Rate the Last Film you Watched

[DavidCore89 7,402]

Saw Athlete A recently.

Absolutely shocking how Nassar's actions could be covered up for so long.

Enjoyed seeing the ladies and Indy Star take him down.

[Con 5,703]

The Art of Self-Defense (2019)...4/5...This had so many good unexpected moments and they shouldn't have caught me off guard but that is credit to the storytelling which immersed me so much that one of the important revelations went right over my head and I have to credit the actors for making that happen too. I don't want to say too much cause I want to give this a thorough review but if you have heard of this...don't learn anymore about it. I think my full lack of knowledge went a long way in making me enjoy this so much. Why should you watch it? You want to see a real fun f*cked up version of The Karate Kid. Trust me, you do. 

Missing 411 (2007)...4/5...Good documentary about the phenomenon of missing children at State Parks in the United States. The documentary focuses on one case but also gives us glimpses into a few other cases that made the mainstream news cycles. Just like parents at the grocery store that take their eyes off their kids for five seconds and they disappear, this is what seems to happen at these State parks. The documentary made me assess that we adults do not give children under 5 years old the benefit of the doubt that they are adventurers and will travel far quickly....and in those woods and rivers, its easy for kids to fall to their deaths or be taken by wildlife. The documentary does a great job explaining how wild animals could or could not be responsible in some cases. The oddest thing is that remains tend to be found 1-2 years later in places that search parties combed extensively by more than one search party. There was one case in which i said out loud...."A two year old traveled how many miles in the snow through some rough terrain where he was found..? No f*cking way that kid traveled that far in one night alone, and animal or person left him where they found him...come on, just do the math you stupid b*stards."......then they show the now 80 year old man who that particular story was about....they hadn't told us they had found him alive!! And yet there he was talking about what he remembers that day when he walked away from his parents. He then proceeds to show us the clothing he wore that day!!!! His mother had saved the clothes from that terrible day she thought her son was lost forever. Why should you watch this? You take children camping with you or to State parks and this will remind you never to underestimate the adventurous spirit of toddlers. To most adults the woods are scary but to a four year old....its a huge playground!

Edited July 25, 2020 by Con

[Con 5,703]

5 hours ago, DavidCore89 said:

Saw Athlete A recently

Watching this as I type. I’m already fully disgusted. 

[Con 5,703]

Athlete A (2020)...5/5... Nothing transforms me into an evil human being monster more than hearing about animal and child abuse. So you can imagine my emotions throughout this viewing. Sadly, nothing shocked me about the story. Especially the wealthy turds that did nothing to even properly pursue the accusations as it is written in Texas State Law. I found this to be an important documentary similar to how I felt about the film, "Spotlight" which is similar in the way the priest s*xual abuse was covered up by the Church and Law enforcement because it is clear in Athlete A that the FBI was worthless in also protecting these amazing girls. Watching the gymnasts I watched perform represent some of the abused was rough...and when they played the McKayla Maroney smirk after accepting her Gold medal, Wow that moment  took on a whole other meaning as it is no longer a "whateva" meme to me but something more meaningful as we learned that she was also sexually abused during those same Olympic games. Watching that piece of turd Penny plead the 5th during his hearing was infuriating because you just know the piece of turd got ultra wealthy from running the organization for over a decade and with those resources he was able to pay for attorneys that could keep him from serving time because as we all should know by now, JUSTICE CAN BE BOUGHT!!! I won't talk about Dr. #21504-040 (thats his prison number),  because the only thing I have to say about him is that I hope he rots on Earth for a very long time. Without doubt the most powerful scene for me was when the survivors confronted Dr. Less than sh*t in court and they were able to take that power back from him. But i think the most impactful thing was when the attorney representing the survivors mentions that for many of them those were their first s*xual experiences and to steal such a precious moment or to possibly ruin the potential for these girls who are now women to fully "Love" in the future. That is damage everlasting. You wake up and have to heal every damn day. Why should you watch it? To convince yourself that having open communication with  your children about EVERYTHING in their life is the most important part of your parent-child relationship. The Church, The Olympics, Hollywood, Politics....how the f*ck are some of these filthy human beings in charge of leadership been so f*cking blessed with materialism and wealth when they are some of the lowest life forms on Earth and some mighty good decent human beings have their beautiful spirits snuffed out by cancers and disease?? Is it that some of these folks start of decent with hearts of gold and then something happens? I want to thank my brain, because while it may not have had the capacity of a genius or  allow me to become a Doctor, at least when I see a 12-year old girl's buttcheek, I don't get aroused as I do when I see a grown woman's buttcheek. I'd like to thank my brain connections for giving me the ability to instantly discern the two. Protect your children or they will resent you when they become grown adults. I'm giving this a full score because i'm not even a parent and I learned from it.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Con

[djw180 6,836]

Map to the Stars.

