023)

8/10

An excellent addition to the Jack Ryan canon.

31 August 2018

After so many big-screen versions of Jack Ryan, this small-screen offering manages to be every bit as action-packed and thrilling as its predecessors.

The show is slick, glossy, grown-up, and extremely well made. The casting is perfect. The cinematography is outstanding. The writing is spot-on. The action sequences are masterfully directed. Nothing about it feels dumbed-down. Nothing feels censored.

Crucially, it is filmed at far-flung locations outside the narrow confines of LA or NY, so it feels suitably global and has appropriately high production values. Other shows (like Alias and The Unit) have used nearby locations in California to double for - well, just about everywhere else on Earth, with embarrassingly bad results. This one follows the sensible example of shows like Covert Affairs, which splashed out on expensive overseas shoots to augment the scenes that were faked Stateside. It's a technique that serves well, drastically improving the show's production values and overall feeling of high-quality.

If they had done it on the cheap, it would have been an insult to the audience, and the quality of the show would have suffered fatally. As it is, however, they spent the money and put it all up there on the screen. Bravo!

I like the season-long story arc, and hope this format continues in future seasons. One long 8-part story keeps me invested, and keeps me binging. The minute they start doing a villain-of-the-week, one-story-per-episode deal, I'll jump ship and head off to more challenging waters! Similarly with the swearing, nudity, and violence. Keep it coming. I'm an adult, and I'm frankly sick of shows pandering to children or the anxious parents of children! Kids have their shows; let us grown-ups have ours!

So far, Jack Ryan is happily ticking a lot of my boxes. Long may it continue.

33 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Innocents (2018)

6/10

Sense8 Lite. Bleak and slightly depressing, but with some promise.

24 August 2018

I can't help comparing this with Sense8, even though the comparison is perhaps a little unfair.

Sense8 was a massively ambitious and expensive globe-trotting extravaganza, that transcended all genres and invented a completely new grammar of screen storytelling. It was brave, bombastic and brilliant, and polarised its viewers. Many people didn't "get" it at all. Those that did "get" it almost unanimously agreed that it was an acquired taste; one that required patience and commitment from its audience. After an initial false start, I eventually "gave-in" to the Sense8 way of storytelling, and was rewarded with the absolute best viewing experience of my life.

So when I saw the trailer for The Innocents, and it immediately reminded me of Sense8, I decided to watch it in the same way; allowing it to wash over me and (hopefully) worm its way into my consciousness in a similar fashion. I wanted to love it. I was ready for a new addiction. It took most people three episodes to get properly into Sense8, so I decided to give The Innocents at least that much of a chance.

So far I've made it almost to the end of episode 4, and I'm still waiting for it to hook me. No joy yet.

I'm finding it to be bleak and depressing. Also slow and insipid. The shape-shifting idea has been done a lot in the past - as has telepathy, of course - but unlike Sense8, which brought total originality and inspiration to the idea of telepathy, The Innocents seems to be (so far) utterly unimaginative and rather limp in its treatment of shape-shifters. The best device they could come up with to visually demonstrate someone having taken the shape of someone else is to have their "true" image conveniently reflected in mirrors - visible to themselves and also to non-shapeshifters. This is a lazy and uninspired shortcut to tell the audience who is who, and also allow them to "prove" to other people who they are. But so far I'm not buying it. It just feels like they couldn't be bothered.

Also, the bleak mood of the piece is failing to grab me. I'm not a big fan of Nordic Noir - which is what I assume they're aiming for. This feels like a rather forced cross-breed. It's shot in England and Norway, with a cast and crew that seems to be Anglo-Scandinavian, and the two flavours don't mix very well, in my opinion. They're too similar, like two notes next to each other on a piano being played simultaneously. It makes a discord.

And the presence of Guy Pierce in the cast is also strangely unappealing. He looks somewhat similar to Terrence Mann in Sense8, and seems to be (so far) filling a similar sort of role. But it really feels like stunt casting. Every time he pops up in a scene you remember every other Guy Pierce film you've seen (plus Mike in Neighbours if you're of a certain age) and it becomes a distraction from, rather than a benefit to, the overall experience.

The two lead actors are not bad, although Sorcha Groundsell is oddly similar in appearance to a young Fairuza Balk (albeit without the monster gnashers), but her weirdly demonic eyes and variable accent are, again, more than a little distracting.

The plot is, so far, nothing to write home about. It has certainly failed to hook me. And the overall production is similar in quality to any standard low-budget BBC or ITV mid-range television drama. Nothing about it suggests that its creators had much in the way of ambition or inspiration, and the whole product is noticeably lacking in passion and energy. It feels, in fact, like someone at Netflix suggested that they try to do something similar to Sense8, but without spending all that damn money, and without being so damn cerebral, gosh darn it!

