Rev Stan's film blog

The cheat post of three reviews in one: Wuthering Heights, Twiglet 4a & Snowtown

I've virtually run out of time to write these before I head off on holiday so I'm going to combine three short reviews into one post for brevity (if I wait until I get back, it'll never happen)

Wuthering Heights

This is stripped back version of the classic novel, devoid of cliched fancy costumes and violin heavy soundtrack instead you get an almost sensuous approach. The sounds of the landscape, the weather and creatures form the music and the backdrop. There is mud and rain and rough clothes of those who live from the land. 

It is a brutal portrayal with dialogue pared back to a minimum. Cathy and Heathcliff's is a visceral connection established in looks and touches but it is all the more powerful for it. 

Breathtaking in its beauty and brutality, its a refreshing take on what is actually quite an odd novel, my only reservations is that the long lingering shots of nature and constant use of pull focus gets a bit tiring in the end and I'd like to have seen 10 minutes or so trimmed from it's running time just to tightening it up a little.

Stan rating 74%, IMDb 67%, Rotten Tomatoes 81% from critics and 68% from audiences.

Twilight Breaking Dawn part 1

Never should have been split into two films, the result is indulgent and I haven't rolled my eyes so much in a Twilight movie yet. But I'm a sucker for a wedding and so the first half had me smiling. 

As a consequence when the plot moves into the wolves story line it feels like a different film. The scene when Jacob challenges the pack shouldn't have been done as wolves but as humans as it just felt like a kiddies film.

Think I'm over Twilight, there are far better and far more interesting Vampire stories being told elsewhere (True Blood, Vampire Diaries for example) but I've come this far with the films I feel as if I have to see it out.

Stan rating 56%, IMDb 47% and 45% from Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes 28% from critics and 92% from audiences (it's going to take loads of money regardless because of its fan base)

Snowtown

Certainly the most disturbing film I've seen in a long long time. Based on a true story of Australian serial killer John Bunting but told from the viewpoint of a 16-year old boy Jamie whom he takes under his wing. John becomes a father figure to Jamie but his vigilante morals against paedophiles and then homosexuals disguise the fact that he is a brutal sadist who takes pleasure inflicting pain and fear on his victims before murdering them. 

Jamie is at first flattered, John is charming and pays him attention but slowly he manipulates the teen introducing him into his world bit by bit until he is terrified and reluctantly does all that John asks.

There is one particularly gruesome scene but it is the growing threat from John, all smiles and charm on one hand and a torturer and murderer on the other.  

It's a gritty and simply shot film with little by way of dramatic embellishment. Jamie says little but emotes a great deal and I was squirming in my seat for him. Fantastically naturalist performances all around.

Its haunted me for days. I'm glad I saw it but I don't think I could ever watch it again.

Stan rating 80%, IMDb 68%, Rotten Tomatoes 93% from critics and 73% from audiences

Beware the Ides of March (if you don't like political thrillers)

I'll confess straight away, political thrillers aren't my favourite genre of film mainly because I just find them depressing and representative of most of what I hate about modern politics. But that aside I did quite enjoy the George Clooney directed and starring Ides of March.

Clooney takes a supporting role to the wonderfully talented Ryan Gosling (how many films has he had out this year???) who plays Stephen Meyers, the idealistic senior campaign team member for presidential candidate Senator Mike Morris (Clooney).

And of course it is about dirty politics, doing what has to be done to win the votes regardless of whether it goes against policy or personal morals. It's also about loyalty and ambition.

It is intelligent and superbly acted with the likes of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and Evan Rachel Wood among the supporting cast. There are some nice twists and turns to keep the action moving, a growing tension and a central character with whom you can get behind. 

But at the end of it, it is a political thriller and superb performances and quality film-making aside it isn't going to be one of the most memorable films of the year for me.

I'm going to give it 70%. On IMDb it's got an audience rating of 75% and a Metacritic score of 67%. While on Rotten Tomatoes it has a critics rating of 85% and 76% of audiences gave it 3.5/5 or higher.

 

Did The Help live up to the hype?

The short answer is 'yes'. It's a long film at two and half hours long but it didn't feel long which is always a good sign.

It's set during the civil rights movement in 1960s America and wannabe writer 'Skeeter' (Emma Stone) decides to write a book documenting the life and experiences of the black American maids that work for her family and those of her friends.

Skeeter has been away to university and doesn't quite slot back into the life of marriage, babies and prejudice her old school friends have fallen into. The maids take some persuading to talk, fearful of losing their jobs but once they start there isn't any stopping them.

With the subject matter it could have been far more gritty and shocking  - To Kill a Mocking Bird this ain't - but instead it focuses on the characters piece. And it is packed full of brilliant characters, marrying the issues of the day with warmth,  humour and humanity to make for an engaging, moving and entertaining film. 