 

This is a David Croneberg film from 2014. At first it seemed quite different to his films I remember from the 80s, too stylish, too many well known Hollywood stars and just not that weird - initially.

There's three separate stories at first, but all connected to Hollywood with many of the charcters seeming like caricatures of typical Hollywood stars and those associated with them. Agatha (Mia Wasikowska – who I had never heard of) arrives in LA to 'visit family', keeps hiring a limo driven by wannabe actor Jerome (Robert Pattinson) and seems obsessed with Hollywood stars; name dropping that she knows Carrie Fisher (who makes a brief appearance as herself). There's a annoying child actor, with even more annoying child actor friends, who has a drug habit, has made millions before reaching puberty and has a a dad, John Cusack, who is some kind of weird massage therapist to the rich and famous. Finally Julianne Moor plays Havana, an actress approaching middle age finding no one wants to cast her any more. But she is in with a chance of essentially playing her own mother iun a remake of her most famous film; her mother was also an actress, abused her as a child and then killed herself in a fire.

It starts to get weird with Havana and the annoying child actor seeing ghosts and / or going mad. Eventually the link between the three stories becomes clear and by the end most of the main characters have been killed by one of the others or killed themselves.

 

I do like most David Croneburg films and this is no exception.

8/10

[djw180 6,836]

The Beautiful Fantastic

My wife's choice of film. I thought it looked OK, it's was, just about, but nothing special.

It's the sort of film I feel I have seen the basic story of many times before, probably usually in made-for-TV movies. The main character is a bit of a loner / eccentric. They have a crisis with something not really that dramatic in the grand scheme of things. Someone originally antagonistic ends being being won round and helping them, and often dies before the end of the film. There is potential love interest for the main character but both parties are a bit shy and just as things seems to get going a misunderstanding / case of mistaken identity nearly ruins the relationship. But it all turns out OK in the end, other than for character that usually dies, and they all live happily ever after.

In this one librarian/ budding children's author Bella (with OCD and somewhat agoraphobic) has to get her garden tidied up other wise her land lord will evict her. A neighbour, played by Tom Wilkinson, is a very keen gardener, made the complaint that got Bella in trouble in the first place, but ultimately helps her do the garden up. Friend Vernon (Andrew Scott – s*xy priest from Fleabag) also helps and Billy, an inventor of weird machines who meets Bella in the library, provides the love interest. But there is no great drama, no tension, no real crises to deal with. It's just a nice (if you like that sort of thing) or plain (if you don't), well acted, well made film, but nothing to get too excited about.

 

5/10

[Con 5,703]

On 7/27/2020 at 2:19 PM, djw180 said:

The Beautiful Fantastic

My wife's choice of film. I thought it looked OK, it's was, just about, but nothing special.

It's the sort of film I feel I have seen the basic story of many times before, probably usually in made-for-TV movies. The main character is a bit of a loner / eccentric. They have a crisis with something not really that dramatic in the grand scheme of things. Someone originally antagonistic ends being being won round and helping them, and often dies before the end of the film. There is potential love interest for the main character but both parties are a bit shy and just as things seems to get going a misunderstanding / case of mistaken identity nearly ruins the relationship. But it all turns out OK in the end, other than for character that usually dies, and they all live happily ever after.

In this one librarian/ budding children's author Bella (with OCD and somewhat agoraphobic) has to get her garden tidied up other wise her land lord will evict her. A neighbour, played by Tom Wilkinson, is a very keen gardener, made the complaint that got Bella in trouble in the first place, but ultimately helps her do the garden up. Friend Vernon (Andrew Scott – s*xy priest from Fleabag) also helps and Billy, an inventor of weird machines who meets Bella in the library, provides the love interest. But there is no great drama, no tension, no real crises to deal with. It's just a nice (if you like that sort of thing) or plain (if you don't), well acted, well made film, but nothing to get too excited about.

 

5/10

Next time the wife wants a nice relationship drama with some tiny slasher sprinkled in for good measure then watch The Rental (2020). I plan giving it a review cause I want to know how some of you feel about it. 

[CatManDoza 3,473]

Watched the Great escape with my son earlier. Still a great film. Great cast, great story and good fun all round. 

[Con 5,703]

2 minutes ago, CatManDoza said:

Watched the Great escape with my son earlier. Still a great film. Great cast, great story and good fun all round. 

If you are talking about the Steve McQueen film, yes, i remember that ending and I loved it. 

[CatManDoza 3,473]

25 minutes ago, Con said:

If you are talking about the Steve McQueen film, yes, i remember that ending and I loved it. 