Well, speaking purely for myself, I'd have preferred it if they'd used the budget from The Innocents to add an extra couple more hours to the Sense8 finale. But maybe I'm just spoiled now.

64 out of 131 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Theory of Everything (2014)

10/10

Perfection.

17 August 2018

If Benedict Cumberbatch had been up for an Oscar in any other year, for his masterful performance in The Imitation Game, he doubtless would have won it. But sadly for him, he was up against Eddie Redmayne in The Theory of Everything, and the result was inevitable.

Redmayne's portrayal of Professor Stephen Hawking is mesmerising. He fully and completely inhabits every aspect of the character, with not a trace of his original self evident at any stage. With minimal help from the makeup department, he perfectly metamorphoses into the famously twisted shape of Hawkins, and the resemblance is uncanny. His facial ticks and mannerisms are also spot-on, and he perfectly captures the wicked twinkle in Hawkins' eyes; the eyes of a brilliant man who despite being trapped in a useless body never lost his fine sense of humour.

And although Redmayne's performance is one of the greatest displays of acting skill you could hope to see, it does not eclipse the quality of the film itself, which is beautiful, touching, fascinating, funny, heart-warming, and life-affirming. It would be very hard indeed to find a better all-round piece of cinema. Every aspect of it is finely crafted perfection, from screenplay, to direction, to cinematography, to performance, to editing, to music... it is a cinematic feast; for the eyes, for the mind, and for the soul.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hours (2013)

8/10

Tense, gripping, and unexpected.

16 August 2018

I didn't know what to expect before watching this film. My hopes were that it would be similar to "14 Hours", the 2005 TV movie about Tropical Storm Allison, starring Rick Schroder, JoBeth Williams, and Kris Kristofferson. That one was a true story, also set entirely in a hospital, and featuring extremely good action sequences of the hospital flooding, as well as attempts to keep a new-born baby alive. I assumed that a bigger-budget movie about a bigger and more devastating storm (Katrina) could only be, well, bigger and more exciting.

I was wrong.

"Hours" has barely any action at all. And the only scenes of the storm are from archive news reports. The film takes place almost entirely in a single hospital room and the corridor outside it. There are a few brief (and unnecessary) flashbacks to earlier moments in the protagonist's life, one brief scene on a roof, and a few scattered scenes in the hospital's generator room. And that's it.

This film is NOT about a storm. It is about a father bonding with his baby during a power-outage caused by the storm, as he is forced to hand-crank a generator every couple of minutes to put a bit more juice into the depleted battery of his baby's life-support machine. That's the whole story. He meets a cute dog, and a couple of mindless looting thugs. But essentially, it's a film about a guy turning a handle and talking to a motionless baby.

And yet somehow it is brilliant!

The dialogue is beautifully written; natural, raw, and filled with emotional honesty. The acting from Paul Walker is sublime, nuanced, and heart-breaking. The direction is well-judged, with a finely tuned mixture of quiet, intimate character study, and precision winding-up of the tension, aided by some subtle and finessed editing, music, and sound design.

Ultimately, this film is an exercise in making something substantial and satisfying out of nothing much at all. It succeeds completely in all it sets out to do, and is a thoroughly engrossing cinematic experience. It also feels like a true story - which I assumed it was throughout - but is actually a work of fiction. And that, despite the lack of action, is actually the only disappointing thing about it. I would have liked to look-up the real guy and his daughter online to find out how their lives have been since Katrina.

So despite not meeting my initial hopes and expectations, this film was a near-total success, and I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Atonement (2007)

9/10

Exquistite filmmaking. An epic masterpiece.

15 August 2018

Warning: Spoilers

I have, in the past, been somewhat harsh in my criticisms of Joe Wright's films. After my first viewing of Atonement, I found myself rather badly "triggered" by its ending (which I still hate), and that certainly affected my appraisal of the film overall, leaving me with the lingering impression that I'd hated the whole thing. After seeing Hanna, which I found almost unwatchable, I may have allowed my thought's about Wright's directorial style to become unfairly negative. (I'd also seen Pride and Prejudice, and found it aesthetically pleasing but otherwise somewhat limp).

So when I recently watched Darkest Hour, and found myself breathless and giddy with enthusiasm, and loudly proclaiming it a cinematic masterpiece, it dawned on me that I should perhaps give Wright's films another chance. So, with gritted teeth I sat down to revisit Atonement. And was blown away!