There are great performances all round - loved, loved, loved Octavia Spencer as Minny. And I also liked seeing Bryce Dallas Howard playing a manipulative and just plain nasty character.

Definitely worth a watch and I'm going to give it 79%. On IMDb it's got 81% from audiences and has a Metacritic score of 62%. Rotten Tomatoes has a critics rating of 75% and 92% of audiences rated it 3.5/5 and above.

 

 

Colin Firth offered baddy role in Spike Lee's Oldboy but who else should play a villain?

There are certain actors I long to see play real baddies. I'm sure the actors themselves long to play baddy too. OK so the goody normally gets the girl but it must be far more fun being bad once in a while. Must stretch different acting muscles too. 

So it's great to read that Colin Firth may be getting a chance in Spike Lee's remake of Oldboy.

Other actors, that are favs of mine who I'd love to see play a villain include Ben Whishaw. Of course. I could see him doing a Heath Ledger/Joker-worthy performance in a comic book remake or even just a straight up and down bad 'un - despite speculation that he will play Q in the new Bond I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for a support villain to Javier Bardem.

David Tenant would be good at straight baddy, not a comedy one and oh, wouldn't Benedict Cumberbatch make a great baddy, someone really evil with no redeeming features, got a teensy hint of it in Atonement. Leonardo diCaprio really should play a bad guy too - doesn't feel like he's really stretched his talent for a long time.

There are loads more which I may come back and add...

The not at all contageous Contagion

Oh dear, where to begin? Contagion, the new Steven Soderbergh, star-laden disaster movie about a deadly virus rampaging around the globe is full of promise but falls short on delivery.

Its two key problems are linked and are as follows. Firstly it feels like two and a half films crammed into one and consequently doesn't quite know what to concentrate on. And secondly the number of big names - Jude Law, Lawrence Fishburne, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard - feed those bloated storylines after all you can't really have say, Winslet, just playing a scientist playing with test tubes for a bit, you've got to make it worth her while.

The best example is that Marion Cotillard's character Dr Leonora Orantes - someone who works for the World Health Organisation - gets kidnapped in China and held in the village from where the virus is suspected to have originated. The ransom demand being the vaccine when it becomes available as the kidnappers believe the poor Chinese will be low down the pecking order when it is being dished out.

So you see her doing her investigative work in China and then getting bundled off in a van and then nothing. She doesn't even get a mention until we return, towards the end of the film, to find her happily teaching the local kids and then going with the men that kidnapped her for the handover.

It feels like there were too many big issues to cover. Rather than picking one or two the writers/producers/Soderbergh decided to skim over the surface, concentrating on the giving the big names something a little bit meaty to work with.

First trailer for Benedict Cumberbatch's Wreckers

Saw this brilliant film at the London Film Festival a couple a weeks ago and couldn't put the trailer at the end of my review, as I normally do, because, we were told at the screening, it was still being put together. Well it's finished now ahead of it's December release. It looks like it will be select cinemas only, which is a shame although I doubt it is going to appeal to the average multiplex visitor (that makes me sound snobby, I know).

Go and see it when it's out in December it's a great film about a newly married couple (Cumberbatch and Claire Foy) realising that they don't actually know each other quite as well as they first thought.

 

The disappointing Sleeping Beauty

It held so much promise. An intriguing sounding indie flick about a young woman Lucy (Emily Browning) who in order to fund her way through college starts working for a mysterious organisation that can best be described as offering alternative titillation services.

This isn't prostitution in the traditional sense, this is an art flick after all. At first Lucy has to serve at a dinner party where all the female waiting staff are bare-bosomed or in stockings and basques. Then she graduates to a service where she is drugged into an unconscious state and men - all at the older age range - can do whatever they want with her naked body except penetration and with the proviso they don't leave any marks.

The film's blurb concentrates on the fact that she becomes curious about what the men do while she is in her drug-induced sleep and so sets up a secret camera. However, the film takes an awful long time to get that point and it is something that is concluded very quickly.

Ultimately it is unnecessarily arty, self-consciously so, with lots of lingering shots and people not saying very much either with or without words. You don't get to know very much about Lucy and how she really feels about what she is doing and what impact it is having on her.

She visits a man with whom she seems close who spends most of his time in bed but who he is or what the relationship is, isn't explained. Towards the end of the film she gets into a relationship with a fellow student but again the impact of her job on this isn't explored.  

There is much that could be delved into in this film but just isn't. It just feels risque for risque sake rather than having any real depth.  I left the cinema feeling only disappointment and a little bit cross that that it failed to deliver on any its promises. 

I'm going to give it 25% and if you are thinking of seeing it, save your money. On IMDb it has got 56% from users and 54% from Metacritic. On Rotten Tomatoes there isn't a consensus from critics but only 26% of visitors gave it three stars or more.