Change Your Image
globewarmer
Reviews
Oppenheimer (2023)
I must be missing somthing
Nolan attracts much adulation though to my taste he can be over intellectual to the point of pretentiousness; I don't think this is a great film but it's sound and the heart of the film is the Opp-Strauss battle, though there are other 'hearts', to the film's detriment. There is no excuse for the pretentiously long first half of the film, covering the bomb's development which has been told many times already. The second half of the film covering the deceptive, envious and destructive behaviour of Strauss, Oppenheimer's nemesis, is a different film and absorbing - new stuff to me but not to americans or their historians. I finally feel for Blunt who must have loved playing beyond her normally somewhat bland repertoire and Downey likewise excelled in his hatred and envy of Oppenheimer. It was deeply satisfying to see him fall, and his career never quite recovered apparently. I was interested to see the suspension of Oppenheimer's security clearance was 'vacated' in 2022.
Boiling Point (2023)
Shame on Auntie.
This is so obviously a pale reflection of The Bear I can hardly believe my eyes or ears; from the highly active intro of city scenes with beat music (and the choice of music is utter drivel, except for a nice bit of Odetta, which however is already being used in an ad for a british university) one is prepped for something special, but one is delivered a great plop of stodge instead. The storylines are pitiful, the script superficial and purple, and we have a disgruntled Stephen Graham grunting and moody sacked and exiled. I began number 3 after a good deal of moaning myself and there we are with another manufactured story, the boss wants the head chef to change the whole menu for a relative's wedding bash, he's already a pathetic actor in an unconvincing role, and needs taking out an shooting. I don't care what happens; I presume Stephen Graham will make a reappearance. Good luck to the lot of them.
Why Him? (2016)
Both sides now
It's interesting there are so many very many very negative reviews of this deft little comedy along with many 'pleasantly surprised' ones and quite a few who rave. Interesting, particularly, to me because I've been on both sides. I thought it was crass and silly and James Franco obnoxious when I saw part of it several years ago but tonight there was nothing attractive on tv so i thought to confirm my prejudices but I was soon giggling and guffawing and thinking how adroit Franco was, along with the rest of the cast. Smart, and I look forward to another viewing. Just come with an open mind and a desire to laugh and this is a good way to pass the time and even shed a tear.
Benjamin (2018)
I must scroll down further
This was screened on channel 4 in June 23 and so I came here to get advice and the first dozen reviews raved so fine I invested the time, which is to say wasted my time. An entirely precious effort around a straightforward boy meets boy theme; characters half baked who had very little to say, and it all stayed very unsexy and bewilderingly vacuous. Who put up the money for this dross? Returned here to solve the mystery and did solve it insofar as the mistake was mihe; had I gone a little further I would have found the panning reviews saying much the same as me here. Utterly limp. And why is it I have to type so many words for the review when so many others are short and to the point?
John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)
Inferior retread
This movie is extraordinarily poor and must have cost a lot of money; the thesps involved look very pleased with their cheques though Reeves maintains a stern demeanour and is the only worthwhile thing to be seen for miles around. Lovers of this stuff call themselves action junkies and feel sated, to judge from their reviews, though why seems to me odd as most of the action looks artificial and almost a piss take of that in previous films. Killing seems to take time as frail humans are shot through the face and thrown across the room but come back begging for the coup de grace. The plot is a simple extension of III, which I quite enjoyed, but there is nothing new here, just old hat stuff, lots of blood spray and the old stuff about a bounty on Wick's head. There is a new villain, however, the Marquis de somewhere or other, and even he isn't very evil, a bit of a dead ringer for macaulay culkin. The script was phoned in by monkeys with typewriters. I hope Mr Mcshane enjoys his well earned retirement.
Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris (2022)
Too sweet?
I like Leslie Manville and this movie is well done and positive. Somehow, though from reading other reviews, it seems to have got lost that this is not just a remake of a 1990s tv show, but that these are adaptations of Paul Gallico's novel, he of The Snow Goose and many other great things.
It was interesting to see how the adapters snipped out a lot of the story for ease of telling, but the ending is very much not what Gallico wrote. Here we have a fairy tale ending that can also make the story a little more airy fairy and less believable; Gallico''s tale is more philosophical and less consumerist. Nice though.