Oh yes defo. My son hadn't seen it before and he was gripped. I hadn't seen it for a few years and forgot what a great cast it had

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Bait

dir. Mark Jenkin/2019/1h29m

Bait, written and directed by Mark Jenkin, is a drama about the gentrification of a small Cornish fishing village. It stars Edward Rowe as Martin, a fisherman without a boat because it is being used to ferry tourists around the coast by his brother Steven (Giles King). Because of this, Martin is reduced to relying on nets set up on the beach and a single lobster trap for his income, which he is saving up to buy a new boat. He is also constantly butting heads with the Leighs, a rich middle-class family from London who have bought his old family home, along with most of the street, and represent a foreign invader to this land.

This is a staggeringly unique feeling film. It was shot on an old hand-cranked camera and you can feel the texture in every shot. Not only are there scratches and imperfections on the film itself, but the gorgeous black and white photography really highlights the textures of the world; thick wooly jumpers, crumbling brickwork and rotting wood pop out of the screen so much you can almost feel them. All of the sound was recorded separately, giving the film a slightly dislocated feel, like the voices aren't quite coming from the characters mouths. The sound design in the film also heightens certain noises; footsteps, breath, the crash of the sea and the cawing of ever-present gulls, immersing you further into this world that feels ancient yet totally up to date.  Just like the conflict between the locals and the tourists, there is conflict in the film making too as this is both a neo-realist kitchen sink drama and an experimental almost avant-garde film at the same time. The editing in this film is spectacular, cutting to close ups of clenched fists and dead fish, fridge full of champagne at the Leighs and the pathetic little dented biscuit tin at Martins where he keeps his money. None of this is overbearing though, this is a very quiet and subtle film full of nuance. Even the big dramatic moment near the end of the film is underplayed, making the tragedy feel like a part of Martin's usual existence.

The performances are great all round. Although the Leigh family, and the rest of the tourists we see in the film, do feel like caricatures sometimes, this can be forgiven as the film is from Martin's point of view, and as such he would see them like that. Rowe as Martin is brilliant. He really feels like an actual person, like this were a documentary. He is a man who feels like he has nothing left, but is still full of hope and drive and dignity, something that comes up a lot between him and his brother, who he feels has sold out.

Overall, I think this is an amazing film with a unique look and feel, a simple but well told story told partly through flashbacks, and a really likeable and sympathetic lead. This was Jenkin's first feature film, winning him a BAFTA for Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer, and I can't wait to see what he makes next; he has me hook, line and sinker. 10/10

 

 

[djw180 6,836]

The Emporer's New Clothes

Ian Holme gives a great performance as Napoleon Bonatparte in story of him escaping from his imprisonment on St Helena where he was exiled after his defeat at Waterloo. It's pure fiction, as far as I'm aware, and quite light hearted; not exactly a comedy but certainly no thriller. His supporters have found a sailor who looks similar, identical in the film as he is also played by Ian Holme, and persuaded him to switch places when his ship passes by.

The basic plan is after Napoleon has been given enough time to get back to Paris the sailor will reveal his true identity and when news of this reaches Paris, Napoleon will reveal himself and with the supporters he assumes will be there, return to power. It does not go to plan. Napoleon's contact in Paris is dead and he fails to find others. The sailor is quite enjoying the relative life of luxury and does not reveal himself. Napoleon ends up living with the widow of his intended contact and applies his strategic skills to turning around her failing fruit business. It's an enjoyable film, well acted all round, nice gentle story, good settings.

 

7/10

Edited August 16, 2020 by djw180

[CatManDoza 3,473]

I wish I could write reviews like you guys. 

Had a rare occasion of the wife not being here today so after my usual Sunday ebaying and the grand pr*ck I fancies a couple of films. 

Started with Rush, the story of the niki lauda & James hunt rivalry, very good film. Its almost as if the rivalry was written for a film, one care free playboy not giving a f*ck, and a regimented Austrian, focused and driven to be the best of the best.  A solid 8/10

Moved onto hot fuzz with the boy, not as funny as I remember to be honest. Still got the best ever line though. "he's got one thing you haven't got" "a great big bushy beard". Slipped down to 6/10

And just finished with sausage party. Funny AF, Very clever jokes all the way through. For my childish sense of humour 9/10

 

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life

dir. Terry Jones/1983/1h47m

The Meaning of Life often feels like the black sheep, the forgotten son of the Monty Python movies.  While Holy Grail and Life of Brian regularly top lists of funniest films ever made, The Meaning of Life seems to hardly get a look in.  I think there are a few reasons for this.  Firstly, this was the follow up to Life of Brian, which is a genuine masterpiece.  Secondly, this is a much meaner, darker and cynical film than the other two.  Thirdly, this feels more like a series of sketches than the the other two.  Sure, you can say the same about Holy Grail, but that has more of a plot holding things together.  Here, there really isn't a plot as such.  The premise is to document the several stages of man, birth, childhood etc, but that still feels very tenuous.  That's not to say it isn't funny though.  This film contains some of my favourite Monty Python routines and songs.  