From the very first moment I was captivated. The cinematography was stunning. Literally every shot was lit and composed in such a way that you could take any random frame from the movie, print it, and hang it in an art gallery! The early scenes perfectly evoked the bucolic charms of an English country estate in the 1930s, with all the elegance, opulence, and sexual undercurrents that form the set-up for a darkly troubling story. Every aspect of the period detail was beautifully done, with gorgeous wardrobe, immaculate art-direction, and a jarringly bold and original music score. The writing was sublime, as were every one of the performances; filled with depth, nuance, and truthfulness. The spellbinding, icily assured performance from Saoirse Ronan, deftly directed by Wright, holds the whole first act together, portraying a complex miasma of innocence, jealousy, and repressed sexuality, which forms the foundation upon which the rest of the film is built.

The second act lurches jarringly out of the picturesque countryside into epic scenes of World War II, depicted with bombastic realism and cinematic flair, including the famous and much celebrated 5-minute tracking shot on the Dunkirk beach. Again the art-direction and cinematography are sensational. Here, Wright shows his skill at going LARGE. Every scene, be it in France or in London, is filled with thousands of milling extras, period vehicles, and superbly choreographed activity, all captured with sweeping camera moves and lit entirely for artistic effect rather than mere illumination. It is a visual feast. Every shot resembles a painting.

The third act is also very well made. But it is here that the film falls down - at least for me. And it is ENTIRELY the fault of the novel upon which the film is based. I just hate where the story goes. I can stick with it right up to the point that Vanessa Redgrave appears. The shocking reveal in her interview ruins everything. It pulls the rug out from under me. As a viewer, it is like a slap in the face. It cruelly mocks me for being gullible and romantic....

--------------------SPOILER WARNING--------------------

If it had just shown the deaths when they actually occurred, it would have been a tragic film, but a beautiful one, and I could have lived with that. But to give them a fake happy ending, and then say "Ha, Ha, only kidding. They died really!" was cruel and unkind to the audience. And then, to suggest that by making up a fake happy ending it served as "atonement" because it "gave them their happiness" (to paraphrase) really added insult to injury. It served only to make the wrongdoer feel better. The people whose lives she ruined died without ever finding their happiness. And now the audience must suffer the same fate! Thanks a bunch! (Ooops, I may be getting triggered again!)

So, I hate the ending. But this time round, forearmed with the knowledge of what was going to happen, I was able to view the film more objectively, and endure the lousy ending without it eclipsing the preceding masterpiece. For which I am most grateful.

I am not one of those shallow, unsophisticated people who requires happy endings, or for things to be tied up neatly with pretty bows. I just strongly object to the very specific and particular way that Atonement went about its ending.

But I no longer blame Joe Wright. Which is nice, since I have fond memories of him from when we were kids. He is a master filmmaker, and despite still not loving ALL of his work, I hold him in the highest respect, and consider at least two of his films to be bona fide masterpieces.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mud (2012)

8/10

An excellent coming-of-age drama.

12 August 2018

An Amazon reviewer commented that this film has an essence of "Stand By Me" about it, and that was all it took to convince me to give it a try - without even reading any more of their review.

They weren't wrong. Almost the first shot of the film features a boy who closely resembles River Phoenix in "Stand By Me", including the same haircut and similar white t-shirt. And the mood and flavour of the film continues to be similar throughout, with additional overtones of "The Client", "The Cure", and even elements of Stephen King's "IT" (the original, not the remake). Because, of course, this is just one in a long and distinguished line of coming-of-age dramas, mostly featuring boys aged between 11 and 14, mostly in bucolic rural settings, and mostly unsupervised, that can trace their origins back to Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. It is a genre that is nearly always richly evocative, and speaks to a nostalgic place, particularly to be found in the male soul, that yearns for the freedom and adventure of ones' youth - either fondly remembered, or wishfully imagined.

These specific stories, which are quintessentially American, have their cousins in every other culture around the world - wherever young boys live and play and explore the world around them in search of adventure and independence. As a Brit, my version of "Huckleberry Finn" was "Swallows and Amazons" which reflected my own culture's youthful adventures of a bygone age, and remains powerfully resonant and evocative to me even in middle age. I was lucky enough to actually have a childhood like that, so I can enjoy real memories as well as imagination.

But I also grew up with the American mythology too, and when "Stand By Me" first hit the screens, it touched that special place in the centre of my soul that will forever be a 12 year-old boy. I'm particularly susceptible to such stories.

Mud is one such story, and it is beautifully realised. The screenplay is honest, raw, and unflinching. It is also pleasingly male-centric, with not a single trace of post-feminist political correctness. Every featured female character is a representation of the various ways that women can hurt and abuse men, and every featured male character has been hurt or abused by a female in one way or another. Now, although this may not seem realistic or fair, it is purely because the film is entirely presented from a male perspective - which is both refreshing and deeply satisfying if, like me, you are a male who has grown up in a world where anyone who owns a penis is automatically fair game.

