Rev Stan's film blog

Review: Benedict Cumberbatch channels Julian Assange in The Fifth Estate

Synopsis: Julian Assange from the portrayal in this film would want you to describe the story as the man behind WikiLeaks but it is told from the perspective of Daniel Berg, his sometime friend and co-conspirator on the site so it's really about the relationship between the two of them during the sites early days leading up to its first big scoop.

Stan's thoughts: I think the Social Network paved the way for films of this ilk - turning the story of computer geeks creating a website into something interesting and dynamic.

The story is really about the relationship between Assange and Berg and one disadvantage of having the source material from one side - Berg's book - is that it sometimes feels like it is only really scratching the surface of Assange. He is a strange man with a strange past, or at least this portrayal would have us believe.

That to one side, the central performances are superb, particularly Cumberbatch who once again proves what a versatile actor he is. Director Bill Condon manages to mix the drama and tension with some interesting surreal metaphors - the WikiLeaks site as Assange paints it vs the reality as Berg discovers. It reminded me a little of films like Being John Malkovich.

The Fifth Estate is part thrill of journalistic chase and part thriller as the authorities close in and I enjoyed it.

Ratings

• Stan's: 65%
• IMDB: 57%
• Metascore: 50%
• Rotten Tomatoes: 40% 
• RT audience rating: 47%

Recently seen

Sunshine on Leith

Romeo and Juliet

Prisoners

The Call

Rush

In A World

Ain't Them Bodies Saints

About Time

The Way Way Back

 

Review: Lovelace

Synopsis: Biopic of Linda Lovelace, the star of 70s porn phenomenon Deep Throat.

Stan's thoughts: The above synopsis is as much as I knew about Linda Lovelace going into the film and I'm not sure what I expected but it certainly wasn't the film I saw and that isn't a criticism.

The film starts out almost like a teen romance as Chuck Traynor (Peter Sarsgaard) frees Linda (Amanda Seyfried) from her austere and controlling mother with the narrative then following how she went on to become the star of Deep Throat. But it only tells half the story, initially, with the second half of the film retracing the steps of key moments in the story and showing what else was going on at the time.

While Chuck is obviously quite controlling and manipulative after he marries Linda, the 'behind the scenes' is far more damning and harrowing and exposes a violent and abusive husband.

Rather than being frothy and tongue in cheek, it is a difficult film to watch and really quite moving. Splitting the narrative so that the full picture slowly emerges worked well (for me).

Great performances from Seyfried and Sarsgaard and the supporting cast which includes Juno Temple and James Franco as a charming, if slightly creepy Hugh Hefner. I didn't even recognise Sharon Stone as Linda's mother.

Enjoyed isn't quite the right word but I thought this was an interesting and well done film, although I seem to be on my own with that.

Ratings

• Stan's: 70%
• IMDB: 61%
• Metascore: 51%
• Rotten Tomatoes: 52% 
• RT audience rating: 39%

Recently seen

What Maisie Knew

Kick Ass 2

Bling Ring

Wadjda

Frances Ha

Breathe In

Review: Uncomfortable and emotional viewing - The Impossible

Synopsis: Based on the true story of a Spanish family holidaying in Thailand when the 2004 tsunami hit, separated they search for each other not knowing who is alive or dead.

Stan's thoughts: This is a difficult watch, harrowing at times and naturally very emotional. It doesn't shy away from the gritty realism of such a horrific natural disaster and the aftermath. Succeeds in marrying the scale of the disaster with the intimacy of the family's own predicament. Left me feeling a tad emotional and wanting to find out more.

Ratings:

• Stan's: 80%
• IMDB: 77%
• Metascore: 73%
• Rotten Tomatoes: 82%

Fifteen minute review: A Dangerous Method

Quick catch up time...

Dangerous Method: Freud vs Jung. Both experimental and pioneers in the field of psychology but with increasingly different approaches. Jung (Michael Fassbender) takes on a new patient Sabina (Keira Knightly) who is all hysteria and jaw-jutting. 

His method is to get the patients talking and with Sabina he has a break through. He also falls for her and a relationship starts.

Freud (Viggo Mortensen) meanwhile starts to disapprove of Jung's methods and the later is forced to examine his own behaviour and feelings.

The psychology is interesting - I studied a bit when I was university but ultimately it feels bit like high-brow melodrama with some sex thrown in for titillation. Trying to create a dramatic tension between two intellectuals as they discuss their different theories and methods is a difficult one to pull off and I don't think director David Cronenburg fully achieves it.

Naturally it's well done with such a great director and cast. Knightley really throws herself into the role and isn't afraid to do ugly but it boils down to whether you care enough and I'm not sure I did. 