The film opens with the Gilliam directed Crimson Permanent Assurance short, a pastiche of swashbuckling pirate films set in the world of high finance where a small firm of old English accountants take on the “Very Big Corporation of America” as they sail the wide accountant sea.  We then arrive, via classic Python non-sequitur, to a tank full of fish who ask bluntly “so, what's it all about then?”  A question that could be aimed at the film itself.  We witness the miracle of birth (twice) through the song “Every sp*rm is Sacred”, the tribulations of school where the idea of playing rugby against the teachers is equated to the bloody trench based warfare of WW1, carrying on until we get to death and the films finale, “It's Christmas in Heaven”.  

Along the way we get, as I already mentioned, some of the darkest, meanest comedy the group have ever created.  “Live Organ Transplants” is genuinely horrifying, Terry Gilliam, playing a Jewish Rastafarian, screaming his lungs out as his liver is forcibly removed while he is still alive, and the Mr. Creosote scene is still one of the most gross and retch-inducing scenes of never-ending vomiting outside of extreme fetish films.  These are never just played for shock value however.  As always, the Python troupe are constantly taking shots up at the establishment, whether that be the church, big business, governments and the military, aiming to make them look as silly and ridiculous as possible.

More hit and miss than their other films, this is still an incredibly funny collection of loosely connected sketches that still has the power to shock as much as make you laugh.  8/10

 

=================================================================

Lennon or McCartney

dir. Matt Schicter/2014/34m

Lennon or McCartney is a short film from Matt Schicter in which he poses the titular question to over 500 celebrities; musicians for the most part, with some actors and directors thrown in for good measure.  From what I gathered, Schicter is a journalist who travels around all of the music and film circuits interviewing people.  During the interview he always asks this one question, Lennon or McCartney?  He asks for just a one word answer and most of the time that is all he gets.  Some people answer instantly, some think about it for a while.  Some have long winded answers, some have unexpected answers.  I thought I would get bored of this after five minutes, but there is something hypnotic about hearing so many different answers to the same question that I found myself at the end of the film before I knew it.

The problem with this film is the structure.  There really isn't any, not artistically anyway.  All of the interviewees are presented to us in alphabetical order, which just seems like the lazy option.  You could have easily edited this in a way to make it even more engaging; putting all of the short answers in a quickfire montage, taking more time to explore the more considered answers, placing the jokey answers in places that would feel more like a punchline, collecting together all of the people who seem embarrassed to like Paul more.  There is something here, but in this current form it just feels both messy and lazy.  

This is listed as a documentary short, but I wouldn't classify it as such because I don't really feel like I learned anything.  Sure, it was interesting, but only on a surface level.  It's only half an hour long, and on YouTube, so give it a look, but you won't find much there beyond what's on the surface.  

So, Lennon or McCartney?  I, like fifteen of the interview subjects from this short, would answer “George Harrison”.  What about you? 4/10

 

 

[Con 5,703]

Overboard (2018)...3/5... I love me some Anna Faris cause she is always reliable and talented. This is the reason I picked this to watch with the wife. I was surprised at how much I liked it despite considering the Goldie Hawn original a classic in my eyes. Is the concept of kidnapping someone with amnesia and basically making them your sl*ve, romantic? Of course not, it's just a fictional story where Love Conquers Kidnapping. Anyways the remake was fun cause Latino culture is where the jokes come from and they are funny and no you dont have to be Latin to appreciate them just refreshing to see my culture in a remake of such a popular original. I also think the diversity in the cast make the story feel fresh even if i knew what was coming. And there is one scene that had me asking, who brought out the onions, cause motherf*cker was fighting back tears. Well acted and heartwarming despite the twisted concept. One of my fave things was that all the jokes have payoffs and closure, i was impressed by how much i would say stuff like...."Oh thats the thing they were talking about...HAHHAHAA." Why should you watch it? You enjoyed the original and want to know how Anna Faris is going to kidnap the Mexican billionaire that was an *sshole to her. 

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Con

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

Proxima

dir. Alice Winocour/2019/1h47m

First stage separation.  

This is a term you've probably heard before in connection to space exploration in films and documentaries, but in the film Proxima, written and directed by Alice Winocour, it is given a new and more emotional meaning.  The story centres around Sarah, played by Eva Green, who is an astronaut in training for a year long mission on the ISS.  Alongside the drama of her intense and rigorous training, and the chauvinistic dismissiveness of the mission commander Mike (Matt Dillon), she also has to deal with the prospect of leaving behind her young daughter, Stella (Zelie Boulant-Lemsle) with her ex-husband Thomas (Lars Eidinger).  The relationship between Sarah and Stella feels incredibly real, the performance from Boulant-Lemsle being one of the best by a young actor that I've seen since the film Tomboy.  She knows that her mother has to go away for a long time, but at the same time she doesn't quite know why.  The innocence and ignorance of children captured perfectly by Winocour.  Eva Green is also fantastic as Sarah.  She is driven to follow her dreams at any cost, but is also heartbroken at the prospect of a year without her daughter.  