Personally, I've had enough of watching "empowered" women "heroically" kicking men's asses in movies. And I've had enough of watching men always being the abuser. In this film, the women are all abusive in one way or another, but they are also depicted realistically and with more even-handedness than male characters would have been if their roles had been reversed. The dialogue is also intelligently written, and the two central characters - boys in their early teens - are written and depicted honestly and with great respect. There is no dumbing-down here.

The cinematography is attractive and straightforward, perfectly capturing the beauty of the great outdoors without falling into any of the usual clichés. There are no smoke-filled woods with sun rays piercing through. There are no arty close-ups of barbed wire with out-of-focus red barns in the background. There are no shots of people silhouetted against the sunset. (At least, if there were, I wasn't distracted by them).

Similarly, the music doesn't draw attention to itself, the editing is equally unobtrusive, and the director wisely keeps his actors from chewing-up any scenery. In short, it is good straightforward storytelling, rather than "art". And much as I enjoy "art", with a movie of this nature the story must come first.

And finally, with regard to the cast, I can only say that they all did a great job. The supporting cast, most of whom bring a lot of Hollywood "baggage" with them, are sensibly kept in the background, with the exception of McConaughey who turns in a solid (and possibly quite smelly) performance.

But the absolute stars of this film are the two boys, both of whom would be equally good in any of the coming-of-age movies that have ever been made. Their acting is natural, confident, nuanced, and filled with - my favourite word - verisimilitude. And the central performance from Tye Sheridan is nothing short of breath-taking. As I was watching, I was thinking "this kid is going to be a huge star". I had never heard of him before. But having since looked him up, I can see that he's already well on the way to my prediction, with an impressive body of work under his belt. I was reminded of both River Phoenix in "Stand By Me" and Brad Renfro in "The Client". And that is a little bit unsettling, based on how both of their young lives were tragically ended. So I hope that Tye Sheridan achieves the success that he so totally deserves, but without falling into the same traps.

Overall, "Mud" is a strong addition to a favourite genre of mine. Not the best (hence not 10 stars) but a thoroughly well-made film.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Day of the Triffids (1963)

4/10

Dated beyond my ability to endure.

10 August 2018

"Plants! Green things that live in the soil. Some are carnivorous. That means they eat meat - the flesh of dead creatures. Meat, I tell you. Meat! Plants that eat meat! We don't know how. We don't know why. Elsewhere, Howard Keel is wearing a blindfold. Let's zoom in on it now. A blindfold, I tell you. A blindfold!..."

I may be paraphrasing the film's narration a little - but not much. Honestly, it's that bad! This was a film very much of its time, and it has dated horrendously. In another review, of either Clash of the Titans or Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, I can't remember which, I waxed lyrical about the glories of the "good old days" of moviemaking before the advent of CGI. I expressed scorn and contempt for modern audiences who are unable to appreciate and enjoy old movies, particularly those featuring the best that special effects had to offer in a pre-computerised age - because those are what I grew up on. I have immense respect for the early pioneers of SFX, and their work still has a special place in my film-buff-soul.

But although I remember enjoying Day of the Triffids as child, I am honestly appalled at how bad it is by today's standards - and I'm not talking about the clunky and embarrassing effects. I'm talking about the god-awful script, heinously bad acting, and all-round-abysmal storytelling. What a dire movie! I couldn't stick with it longer than 20 minutes before giving up in disgust.

My love and nostalgia for old movies has finally found its limit, and it's called Day of the Triffids.

Note: Enjoyment not helped by the worst quality transfer I've ever seen, which was grainy, washed-out, faded, and distorted due to not being presented in the correct aspect ratio. The audio also sounded like a 19th century wax cylinder!

Glad it was free on Amazon.

6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I'll Follow You Down (2013)

7/10

Surprisingly surprising.

10 August 2018

This is a film that I honestly didn't see coming. For starters, it was a totally new concept (at least for me) to have a time-travel film that follows the people left behind by the time traveller, rather than the traveller himself. For a while I was disappointed to be missing out on the adventure, but the characters and events were compelling enough that I soon got sucked into an interesting and nuanced drama about loss and abandonment.

And then, when I had almost forgotten about the time-travel angle, the son of the original time-traveller, now grown-up, travels back in time to visit his father in the past (where he's on his way to a visit with Einstein) and, without wanting to spoil anything, the method the son uses to convince his father to go back to the future was utterly unexpected.

This was a film filled with subtlety, nuance, originality, and thoughtfulness. It was dramatic without being melodramatic. It was tragic without being depressing. It was intellectual without being pompous. It was adventurous without being mindless. It was science-fiction without being... well... science-fiction.

And it was also very nicely made, with attractive cinematography, a pleasant orchestral score, leafy collegial locations, solid direction, and a respectable, talented cast.

I didn't have any hopes or expectations when I started watching. But by the end I was utterly captivated and somewhat blown away by the originality of what I'd just watched. I love it when a movie does that, as it's a rare treat that doesn't come around very often.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Madam Secretary (2014–2019)

8/10

It's The West Wing Lite. But that's okay. It's fills the gap and is mostly very good.