The Rhythm Section (2020)
8 is too much
I am solidly in the camp with others who complain this movie is getting a rough ride review wise and so I gave it an 8 but a 7 might do. I was shocked to see it gets an average 5,4 here and 28% on RT - this latter is just absurd. Seems to me there are many good things to be said for it, and it quite obviously had money and time put into it. It looks good and the people are all good. Critics say it is dull with a ridiculous concept. Well, it kept my attention. But there is something missing, and I find it hard to say what that is. Seems to me the film isn't quite sure what it is; its financed as a high octane revenge nasty but doesn't provide the wall to wall excitement needed to fulfil that. On the other hand it is a touching story of a tragedy and a heartening correction of a moral wrong. That film is much slower and more feeling than the other. It tries to ride both horses. It fails, quite obviously from the ratings and its already on british tv. But I think Id watch it again.
Alan Bennett's Talking Heads (2020)
Not lovelier the second time around
I seem to remember I was uninterested in this revamp of Talking Heads when broadcast, thinking why try to improve on perfection. Then I recently learned there was a new monologue included with Sarah Lancashire, who I revere, talking of an incestuous love for her son; a close friend had that experience so I was very interested and acquired the set. It is a very quiet piece, tragic and moving. Of course I then felt it would be silly not to listen to the rest and it was, as I expected, a deeply disappointing experience. Not that the cast is not a stellar collection of current british acting talent, but just that I am far too fond of the originals. They travel through life with me on my ipod of the moment, Routledge, Hird, Wilton, Bennett, Cole, Atkins - Ive listened a hundred times and they really don't stale and though I know what's coming, I travel on. Mostly with these modern iterations I either started or took a slice from the middle, and I confess there wasn't a single one I listened to in its entirety. Except The Shrine, which is new and nicely done. While I can't say along with one amazon reviewer 'the original was the best' I have to say I do think it may be the case, but one is partial. For those reviewers who say they haven't seen the originals, they are available for a song on ebay. Whatever, the writing remains subtle, surprising, and layered, the common theme being, as Bennett said, 'people in situations to which they are not entirely privy.' But that's all of us, no?
The King's Man (2021)
Very funny
It really doesn't matter very much how one scores this but it must be high I think since the movie succeeds with flying colours in its aim and on its own terms - not to be a great movie but to be an ultra smart bit of hokum. It's smooth, beautifully filmed with a smart script and several marvellous set pieces, Rasputin dancing to his death, absurd mountain top goat assisted escapes, and these pieces , to me, succeed in being a wicked combination of hilarious and terrifying. The detail is delicious and it keeps pulling the rabbit out of the hat. Recommended.
Julie & Julia (2009)
Never a classic
I've watched this delightful confection twice and will watch it again, mainly for Streep's marvellous performance. I like the other story too that runs in parallel, but with each watching I fear one begins to ask why bother with it at all and why not just do a Child film? Currently there is an excellent tv series with Sarah Lancashire, and this shows there was plenty of meat to dramatise. But N Ephron adapted the book, so tis as tis.
It can't be a great movie due to the fatal flaw of there being at the end of the day no cross fertilisation or development or marriage of the stories, which the audience will wait for in vain.
One of the most remarkable things about Streep is the very close resemblance between her facial features and Child's. Amazing. This is a great movie that never was.
The Queen's Gambit (2020)
Don't know chess?
Ing nix about chess, some say they can't enjoy it because of that, but seems to me chess has nothing to do with it. The show rams home how incredibly complex the game is, so much so one can just forget about all of that.
I've just rewatched it with months and months in between and it was even better this time; smart script and faultless performances, excellent characters, specially the marvellous step mother. The fascinating thing that doesn't get a lot of mention is how autistic and sheldoncooper like chess players can be, as is Beth though by the end she is nearly fully human. We seem to love these characters who speak to the awkward and gawky parts of ourselves and enjoy watching them slowly transform into normal.
Boy Erased (2018)
America
I have to confess towards the half way point of this tedious and tortured movie I began to wonder if it were funded by religious nutjobs who would see such plodding and old fashioned dilemmas worth bothering about. But as a Brit I have to remember that similar as we may be to the US in language and shared history and so on, in religion we are poles apart, the uk being largely a secular society which makes me rather proud I have to admit. I find the american way primitive and sad, in thrall to ancient myths that are treated as vibrant and worthy. I am not sure where we are right now, but our government declared conversion therapy was to be banned, the practice seen as abhorrent. That was in december last year.