This is a gorgeously shot film with some nice touches, like the camera given to Sarah for blogging purposes being used for some immersive POV shots of her training at Star City in Russia.  This training, which makes up the bulk of the second act, is very well done.  Everything about it seems real, even more so than films like Apollo 13, and I think that is not just down to the direction and set design (I think that it was actually shot at Star City, if not then bravo) but the committed performance from Green, which seems to embody her entire character.  The scene of her in the centrifuge testing out the G-forces is totally dialogue free, but everything about her character's drive and ambition is laid bare on her face.  The supporting cast are all solid, even if Dillon does seem like an all-American cliché at times, but it is the central pairing of Green and Boulant-Lemsle that drives the film forward.

Even though this seems to be set in the near future, there is nothing sci-fi about it.  And because it is about astronauts, don't expect to see any space action.  This is a very grounded film about human connections and how our relationships are what keeps us going.  7.5/10

This is also the first time I've been to the cinema since lockdown in mid-March, so I'll talk a bit about that experience in a covid world.  

It was great.  

That is because of several factors, I believe.  Firstly, the cinema I go to is a small arthouse cinema, the Picturehouse (recommended if there's one near you), and I went at 12:30 in the afternoon on a Wednesday to see a French film about a woman's relationship with her daughter, so  I wasn't expecting it to be busy, and it wasn't.  Aside from me and my dad there were two other people in a 250 seat screen.  I imagine it will be different for opening night of Chris Nolan's new film, Tenet.  So if you're worried about crowds then stay away on evenings and weekends.  The brilliant staff at the Picturehouse were all geared up in PPE, and they had a handwash station just inside the door, and plastic screens in front of the register.  They had removed all of the sofas from the lobby, and the bar upstairs was shut entirely, so there's less chance of groups forming.  

I've seen some stuff on YouTube about bigger chains either ignoring advice, or unable to follow it.  One gave an example of wanting to go and see an evening screening of Jurassic Park, but it was totally sold out.  No social distancing at all.  That is something I would personally stay away from, and should also be of no surprise.  I've also seen people wanting to go and see Proxima at bigger chain cinemas and still having the same problem.  If you have a smaller, independent cinema near you then now is the time to check it out, because it seems that the multiplexes are just too busy.  If you're unsure about going back to the theatres then I suggest you really explore what options are open to you locally and plan on going during the day in the middle of the week.  Waiting a week or so to see a new release is something I would recommended even without a pandemic.  Overall, my personal experience didn't change that much from pre-covid visits, but again, that is all due to the time of day, the cinema you're at, and what you're seeing.  If you can do so safely then I would say that it is ok to go back to cinemas.  

[Sinister 2,578]

Just finished the Hatchet movie series and it was better than expected.

Way over the top, cheesy, violent and terribly acted just like the 80s movies they were emulating, what's not to like?

I applaud the use of practical effects over the industry standard CGI. Using my favorite "Bad Guy" Kane Hodder also deserves applause.

Appearances by the Robert Englund and the always creepy Tony Todd were icing on the cake. Looking forward to the next installments.

 

A+

 

General consensus is that the movies suck though and they performed abysmally in theaters so if over the top slasher flicks aren't your "thing" avoid at all costs.

[DavidCore89 7,402]

Anelka Misunderstood (Netflix)

Love sports docs/movies, and this story of the much travelled and sometimes controversial French striker Nicolas Anelka was pretty good!

This story, in Anelka's own words, covers his entire career, from his arrival on the big stage in European football, his many transfers and his controversies, caused by himself and the press.

Completely unplayable on his day, though his days were probably too infrequent given the amount of talent he had and the transfer fees clubs had paid for him. Could say he peaked too early and that his countless transfers did little to give him the consistency he needed.

Solid 7/10.

Edited August 10, 2020 by DavidCore89

[LimeGreenLegend 4,175]

After watching The King for this month's film club (review coming soon) I had a hankering for some more Henry action, plus it'll give me something for a comparison when I get round to writing it up.  So, to that end, here's a trilogy of reviews that cover a lot of the same ground, but in very different ways.

Henry V

dir. Laurence Olivier/1944/2h17m

The first major film adaptation of the play was written and directed by Laurence Olivier, who also starred as King Henry V.  He made a film that both keeps its theatrical roots while at the same time being incredibly cinematic.  It is a gloriously stylised production, with the sets looking like stage designs all layered in front of each other to give depth to the scenes, and the costumes blazingly bright, filling the frame with Technicolor spectacle.  The score adds to this feeling of theatricality with its heraldic trumpets blaring out exaltations and war-like drums carrying people off to war.  