9 August 2018

I had long been a fan of Téa Leoni when this show came along, and political dramas/thrillers are among my favourite binge-fodder. So this show basically ticks most of my boxes, and doesn't disappoint in any regard.

The supporting cast are also terrific, with plenty of familiar actors adding to the ensemble, including the excellent Keith Carradine as POTUS, likeable and believable as in all of his many distinguished roles; the ever-enigmatic Zeljko Ivanek as the President's Chief of Staff, bringing his usual quirky, acerbic irascibility to the role; Tim Daly as the pleasantly academic and generally saintly husband to Ms Leoni, in a role that suits him far better than anything else I've seen him do, and the ever-unusual Bebe Neuwirth as Ms Leoni's Chief of Staff, who brings her familiar quirky, warmth and humour to the role.

The show benefits from a quickly recognisable premise, setting, and character-list, and the writing and directing move it along nicely. The first season has a strong, season-long story arc, which is compelling, exciting, and utterly satisfying, which successfully acts as a hook upon which to hang the character introductions, to quickly ensnare and addict the viewing audience, and to set-up the next and future seasons.

It is slick, glossy, well-made, and thoroughly enjoyable to watch. It mostly avoids insulting the intelligence of its audience, although occasionally it feels the need to explain things to the less intelligent or educated among its viewers. There is also sometimes a little too much forced levity to lighten the tone, but not enough to annoy. As the designated comic-relief, Erich Bergen does a fine job of portraying Ms Leoni's twitchy PA, with a subtle mix of sincerity, campness, and sarcasm, and mostly finds the correct balance without losing verisimilitude.

Overall, there is a lot to love about Madam Secretary, and very little not to like.

2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

All I See Is You (2016)

3/10

A pretentious, self-conscious little film, that bores rather than impresses.

7 August 2018

Most reviewers seem to agree that this was a boring and rather pointless film. One of the "positive" reviews suggests that everyone who disliked this film is "unsophisticated". Well, I can't speak for the others, but personally I consider myself a reasonably sophisticated film buff. I tend to prefer films that are less "artsy", but as a former film student and someone who has worked in theatre, film, and TV since the age of 14, I have been exposed to (and enjoyed) a wide and eclectic range of dramatic entertainment - and art - over the years, and I still found ALL I SEE IS YOU to be a boring and pretentious load of twaddle.

Technically it is very well made, from a visual standpoint at least, and the actors do a passable job with the weak material they are given. But it is in the writing and directing that this film falls down. There just isn't enough in it to justify such lavish visuals, as on their own they amount to little more than directorial masturbation. More solid storytelling was required - and it didn't have to be conventional if it didn't want to; experimental would have been fine - but there needed to me a stronger and more coherent narrative upon which to hang all those visuals. And the visuals themselves needed to be better contained, more cohesive, and more sparingly used.

For example, the POV shots are great, particularly the eye-blinks, which are the best I've ever seen. And mostly they illustrate the varying degrees of vision-loss in an interesting and creative way. If the film limited itself to just these, as the sum-total of weird, psychedelic imagery, it may have been a lot better. But unfortunately we are given more of the same sort of imagery to illustrate the character's internal thoughts. And more again as just general shots of places and things, that are neither POV's or internal imagery. They're just the director getting off on too much VFX. The net product is a confusing and rather irritating mishmash that makes it very hard to follow the paper-thin narrative, and inclined this particular viewer to keep dozing off - aided by the trance-inducing music and sound design!

All in all, there wasn't enough plot to keep me interested, none of the characters were particularly engaging or likeable, the visuals, music, and sound design threatened to put me in a coma, and there wasn't nearly as much sex and nudity as Netflix's hysterical warnings led me to expect, so I didn't even get to enjoy a psychedelic boner!

Disappointing all round. I gave it three stars for effort and nice locations.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Darkest Hour (2017)

10/10

A masterclass in filmmaking. Awesome, rousing, and unexpectedly moving.

6 August 2018

This film is a masterpiece in every respect, and I say that with a certain amount of surprise since it is the first of Joe Wright's films that I have liked unequivocally. I've not seen them all, but those that I have seen have always left me disappointed and frustrated. Not this time.

I went into DARKEST HOUR with high hopes and modest expectations. I hadn't seen any clips, but I'd seen pictures of Gary Oldman's prosthetics, and thought he looked a pretty decent Churchill, and of course the Oscar buzz was unavoidable. But nothing could prepare me for the superlative experience I've just had watching this extraordinary display of talent.