It's getting 60% from me. On IMDb it's got 67% with a Metacritic rating of 76%. On Rotten Tomatoes it has got 77% from critics and 55% of site visitors have given it 3.5 stars or above.

 

The last two reviews of 2011: Another Earth and Moneyball

Slight cheat, two reviews in one but I'm eager to get my 2011 best of/worst of compiled as well as decide on my StOscars which I can't do until these are written, so here goes.

Another Earth

Low budget sci-fi movie about a high school student Rhoda (Brit Marling) who in a tragic car accident kills composer John Burrough's wife and child (William Mapother). On the same night a duplicate earth is discovered. When Rhoda comes out of prison, haunted by the consequences of her actions she sets about trying make amends while wondering if the other her, on the second earth, has made the same mistakes - something she might soon find out.

Like the low budget sci-fi movies I've enjoyed over the last 18 months it is more of a character piece than about the science and as such it works really well although I do wonder if the film wouldn't work just as well without the second earth.

Rhoda doesn't say much leaving the audience to fill the gaps which I like. She is at time a difficult character to like and I also liked that ambiguity, the humanness of her. 

It doesn't have a conclusive ending and raises a lot of questions that are unanswerable which some might find unsatisfying but I didn't. It's certainly a film that stays with you afterwards.

A nicely gentle, thought provoking film I'm going to give it 63%. On IMDb it's got 70% with a Metacritic scores of 66%. On Rotten Tomatoes there is no consensus from critics but 71% of visitors to have rated it 3.5 stars or higher.

Moneyball

Only the fact that Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay got me in front of this baseball movie that and the fact that critic Mark Kermode said it wasn't really about baseball but about statistics.

I know nothing and care nothing for baseball and yes it is more about statistics, money and the politics behind the game. And there is nothing wrong with it but I just can't muster much enthusiasm for it. The script, as you can imagine, is excellent, it was well acted and engaging enough for the duration but ultimately I didn't really care enough. 

I'm going to give it 55%, on IMDb it's got 78% and a Metacritic score of 87%. On Rotten Tomatoes it's got a critics rating of 95% and 88% of visitors gave it 3.5 stars or more. Just not one for me then.

 

And so that concludes my film reviews for 2011, now for the best and worst of's....

 

Stan's 2012 Guardian 50 film challenge begins...with The Iron Lady

It doesn't feel quite right starting on 2012's films while there are a couple of outstanding reviews plus my best of for 2011 still to post but I've had an idea and I'm impatient.

The Guardian has drawn up a list of what it sees as the 'biggest' films of 2012. Not sure what the criteria is for being the 'biggest' - the closest to an explanation is to describe it as it's film experts 'top picks', 50 in fact. 

Flicking through the list and probably 80% are either already on my list or have pique my interest. So what if I was to try and see them all during the year and then keep a tally on how the Guardian rates in their reviews compared to my own? I'm aware it is slightly nerdy but what the heck, I'm going to give it a go and see what happens.

So first on their list is The Iron Lady described by critic Xan Brooks in the list: 

Director Phyllida Lloyd gives us Thatcher without the Thatcherism in a perky biopic that amounts to a greatest hits package, bookended by scenes of the legend in her dotage, dancing with the ghost of Dennis and getting lost as she totters out in search of milk. What The Iron Lady has in its favour, though, is an electrifying bit of mimicry from Meryl Streep. The best actress Oscar looks all but guaranteed. 

Now I'm not a fan of Maggie, having harshly felt the effects of her Poll Tax as a student and taken part in the demonstrations but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in her as a woman who fought sexism and the establishment to become the first female British Prime Minister.

Her story is told through aging, widowed Maggie's eyes as a series of flashbacks and hallucinations in which her husband Dennis is still alive and converses with her.

There are some fantastic performances. I had reservations about Meryl Streep taking on the role but she is very, very good. Olivia Colman is a favourite of mine and can't do anything wrong so naturally I loved her Carol Thatcher. I was also particularly touched by little Harry Lloyd's young Dennis. 

However, my problem with the Iron Lady is that it doesn't feel political enough to be a film about politics, neither does it give enough insight into Thatcher to make if feel like a true biopic. Probably the area in which is was the most satisfying is the love story between Margaret and Dennis which was warmly portrayed.

Doing the Devil's Double

It was Dominic Cooper that drew me to this film. He's got very good at playing confident and slightly arrogant characters but this film about Uday Hussein's (Saddam's son) body double affords him the chance to play two very different people.

And I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. It is an interesting and at times brutal story about a Latif Yahia who is forced into becoming a lookey-likey for the cocaine-snorting, sex-obsessed, sadistic son of the former Iraqi leader.