The film opens with a gorgeous fly-over shot of London in 1600.  The model of the city isn't a realistic one, but again is very stylised, the artificial nature of it lending the film a story-book quality.  We zoom into the Globe Theatre, where a production of Henry V has just begun.  I love this opening at the theatre, again heightening the theatrical nature of the story, and this framing device again makes the film feel like a myth, something out of legend.  The action stays on stage until the death of Falstaff, at which point we leave the Globe and the film becomes more cinematic.    Henry and his armies depart for France and we see the siege of Harfleur and the Battle of Agincourt, which the English both win, before Henry is betrothed to Princess Katherine of France, at which point we return to the Globe to witness the players taking their bows.  

As well as very theatrical staging and design, this film also contains very theatrical performances, in the classic Shakespearean tradition.  Everyone is playing to the back of the room with their voices projected grandly and their gestures wide and all-encompassing so as to be seen by the farthest away eye.  That isn't to say that they aren't good, but they are an acquired taste.  However, most people agree that Olivier's performance as Henry is incredible, one of the best Shakespearean roles ever captured on film.  He has a grand presence that fills up the screen, his clear and strong voice ringing out loud, an inspiration to his men.  The way he delivers Henry's two big speeches, at Harfleur and Agincourt, is majestic, his voice ringing clear with the power of righteous indignation that would fire up the blood of any true Englishman.  

The direction of Olivier is solid, but nothing spectacular.  It seems that he wanted this film to be all about the staging and the design, and he shoots it in a way that brings these elements to the fore.  I don't know what his intentions were, but everything about this film makes the story of Henry V feel more like Arthurian legend than something based on history.  Even if you've seen Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, or our Film Club Extra choice for this month of The King, I would still recommend this as it is a unique telling of one of the Bard's greatest tales that embraces the stage as much as it does the screen with a lavish sense of style.  8/10

 

================================================================

Henry V

dir. Kenneth Branagh/1989/2h18m

The second major film adaptation was written and directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also starred as King Henry V.  You can really feel the 45 years difference between Olivier's Henry V and this one.  Despite keeping the Shakespearean dialogue this feels like a much more modern story.  Here, Branagh has sought to present us a more realistic depiction of the period, with fantastic sets, beautiful low-key lighting and a more subdued colour palette, especially when it comes to the costumes.  The performances are all more grounded too, with Branagh's direction bringing the camera closer to the actors than Olivier did, allowing for more subtlety and nuance.  The one big theatrical embellishment comes in the form of the always brilliant Derek Jacobi who plays the Chorus, book-ending the film with his stentorian narration, turning up occasionally throughout the film to keep us up to date on what's happening.  Dressed in a long black coat with leather gloves, he feels out of time, like he is from the future, already aware of what's about to take place, but unable to change it.  

This version also does away with Olivier's framing device of the play being performed at the Globe.  Branagh instead presents this to us straight, as a historical drama, and the film feels more intimate with it.  Although I enjoyed the Globe sequences in the 1944 Henry V, it did feel like it made a bit of a dis-connect between me and the film.  Here, with Branagh's version, we are thrust right into the story with the real Henry, not an actor playing him.  But, of course, they are actors.  And what a group Branagh managed to round up for this film.  As well as Branagh, who is criminally overlooked in the conversation of greatest actors, we get Robbie Coltrane as Falstaff, Brian Blessed as the Duke of Exeter, Ian Holm with a brilliant Welsh accent as Fluellen, Judi Dench as Mistress Quickly the innkeeper, Emma Thompson as Princess Katherine and a very, very young Christian Bale as Robin the luggage-boy.  

Maybe it's because I'm more familiar with this cast, and maybe it's the more natural performances, but I prefer this company to Olivier's, even though Olivier himself is incredible.  I don't think I could pick which Henry I prefer.  Olivier is grander and more majestic.  He feels more like a king, and a Shakespearean king at that.  But Branagh is great too.  His Henry seems to have more humanity to him, more humour.  I can believe that he spent years getting drunk with Falstaff, where I can't with Olivier, he's just too refined, too noble.  Branagh also displays a slightly threatening edge to his Henry, first noticed in the scene where he receives the tennis b*lls as an insult.  

The score for this version is also less theatrical than the Olivier version.  There are no royal trumpets here, just a classically restrained score with one particular soaring highlight; the long tracking shot over the muddied and bloodied fields of Agincourt accompanied by the hymn “Non Nobis” is hauntingly beautiful.  Overall, this is a much more natural take on Henry V that acts as a nice comparison to the original, both telling the same story but using different tools to do it.  I think that I prefer this version, just by a hair, but it's a close call.  9/10

 

================================================================

Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight)

dir. Orson Welles/1965/1h56m

Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight) is a film written and directed by Orson Welles centred around the character of Sir John Falstaff, and is made up from text from five of Shakespeare's plays; Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, Henry V, Richard II and The Merry Wives of Windsor.   Welles himself plays Falstaff and gives maybe the best Shakespearean performance I've ever seen.  Falstaff is a larger than life presence in this film.  He is a liar and a thief but charming and witty with it.  He is a stumbling drunk who moves with uncanny grace, hefting his huge frame through the picture, filling up entire shots with his girth.  He is a warm and loving figure who would steal your wallet while embracing you.  And he is proud of it all.  