The Churchill prosthetics are far better than the pictures had led me to believe. Perfect in every detail, and without a single visible flaw - even in extreme close-up. And Oldman's performance was easily the finest of his career; a powerhouse tour de force which at several points left me breathless and deeply moved. It is no surprise that both Oldman and Lucy Sibbick won Oscars for Best Actor and Best Makeup respectively. Oldman also scooped the Best Actor awards from BAFTA, SAG, and the Golden Globes.

The rest of the cast, a generous scattering of veteran British talent, acquit themselves admirably and mostly hold their own when sharing screen time with Oldman. But his mesmerising, electric presence is all-consuming.

The screenplay is pitch-perfect, drawing copiously and unavoidably from Churchill's recorded words, with fine structuring and a strong sense of controlled crescendo; the narrative is compelling, dramatic and fraught, with a few scattered moments of levity and some nice scenes of doubt and introspection. But everything leads inevitably and inexorably to the climactic "we shall fight them on the beaches..." speech, which I found infinitely more powerful and moving than the real thing, thanks to the subtle emotional manipulation that I'd willingly undergone throughout the preceding couple of hours.

Which brings me to the direction.

I used to know Joe Wright. We played together as kids. His parents and mine were friends, and I spent many happy days of my childhood at their family business - a puppet theatre in Islington, London, where his mum used to keep me occupied for hours at a time while my mum and Joe's dad were working on recordings for the puppet shows. It was a blissful period of my life. So when I first noticed Joe's sudden and impressive rise as a movie director, I was very excited to see his work. But despite my best intentions, I just didn't enjoy his films. Some of them were very good, and they certainly impressed most other people. But I always had niggles about one thing or another, and just couldn't settle in to them.

Until now.

Wow! In Darkest Hour, Joe Wright has created a cinematic vision that is every bit as stunning as I had hoped. And more. It is a visual treat, with truly outstanding cinematography, and I've already expressed myself about Mr Oldman! In this film, I totally felt Joe's presence, stomping purposefully and, yes, even aggressively, through each scene, personified in Oldman's portrayal of Winston Churchill. I saw Joe's hand in every beautifully lit and composed shot; in the exquisite art direction; the flawless costume design; the rousing and powerful score; the punchy and dramatic editing. In every aspect of this astonishing movie I saw Joe Wright fulfilling his potential as a filmmaker. And somehow it now feels right and proper that it happened with this particular film, rather than any of the others. Because Churchill was the greatest leader our country has ever had. So I'm really glad Joe didn't bugger it up!

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Breathe (I) (2017)

10/10

An exquisite film. Beautiful, moving, heartwarming and life-affirming.

5 August 2018

I saw this without any idea what it was about or what to expect. I only chose to watch it when I noticed that it was Andy Serkis's directorial debut, and I'm very glad I did.

Serkis, who has continued to impress with his power, passion, and versatility as an actor, proves that his vast talents are not limited to his work in front of the camera. In this movie, he brings all the intelligence and truth that he has mastered as an actor and channels it into the finely-tuned and delicately balanced performances of his cast, who he directs with great sensitivity and attention to detail. But as a director he also exhibits great vision and a keen sense of storytelling, which results in a film that is richly cinematic, yet intimate and tender.

As a first-time director, Serkis has wisely surrounded himself with an impressive cast of reliable performers, each of whom brings their A game. And additionally he has assembled a talented crew who ably bring his vision of this true story to life with stunning cinematography, magnificent art direction, and period wardrobe that is authentic but not distracting. The elegant orchestral score stays mostly in the background, subtly aiding the storytelling without making a nuisance of itself or leaving any earworms behind. My only minor gripe is that the editing was a little choppy in a few of the earlier scenes - but I'm really nit-picking now. Overall, though not a complete masterpiece, it is a film of a very high standard that achieves all of its creative and narrative goals. Though emotionally raw in places, it manages to stay on the right side of the melodramatic line, and leaves the viewer feeling uplifted rather than devastated.

All in all, it is a fascinating true story, masterfully told.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Trial by Media (2000 TV Movie)

6/10

Worthwhile message. Strong cast. Catastrophically bad music.

3 August 2018

I actually stopped watching after the first 30 minutes or so, because the music was so appallingly bad. But after re-reading the blurb I decided to give it another try because the subject matter promised to be interesting. I'm glad I did, as this is a film that has a lot to say, and for the most part says it pretty well.

Yes, it is dated. The 4:3 aspect ratio and TV movie "look" make it feel like a relic from the 1980's, rather than something made in 2000, and the dialogue and directing are heavy-handed. The first half in particular is very stagey - no surprise since it is adapted from a stage play. But the storyline, which follows the media feeding-frenzy surrounding a female political nominee, continues to be relevant today as the media gets ever more viscous and out of control.