The hedonistic, volatile Uday is the opposite of everything that Latif stands for but he quickly realises that not only does he look like Saddam's son but his life is his also.

And Dominic Cooper does such a great job at the two roles, a couple of times I did squint at the screen questioning whether it was indeed him playing both parts. Okay so there is some cliched dialogue but it is compelling viewing with the ever present threat of violence and death making for a tense hour and 50 minutes viewing.

The film is based on a true story although the ending has the most obvious dose of filmic license and isn't an easy watch at times, certainly earning its 18 certificate, but definitely worth enduring the hands over the eyes moments.

I'm going to give The Devil's Double 78%. On IMDb it has got 68% and on Rotten Tomatoes it has got 72% from audiences but no consensus from critics.

 

 

Daniel Day Lewis or Ben Whishaw: Who should play Charles Dickens?

Keen-eyed Ben Whishaw fans, among whom I count myself, will have seen a story circulating this week that Daniel Day Lewis and the man himself are both being considered to play literary giant Charles Dickens in a biopic about his secret affair with a young woman, Nelly Ternan, called The Invisible Woman.

Naturally I'm excited about any potential new project for Mr W and this one has the makings of a corker not only because it has the expert hands of Abi Morgan writing but also thesp Ralph Fiennes directing.

But I'm curious as to why our Ben would be up against Daniel Day Lewis. While similar in their approaches to acting - Day Lewis is very picky about projects - they are both very different in age: 30 and 54.

According to the fount of all knowledge that is Wikipedia, Charles Dickens was 45 when he met the 18-year-old Nelly so neither is a perfect fit age-wise and either choice is going to bring a very different dynamic to the story.

Dickens was a fascinating man, extraordinarily talented, hard-working and successful. He was also intensely romantic but got frustrated with his marriage and wasn't particularly nice to his wife, with whom he had 10 children. His relationship with Nelly only came to light after his death.

Fiennes has apparently met with Imogen Poot, Felicity Jones and Abbie Cornish as potential Nelly's. Mr W has of course worked with the latter two (The Tempest and Bright Star), he has also worked with Abi Morgan too (The Hour). So there is already a bit of chemistry there which might put him in a good position.

Angels of Evil: The Italian Mesrine?

This film has been marketed as the Italian answer to the French ganster films Mesrine: Killer Instinct and Mesrine: Public Enemy No 1. I really enjoyed the brace of Mesrine films - Vincent Cassel had such charisma on screen in the title role he made for a compelling gangster.

So would Angels of Evil, like Mesrine based on a real person, live up to the comparison?

For a gangster film to work for me, there needs to be some depth to the baddie's characters or a least charm to win me over to their side. If I don't care whether they get caught or not - which is, in essence what most of these films boil down to - then they don't work.

Angels of Evil's lead crim is Renato, played by the almost giggle-inducingly handsome Kim Rossi Stuart. Renato was a Milanese mobster, famous in the 1970s for a spate of robberies, kidnapping and murder.

Renato is not so much drawn into but drawn to a life crime as a child, stealing and selling on the swag with a gang of friends. He doesn't see himself doing anything else.

The film follows his rise to notoriety and power battles with a rival mob. He is a charmer, audacious in his crimes and escapes, sometimes recording interviews with local radio stations while on the run. Part of the charm, and ultimately his weakness, is an intense loyalty towards his gang for whom he will take the fall when mistakes are made.

Still standing for The King's Speech

I was blown away by The King's Speech when I saw it at the London Film Festival back in October, so much so I wanted to see it again.

Now my first attempt at a second viewing didn't go so well. I'd book to see a preview with a director's Q&A at the Curzon, only I went to the wrong cinema. It was an diary accident waiting to happen (my combined film and theatre viewing totalled more than 150 last year) but hopefully won't happen again for at least a year.

Anyway, my second attempt was more successful and even though I have already posted my thoughts it is technically a 2011 release, so I wanted to mark it as such with a few words and an official Rev Stan score.

So what can I say about it? Well, it more than lived up to my first review. It is a warm, moving and funny film that succeeds in showing the human side of royalty. As I was leaving the cinema I could have quite happily bought a ticket for the next screening and gone straight back in.

Colin Firth has already got 14 best actor awards for it and I hope the supporting cast gets the recognition it deserves too, particularly Geoffrey Rush.

The critics seem to love it too:

Rotten Tomatoes UK gives it 95% from 174 reviews and it has an average user rating of 8.6/10

Metacritic gives it 88% from 41 reviews with an average user rating of 8.7/10.

And Rev Stan gives it 95% - it loses 5% because of the odd choice of Guy Pearce playing Colin Firth's older brother or am I the only one who finds that odd?