The plot of the film is mostly taken from Henry IV Part 2, which focused more on Falstaff than Part 1, so there is less about King Henry IV (played here by Sir John Gielgud) and his fight over the crown with Hotspur.  Instead, the film is about the friendship between Falstaff and Prince Hal (Keith Baxter) and Hal's betrayal of that friendship once he becomes King Henry V.  It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that this is an incredibly well directed film.  The way Welles sets up his frames is always interesting, shooting the interiors of castles and taverns both from low angles, making them both look huge and cavernous, giving them both the same importance because the tavern is Falstaff's castle.  The way he uses movement of both characters and the camera to give urgency and momentum to the simplest of scenes.  The gorgeous lighting, highlighting the finest details of a shot.  All of it is perfect.  

And then there is the amazing Battle of Shrewsbury scene.  This is one of the best battle scenes I've seen, and I've seen all of the films that imitated this one.  Here, Welles used fast paced editing, handheld camera, and frenetic non-stop movement to perfectly capture the confusion, panic, violence and insanity of war.  This scene inspired similar ones in Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, Game of Thrones, and the Battle of Agincourt in Branagh's Henry V, and when you watch it you will see where they got it all from.  On top of that, throughout the scene we see Falstaff in the background, hiding behind bushes and running away from danger, only later to pronounce how brave he was in the heat of battle.  Even in what's meant to be an intense and bloody scene Welles still knows how to make it all about Falstaff and get a laugh out of the funny fat man.  Because that's what this film is about.  Taking a side character and making him the centre of attention.  He also turns his comedy into tragedy, as this Falstaff is at times quite pathetic, but that just turns him comedic again, and this perfect transition between the two states is something to behold.  

If you can't tell already, I quite liked this.  This is probably the best Shakespeare adaptation I've ever seen, with the best Shakespeareean performance I've ever seen.  I feel like I've spent the entirety of this review just talking about Welles as Falstaff, but there is much more than that; the rest of the cast are excellent, treading the line between the more theatrical style of Olivier's Henry V and the more modern, natural style of Branagh's.  The score is fantastic, a classic middle-ages sound with a continental flavour to it, as it was composed by the Italian Angelo Francesco Lavagnino, who composed several spaghetti westerns.  I would recommended this to everyone, because I can't believe that a single soul wouldn't want to watch Welles as Falstaff for just under two hours.  You couldn't ask for better company.  @djw180, I know you've seen the two Henry V's I've mentioned here from your brilliant review for The King, but I don't know if you've seen this.  If not, you should check it out.  I think you'll dig it.  10/10

 

And as a little extra, I thought this was really interesting.  It's Orson Welles on The Dean Martin Show putting on makeup and becoming Falstaff while talking about him, before delivering a monologue about how awesome sherry is.

 

[djw180 6,836]

I've only seen the Olivier version once but Brannagh's a number of time (and I think I shall be watching it again fairly soon). So obviously I really like the latter and the more recognisable cast and just more modern take help.  The one thing I do remember not liking about Olivier's, and this is very similar to what I disliked in The King, is all the mouneted knights. But when I saw that version of Henry V I didn't know there were not there, but I do remember thinking they looked a bit too Holywood-ish, far too flashy and decorative and it looked a bit more like a tournament than and battle (untill the killing started).

 

I'm definitely going to see about wacthing Chimes at Midnight as well.

 

Edited August 12, 2020 by djw180

[djw180 6,836]

A couple of quick reviews of films watched while making the most of my free Netflix month.

 

 

The Dictator (2012)

Sacha Baron-Cohen is very talented comedy writer and actor. Unfortunately neither of those were really on show in this. This is a fairly run of the mill comedy, nothing very special. The basic story is the Dictator (actual name of character forgotten by me already) is the leader of an oil rich middle eastern country facing military action from the West to destroy his nuclear missile program. So he has travelled to New York to address the UN. But whilst there he is double crossed by his closest assistant and replaced by his body double who is going to proclaim the country is embracing democracy and opening up to US, Russian and Chinese oil companies.

I think there are two problems compared to his other films. First, unlike Borat and Bruno, his character in this was created just for the film (as far as I am aware, I had certainly never seen it before). Secondly it wasn't in his usual mocumentary style with unwitting members of the public or famous figures being duped into doing or saying stupid things. One scene that really makes this clear is when the Dictator is speaking to a group of journalists, politicians, diplomats etc. trying to explain why dictatorship is actually much better than democracy, pointing out all the things he can do a dictator that could never be done in a democracy, except of course the things he lists do go in democracies as well. That would have been far funnier had he been addressing a real group of politicians, diplomats and journalists rather than actors playing those roles.

One good point that does get this a plus point from me is a number of Western pop songs sung in, what I assume is, Arabic. That is quite original. However this still leaves this with a 5/10 from me.

 

 

True Romance (1993)

 

This was a film I had been meaning to watch for about 20 years since a friend told me I'd like it. She was right. It's a great film, with a great, unmistakeable, Quentin Tarantino script, directed by Tony Scott. It has a stunning support cast of actors I assume were not all that big then (1993).

 

Briefly the plot is Detroit comic book store assistant Clarence (Christian Slater) meets new call-girl Alabama (Patricia Arquette) and they fall in love. So Clarence goes to Alabama's pimp (Gary Oldman) to persuade him to let her go and in true Tarantino style there's bloody gun fight which Clarence survives taking a suitcase of what he believes is Alabama's belongings. Actually the case contains a small fortune's worth of coke in it, stolen earlier in the film from a murdered rival pimp (Samuel L Jackson). Clarence has friend in LA (with a flat mate played by Brad Pitt) who he knows has contacts that will buy the coke. So they set off for California. Clarences's father (Dennis Hopper) is visited by a mafia boss (Christopher Walken) who is also after the coke. This leads to a fantastic scene with these two great actors where Clarence's father knows he is not coming out of it alive but does what he can to buy his son time and ensure he does not give too much away to the mafia. Clarence and Alabama make to LA and eventually set up a meeting with a buyer, but now the police are on their trail and this all leads to a brilliant 3-way shoot out between the buyers bodyguards, the police and the mafia.

 

8/10

 

 

Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020)

 

Lime has already given an excellent review of this and this meant to be last of 3 short reviews so I will keep this brief.

 

I really liked this and I think you can enjoy this whatever your knowledge and opinion of the Eurovision Song Contest is. It's one of those films where you don't have to be interested in the subject matter to enjoy it. You just have to be able to accept there are some people who really, really care about it. In this Will Ferrel and Rachel Macadams are Lars and Sigrit, as Icelandic pop duo Fire Saga. They are probably not brother and sister but being from a small fishing village and with Lar's father (Piers Brosnan) having slept with quite a few of the women there, no one is absolutely sure. Lar's dream has always been to win the Eurovision song contest and finally their chance comes when all the other contenders to represent Iceland are killed. So Fire Sage are off to Edinburgh where the 2020 contest, in the film, is being held – somewhat unrealistic since the winners host the next year and UK has done abysmally for a long time now. There are wonderful, over-the-top, camp performances and costumes from some of the other entrants and cameos from actual Eurovision winners. It does have some great songs and the one slight flaw in the plot is that Fire Saga's song is meant to be awful, whereas by the standards of Eurovision it is actually quite good and would be one of those I think the commentators would say had a chance of winning. Personally I thought the length was pefect. A great, funny, heart warming film where I found myself genuinely caring about the characters even though I lost interest in Eurovision ages ago.

 

8/10

 

 

[CatManDoza 3,473]

36 minutes ago, djw180 said:

 this with a 5/10 from me.

 

 

 

Are you being aladeen? Or aladeen? 

[djw180 6,836]

41 minutes ago, CatManDoza said:

Are you being aladeen? Or aladeen? 

totally 100% aladeen

 

[Fido_le_muet 5,197]

Life (2017) 

A story about 6 astronauts aboard ISS who recover soil samples from Mars with traces of biological life (a single dormant cell). 

You can guess what's obviously gonna happen very early on but still, it's a decent movie. After watching it I've seen it compared to Alien a lot but I don't really agree with that. Sure the premise is similar, an alien lifeform hunting down humans in a space station but Life is definitely more grounded and more believable than Alien because of the setting, ISS and the time period (near future). 

It was definitely entertaining. You can see most of it coming but something is always happening. It's packed and no time is wasted on useless stuff. I liked that. One thing I didn't anticipate was how small one of the characters role would be (staying voluntarily vague to not spoil anything). 

The cast is solid, even if they don't have much to do because of the confined space inside ISS. 

The space scenes are great. Not Gravity great but great nonetheless. 

The ending is great. I really like how it ends and I can't see how it could have been better.

It's a 8/10 for me. 

[Con 5,703]

2 hours ago, Fido_le_muet said:

Life (2017) 

Nice! I watched a bootleg copy that was low quality and since no one else ever spoke about it I never had a desire to watch a high quality version. I think I will put that on my list now that you gave it such a high score. I will rewatch it and read your review in full at that time.