This film is actually far gentler to the media than they deserve, portraying them as kind and sympathetic off-air, while being somewhat harsh and hard-hitting on air - but only with the best of intentions (mostly), apart from a few gossipy tabloid types. Personally, despite some occasionally well-written dialogue and an eloquent rant at the end, I would have liked to see the media portrayed with less sympathy as the monsters that they are. But that's just personal taste.

The real strength of this piece is not the depiction of the media, but that of its central character, played with nuance and depth by the ever graceful Christine Lahti. As the beleaguered and embattled MD nominated for Surgeon General, whose accidental failure to respond to a jury summons in the distant past triggers a national character attack, Lahti underplays her role beautifully, overcoming occasionally leaden dialogue and sloppy direction to create a woman of dignity and integrity in the face of injustice and cruelty. It's a really good addition to her impressive body of work.

The rest of the cast also rise above the heavy-handedness of the piece to turn in honest and subtle performances, and add much needed depth to their potentially two-dimensional roles.

As an indictment of the media, this film does not go far enough. As a treatise on feminism, it probably does more harm than good. But as a character-driven drama, it is up there with the better quality TV movies out there. Nothing about it is particularly unique, ground-breaking, or even overly special. But it's a good way to fill 90 minutes if you're in the mood.

But by God, the music by Phil Marshall is awful. A gratingly loud and intrusive civil-war-era-military-band-styled-plinkety-plonkety nightmare, heavy on the piccolo and snare. It really couldn't be less appropriate to the subject matter and its effect is to catastrophically alter the tone of the entire piece from an intelligent political drama to a mindlessly un-funny sitcom. Truly dreadful. Shame on you, Mr Marshall!

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fair Game (I) (2010)

10/10

Tense. Gripping. Powerful. A masterpiece of cinematic storytelling.

2 August 2018

It's hard not to become enraged while watching this film, as the true events depicted are so disgraceful and appalling; so staggeringly unfair and unjust; so typical of human politics. It's a film that needed to be made, to set the record straight, and give some small sense of closure and justice to the situation. Because, as this is a true story, in reality the bad guys did not get their comeuppance, and the good guys did not get their lives back. But they can, perhaps, at least watch their story told on film and know that the truth finally came out. Even if it's really not compensation enough.

This movie is excellent in every regard, with an eloquent and powerful screenplay, passionate and intense performances, and assured, focused direction. Every scene is fraught with tension and crackling energy, played-out brilliantly and simply by use of dialogue and performance alone, without need of flashy camerawork or overwrought music. The story is strong enough without bells or whistles, and the writer and director wisely keeps it front and centre.

This is a film that can be re-watched multiple times, and each time is equally gripping and equally devastating.

It's just a shame that however much truth you throw at corruption, however bright a light you shine upon it, there never seems to be enough truth or light to counteract the lies, deceit and corruption that exist at the heart of government. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Everyone knows this. Few seem to care enough to fight it.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Nothing But the Truth (I) (2008)

9/10

Great film. It got me just hot enough under the collar to be entertained, but not enough to suffer a coronary!

2 August 2018

Warning: Spoilers

This was a gripping and thoroughly enjoyable thriller/drama that was equally intelligent, thought provoking, and satisfying. Well written and directed, with excellent performances from the entire cast, it avoided many potential pitfalls of the genre, and managed to draw me in with sufficient emotional investment in the characters that I was experiencing surges of adrenaline throughout, while not tipping me so far over the edge that I hated any of the "bad" guys so much that I couldn't bear watching any more, or lost faith in a "good" outcome (by my own moral standards).

The film poses a deliberately snarly dilemma, of whether the interests of free speech trump those of national security. As a person who is both extremely conservative AND extremely liberal (with all the accompanying internal conflicts) I could have come down in either direction while watching this, and there was the potential for my conflicting views to cause it to be too stressful to watch.

As it happened, I came down heavily on the side of national security. I don't know whether it was the intention of the filmmakers for me to go that way. I feel that it was not, since the central character, for whom I assume the majority of the audience are expected to feel sympathy, was the reporter who broke a story that potentially threatened national security. However, as much as I despise and distrust politicians (of all stamps) I am equally loathing of reporters so it could have gone either way for me. I don't know what made me take the side of the government in this movie. They were certainly not blameless, although the "outed" CIA operative was clearly innocent and had her life ruined by a journalist not thinking beyond the chance at a Pulitzer. But I spent the entire movie HATING the reporter and wanting her to be punished as much as possible. I was delighted at all the "bad" things that happened to her, and wanted lots more "bad" things to happen. My only frustration throughout the whole film was that she never seemed to "get" how irresponsible and despicable her "outing" of a CIA agent was, and how potentially dangerous it was, both to the agent personally (both in terms of physical safety, as well as career) and also potentially to all her overseas "assets". I really wanted the reporter to realise and acknowledge that her zealous belief in some arbitrary "right" to the truth, and consequential "right" to protect her "source" was not necessarily in the best interests of the "people". Her narrow vision, shared by all Pulitzer prize chasing journalists, and suborn refusal to see the bigger picture is one of the things that makes it so hard for me to support her actions.