West Side Story (2021)
Respect
Being a Spielberg fan and believing WSS is great music and a great film that I remember seeing as a teen when it came out, I felt I had a good appetite for this, and thought okay these people look good, though theyre not Wood/Beymer/Chakiris/Moreno, and it's got its feet on the ground not in the sky, no shots of NYC from above, and so much of the classic was filmed from above, but here we are earthbound; okay, and yes, the dancing is more balletic, the singing more authentic and full throated, but at the half way point I thought Spielberg had made a mistake, he had made a fair copy but why spaff all that money to make a poor substitute? However it's the last third of the film that departs into considerably more dramatic mode, and this is where the Kushner/Spielberg pairing shines. They've created something which made me think this could stand side by side with Shakespeare without shame. I think he might have approved and wept.
The White Lotus (2021)
Random events in paradise
I really expected to like this show, particularly as it's winning accolades big time, though reading a few reviews here leaves me feeling mystified as to why. It's about filthy rich and unhappy people taking a rest in the south seas and the slave class of people who are in despair and living life on a shoe string who service them. That's it; with one or two surprises thrown in. It might have been good, particularly if their lives had intertwined in some way, which is often the way in such situations, but they remain largely separate laws unto themselves. The worst, the very worst aspect of this cynical show is the total absence of anything in the writing that shows any passion or wit. This show wants to earn its keep showing us a side of life most of us couldnt afford; other than that it's a tedious waste of time and one you should not watch without a fast forward facility.
Hannibal Rising (2007)
Kerching
Silence of the Lambs gets regularly reshown on british tv; it is a great film, and no matter how many times one sits through it, it remains tight and witty and ghastly. It comes from a well written book. Hannibal and Red Dragon are similarly entertaining though not so awesome. (Manhunter is an oddity, but I still watch it along with the Hopkins films.)And then there is this thing, which I've not managed to watch even once, trying several years ago and again today as I have a temporary pass to amazon prime. Not only does it bear little if any relation to the other films, but in itself it is a weak and dismissible mistake. It starts as a war movie, over gory and stupid, with Rhys Ifans looking a right numpty; we see the child Hannibal, who is a cherub, and wonder how he will develop into such a monster. Any child psychologist will, I imagine, stress that there's no way he would have started normal; he would have left the womb already a hard to manage freak and life would have done the rest. The Did You Know section tells one all one needs to know about the film's procreation; di Laurentis did not want to lose the franchise, and Harris cast about for an idea and was told if he didn't, di L. Would find another writer. That alone tells all you need to know. It's pure, cynical money making (and the stats show it didn't make that much). You expect this of people like di Laurentis. Harris should have known better, to his eternal shame.
Cardinal (2017)
Classic
One of my favourite series, I just enjoyed 24 hours of guilty pleasure rewatching this series on bbc iplayer; I'd missed series 4, so this was pure joy. I'm surprised to see critics calling it slow, or derivative; slow it aint, and it admirably condenses the novels into the 4 series, which could have been cynically spun out into at least 6. Derivative? Well, what do you want? In my view Giles Blunt is an entirely authentic voice, clever on psychopathy which may be a tad air brushed compared with the far gloomier and sicker nordic saga fiends, but the clever interweaving of the personal stories of John Cardinal and Lise Delorme, and the novel and gripping involvement of the very wicked Dr Bell, together with superb production values and overall solid supporting cast, make this one stand out. Blunt has been well served by his interpreters here, and elsewhere - the audiobooks so well written and beautifully read by the laconic Paul Hecht, add to the overall weight of the thing, and I hope Blunt will reappear in future with more of the same characters or perhaps an entirely new fictive world.
His Stretch of Texas Ground (2021)
Avoid
So long as there is a fast forward to hand, occasionally watching a really lame movie like this serves to remind one of the skill involved in making a good one. The story here of a psychotic killler getting release from gaol and returning to his town of origin where he behaves like a total idiot until he's dead could have some entertainment value but the script is plodding and the acting wooden andf the direction appears to have been thought unnecessary.
Queen Bees (2021)
Sheer pleasure
Easy to be stingy about a movie like this that wears its heart on its sleeve, but I just sat through it happily feeling quite full in fact. Burstyn really is good; I chose to watch it because of her and she is rather a great actress, sounds a little hyperbolic but I think her c.v. Supports it. There is a small story about a man and woman played by Ann-Margret and Christopher Lloyd which is very touching indeed, and sugary sweet though it is for me it said more about Alzheimer's than that overblown and much lionized affair with Anthony Hopkins that takes itself so seriously but to me is non authentic and overblown. This film will last.
Cruella (2021)
Kerching
Definitely inferior to the original Glen Close version, this is still a highly watchable and expensive production, but the passage of time shows in the new tenderness towards dalmatians, and although it appears Cruella uses 3 hounds in a coat, it turns out the trio seem to still be alive, so perhaps she used faux fur? Made for money, there seems to be little love behind this film. Performances are fine-ish; I have a lot of time for Emma Thompson in anything she does, but less so for Emma Stone who seems to me nice but not a major talent. The biggesst downer here is ther script; workaday and though you will smile, you will not laugh much. I laughed once at an offhand comment. There is, alas, no wit here; hollywood strikes again.
A Dangerous Method (2011)
A most peculiar title
Having watched this film, which is beautifully dressed, acted with some competence, and with sets and scenes bright with seeming authenticity, and with my life spent in psychology and with some of that time spent around psychotherapy and analysis, I am loath to spend this time without writing something here.
I knew, of course, that Freud and Jung broke their relationship, but the existence of Frau Spielrein was news to me; I understand the root inspiration of this film is a book by John Kerr, A Most Dangerous Method, published in 1994, where recently discovered papers by that lady were used to unpack the conflict between the 2 psychotherapists. I now understand, from some background reading, that her ideas of the Eros/Thanatos link were seminal to Freud's theories. Somewhere, presumably, in Kerr's book is the explanation for the title's use of 'dangerous'. I didn't hear the word mentioned in the film, and don't understand the reason for its use.
After all, as Spielrein herself admits, Jung (using Freud's technique) cured her of her hysteria, and helped put her on the road to qualifying as a doctor. As Jung admits, she was the love of his life. The method then wasn't dangerous to either of them, though it may have been tumultuous.
Freud doesn't say anything about psychoanalysis being dangerous, merely that it is about truth. So why 'dangerous'? New, unexpected, reviled, idealized - all those, yes. Dangerous, no. Perhaps it just helped sell the book and the film too.
The film, on this site, is hugely praised and hugely panned by different reviewers, but I belong with those who feel rather apathetic, uninspired and mostly uninformed by the script. Rather bemused, really, though I think it may grow on me with a second viewing. Viggo Mortensen was the surprise, who looked rather a lot like the young Freud did look, and who played his part in a very downbeat fashion. He was marvellous as usual. As for the rest, I can only say, at this point, meh!
Locke (2013)
Difficult to forget
I think I'd have liked this film less if I'd seen it in a cinema rather than at home where I was able to leave it halfway through and return the next day to finish off. I didn't absolutely have to break it half way through, but I'd had enough, and I didn't find it un-put-down-able. Watching Tom Hardy for upwards of an hour and a half, and only Tom Hardy, playing a somewhat buttoned up, very intelligent and very good at his job character, was easy, that wasn't the problem. I even found the story believable, just about. Suspension of disbelief and all that kicked in. What I did find troubling was that such a perfectionist, to the point of obsessionality, should have been so reckless, first, and second, should have surrounded himself with such a bunch of hysterics. His wife, the mother, and his subordinate Donal. All absolutely hysterical. Good actors. But the script, here, left something to be desired - in fact I found some of their input so tediously silly and grating I fast forwarded. So I will never need to watch this flawed movie again. But for such a job done on such a small budget, kudos.
Hannibal (2013)
Absurd
I confess I've only watched up to nearly the end of the second episode of the 3 available to me, and someone somewhere says it's only after the third that this stuff begins to grip, but I am certain after watching the two last night and then sleeping on it that this is an overwrought, over-kinky, over-violent and just generally overdone piece of parasitizing on the great original, Silence ...., still trying to cash in on the original as the producers have been doing for many a long year. I admit after the simple perfection of Silence that I found the gorgeous Hannibal rather flavoursome, and Red Dragon, even, okay, though the insanity was beginning to be over-weighty, but then Hannibal Rising arrived, a risible and disgusting piece of exploitative nonsense. Still trying to milk the franchise, the production company now comes up with this muck. A massive revision of the characters as we know them, but still they are the same characters and we still know, however it happens, how it will turn out. But now Lecter is the very spooky Mad M., who is a sinister looking gentleman with a rather thick Danish accent, sometimes hard to understand, and who frankly looks like a thug, quite unlike the genius Hopkins we have come to know and love, but like god alone knows what. And then there is Mr Dancy as Will Graham, who has Cruise-like problems with eye contact and a miserable look and 'pure empathy', sheer twaddle the lot of it. You certainly begin to wonder who the story is about, Will, Lecter, or the other ever more baroque and unbelievable murders cropping up on a regular basis. The reason I come here to IMDb to write about it is from upset, and from distress, and from sadness and anger that such exploitation is rife and will no doubt go on to sully the imaginations of generations younger than mine who witnessed the original.