There is a very good argument, presented eloquently in the film by Alan Alder's character, that without freedom of the press there is no one to keep the government "honest", and that without the fear of being "caught-out" and publicly "exposed" the government could run rampant. My problem with that argument is that history continues to prove that successive governments continue to be dishonest, corrupt, and criminal, regardless of press scrutiny, and the ultimate perpetrators of evil are rarely (if ever) punished for their crimes aside from getting a bit of "bad press" that is soon forgotten in the next news cycle. The media, at least the modern version of it, is more about "entertainment" and "gossip" anyway, rather than hard news. And they wrap themselves in the 1st amendment in order to report on which celebrity is sleeping with which, rather than which politician is profiting from (insert dodgy deal here).

So I spent the majority of the movie rooting for the prosecution, as it were, and hoping that the journalist would get thoroughly annihilated. And mostly things went my way - so I didn't have to endure the sort of seething frustration that often goes with a movie like this. After all, her irresponsible reporting and refusal to divulge her "source" left a potentially dangerous mole deep inside the government or security services.

So when the "source" was finally revealed at the end, and it turned out that there was never any danger of a "mole" or other threat to national security, I'm sure I was supposed to feel sympathy and respect towards the reporter, and accept that she had been right in protecting her source.

However, I still hated her and here's why: The whole thing could have been prevented. If she had simply come clean about the source, privately and off the record, the CIA agent wouldn't have been forced to resign (due to suspicions about her integrity) so she wouldn't have been without her security detail and would not have died. The government wouldn't have wasted time and money on a massive legal battle and mole hunt. The reporter wouldn't have gone to jail, so her kid wouldn't have been traumatised and her husband wouldn't have cheated. The "story" would still have been out there, and she would still have still got her Pulitzer nomination. And the government's crimes could still have been investigated and punished appropriately. EVERYONE would have been a winner, except perhaps the government (if it turned out they'd lied).

And the "source", based on who the "source" was, would have suffered a whole lot less than they ended up suffering as a result of being "protected" by a misguided and foolish woman. Because, as it turned out in this case, the "source" wasn't actually a "source" at all, so no journalistic "integrity" was ever even at risk!

In summary, this was a great film that got me just hot enough under the collar to be entertained, but not enough to have a coronary! So it's all good.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

10/10

Epic. Beautiful. Horrific. Moving. Masterful.

29 July 2018

I watched this movie with literally no idea what it was about, who was in it, or who directed it. I just read the first few lines of a couple of Netflix reviews, not enough for spoilers, but enough to get the impression that this might be a pretty special movie.

It was.

I was captivated from beginning to end. I don't think I even blinked. This is truly an extraordinary piece of filmmaking, with every aspect of its technical production a work of art, and every performance solid, nuanced, and truthful.

Some way into the bucolic, beautifully evocative first half, I began to notice that several of the actors were Australian, and wondered briefly if it might be an Aussie director at the helm. But then I was swept away again, and didn't think about anything else until midway through the second half, during one of the many prolonged (and exquisitely realised) battle scenes, when the thought popped in to my head that this was perhaps the best sound design I'd ever heard in a movie. And then I was swept away again.

I had no idea that it was directed by Mel Gibson until the end credits. And to be honest, I'd almost forgotten that he even existed. I had long been a fan of his work, and was particularly enamoured of Braveheart, which I considered one of the greatest historical epics I'd ever seen.

But after his much publicised bad behaviour, including drunk-driving (which I find inexcusable) and rampant anti-Semitism (which I find intolerable), plus his apparent decision to focus on pushing an aggressively right-wing Christian agenda on and off the screen, I decided to unofficially boycott all things Gibson-related - a decision echoed by Hollywood, where he was blacklisted for the best part of 10 years. And I promptly forgot all about him.

So when I reached the end credits of my new favourite movie and discovered that Gibson was, once again, the master director responsible for my awe and elation, I had somewhat mixed feelings.

Gibson is, inarguably and undoubtedly, one of the best directors in the business, and he's a pretty fine actor too. I just wish it was easier to like and admire him as a person. I know that much of my opinion is based on media reports and tabloid brainwashing, and God knows I despise all of those people far more than I dislike Mr Gibson. But he has admitted to saying the things he said, and doing the things he did. However, I note (upon researching his Wikipedia entry) that he has also done a lot of philanthropic stuff too, so I guess he's trying to balance things out. I think I'll follow Hollywood's lead and give him a second chance. He's certainly talented enough to deserve that much.

And Hacksaw Ridge is really a masterpiece of filmmaking.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

kitellis-98121

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed