Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
A Superb Dramatization of the Life of a Great American Poet
15 October 2016
Emily Dickinson isn't the easiest subject for a feature-length biopic. True, she is the greatest female poet in the English language, maybe even in world literature. But her life was uneventful in the extreme. She never married and probably died a virgin. Her love affairs were conducted by correspondence. She became reclusive as she got older, donning a white dress, rarely leaving home, and holding conversations through doorways. She wrote poetry—a kind of literature appealing only to a tiny minority of readers and not amenable to film adaptation. Moreover, with a few exceptions, her poems are difficult: she specialized in extreme mental states and thorny intellectual paradoxes. And she died in complete obscurity—it's only by good fortune that the 1800 poems she wrote still exist. At her death the vast majority of them existed only in a single handwritten manuscript and could easily have been consigned to flame as the ramblings of an eccentric spinster.

So Dickinson's biography hardly conforms to the typical story arc or dramatic requirements of the average American film. Until now, the most successful dramatization of the life of this poet who lived an interior existence, both literally and figuratively, was the one-woman play The Belle of Amherst, which needless to say emphasized her isolation.

Terence Davies's film knows and accepts all this, yet remembers that Dickinson in her own time was not a great poet, except perhaps only in the farthest reaches of her own imagination. Instead of a lonely genius, Davies conjures up a Dickinson who was very much a social being, even if her interactions were largely restricted to her family. Cynthia Nixon's Emily is a flawed, totally plausible, and deeply sympathetic woman of her time.

This is a brilliant film in the way it exploits the resources of the medium. The performances are universally excellent, and the dialogue is as witty as it must have been among clever Emily and her circle. Davies captures the claustrophobic interiors and repressed souls of still- Puritan mid-19th-century small-town Amherst, Massachusetts. The editing and pacing are superb, as for example in a slow 360 degree pan around the Dickinson sitting room that begins and ends on Emily's face.

But it's also brilliant in the way that it interprets Dickinson's life. How did the Civil War impact her Amherst domesticity? Why did she wear a white dress? What did she feel when her brother Austin, who lived with his wife Susan next door, started conducting an adulterous affair in her own living room? How did she feel to be dying slowly and horribly of kidney disease knowing that her poetry (her "Letter to the World" as she put it) was almost totally unread? Did the hope that she'd be appreciated by posterity reconcile her to her fate? Nixon's Emily behaves in each case as a human being would, making her predicament painful to watch. But it's strangely exhilarating too—we watch knowing that Dickinson's "Letter" has most definitely been delivered.

The film is slow-paced and developed as a series of vignettes. There's quite a lot of poetry in voice-over. At no point does it pander to 21st- century sensibilities. It will not be to the taste of the majority of the cinema-going public. Nor will many Dickinson cultists enjoy it, as they often prefer to idealize or mythologize her rather than think of her as a flesh-and-blood woman. But as a plausible biography of one of America's greatest poets, this film is nothing short of a triumph.
73 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Powerful and Timely Documentary about a Cold War Accident
2 October 2016
You won't find much about the 1980 Damascus Titan Missile Explosion on Wikipedia. It was one of those minor Cold War mishaps that barely made it beyond the local news. A young airman was doing routine maintenance at an Arkansas ICBM site. He didn't fully appreciate the difference between a ratchet and a socket wrench (who knew there was a difference?) and accidentally dropped the heavy steel head of his tool into the silo of an aged Titan II missile. The head punctured the skin of the missile, resulting in a fuel leak and, a few hours later, an explosion that wrecked the silo, killing one airman and wounding 21 others. Fortunately, the Titan's nine-megaton thermonuclear warhead, the most powerful US bomb then in existence, did not explode.

This low-key but powerful documentary examines the chain of events that led to the accident and, more pertinently, looks at the wider significance of what did and didn't happen. There are interviews with the surviving site crew and some impressive re-enactments of the sequence of events, so realistic that at first you think it must be authentic historical footage. The investigative journalist Eric Schlosser, author of an acclaimed book about the Damascus accident, had a large hand in this production and appears periodically in the film.

Knowing little about Damascus, you might be tempted to chalk it up as a calamity avoided because the safety systems in place actually worked. By the time the film is over, you won't be so dismissive. The most serious nuclear threat to the US at this time (because it occurred on a frequent daily basis, and had little to do with international tensions) was from accidents within its own arsenal. (A similar situation must surely have prevailed in the Soviet Union.)

Are we safer now, given that there are far fewer nukes deployed and Command and Control organizations have learned from past experiences? The documentary has a clear answer, and it's probably not the one we hoped for.
21 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
You Don't Have to Know Molière to Enjoy This Film
24 September 2016
This is an intelligent film, a rather sour, grown-up comedy that captures something of the misanthropic theme of the Molière play that has a large role in it. But you really don't need to be familiar with "The Misanthrope" (1666) to enjoy this film. It does help, however, if you love good acting, are a bit of a francophile, and are prone to occasional bouts of contempt for your fellow human beings.

Once you begin to note the key differences in the temperaments of these two old friends, the scope of the film expands. It's about the continued relevance of classic drama thanks to unchanging human nature. It's about the art of acting itself, the struggle to nail one's character through a peculiar mixture of repetition and imagination. It's about the problem of casting roles, about why actors, however experienced and ambitious they might be, just cannot play certain parts credibly. It's about how popular entertainers are rewarded handsomely for allowing their audience to avoid confronting the flaws in human nature. And it's about the line between success and failure in life and in love, and how, Hollywood notwithstanding, having real talent and genuine feeling is no guarantee of a happy outcome.

The setting on the windswept Atlantic island (Ile de Ré) is used to great effect as a way of concentrating the concealed hostility between the two main characters. And there is a lovely homage to a scene in François Truffaut's most famous film that should please film buffs. This is a literate film and one which Truffaut himself would surely have admired.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
American Crime (2015–2017)
10/10
Not a Pretty Picture, but Great Television
13 September 2016
It's said we're in a golden age of TV drama, and here's more evidence. One astonishing fact about this series is that it was made by ABC, one of the supposedly fossilized networks, rather than by one of the newer niche cable channels. And now it's available on Netflix (at least here in Canada) so you don't have to dodge commercials.

There are two seasons, the first of eleven episodes, the second of ten, and both track the consequences of a crime that has already happened. The first series, set in Modesto, California, concerns what is apparently a murder-rape by lowlifes of a golden all-American young couple. The second series, set in Indianapolis, deals with an unsavory sexual incident at a party held by the basketball team of a private school. The lives of staff and students at this entitled institution for the wealthy are contrasted with their counterparts at a typical local high school.

The simple, unsensational title is a clue to what this series is trying to do. It aims to be nothing less than an anatomy of contemporary American society. It persuades us that these crimes and their repercussions reveal a great deal about national attitudes to race, education, money, sex, violence, guns, drugs, policing, journalism, social media, the justice and penal systems—you name it. And as with The Wire, a series which had similar ambitions, one comes to understand and sympathize with these characters and their predicaments, even if one doesn't like them. Here is America today in microcosm, and it's not a pretty picture. But Americans are not as exceptional as they sometimes imagine. As this series suggests, the characters' problems are human problems, and you certainly don't have to be American to identify with them.

What is quite unusual is that several of the main parts in the two series are played by the same actors, as in repertory theater. This may be a gimmick, but it works, as the standard of the acting is very high and the effect is to draw attention to the Shakespearean theme of appearance vs reality. The performances of Felicity Huffman, who plays both lead female characters, both unlikable in different ways, are astoundingly good. It helps, of course, that the rest of the cast, the dialogue, camera-work, editing, even the score are of the highest quality.

American Crime is grim and as far from light entertainment as you can imagine. But its final effect is not depressing. Lies are relentlessly exposed for the damage they do. Deeper and more difficult truths, the only kind it's safe to build trust on, start to emerge. And those are perhaps the most important messages that come from this outstanding series.
21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Les témoins (2014– )
6/10
"Just Answer the Question!"
5 September 2016
The far north of France has its universally appealing quirks, as the unlikely hit film Welcome to the Sticks (Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis, 2008) exploited to excellent comic effect. But can Le Nord serve as an effective setting for more serious drama, like that emanating from much farther north? This French mystery-thriller series gives a Gallic slant to all the tropes developed to such good effect in classic Nordic Noir: weird title song in fractured English, drone shots of landscapes under oppressive skies, obsessive female cop with personal issues, etc. Nearby Normandy was settled by the Vikings, after all.

There are good things here. Marie Dompnier as the young detective Sandra Winckler is very watchable: she alone gives the series its focus and makes one care about what happens. But the plot is far too elaborate even by recent Scandinavian standards and the holes in it gape far too wide. The device of giving no answer at all to straight questions becomes seriously overused, especially in relation to Paul Maisonneuve (Thierry Lhermitte), the aristocratic, stone-faced ex-police chief with an enigmatic past. You keep on wanting to yell, "Just answer the question!" at Paul. As for Sandra, you'll repeatedly find yourself shouting, "Call for backup on your cell phone!" and when this fails, "For heaven's sake just shoot him!"

The small Channel town of Le Tréport, at the foot of chalk cliffs, has a major role as a dismal, Gothic background for the convoluted goings on. Yet Le Tréport in reality is a charming place, certainly not one known for awful weather, demented clown-faced serial killers, and rabid wolves. It might have been better to use the Broadchurch method: a sunny seaside village with magnificent cliffs as a splendid foil to the dark undercurrents.

There will of course be another series of Witnesses, as certain plot elements need to be resolved. I suppose I'll watch it, but not with high expectations. There was only just enough in this series to make me persist with all six episodes, and it's really not a patch on The Killing or Broadchurch nor on the best French cop dramas like Spiral.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ronaldo (2015)
7/10
More Revealing Than It Was Probably Intended to Be
4 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Many people will be disappointed by this documentary. There is almost nothing, for instance, about the six seasons (2003-09) that Cristiano Ronaldo played for Manchester United and which laid the foundations of his greatness. There are no interviews with teammates or with great footballers past and present that put his achievements in context. Though Ronaldo himself speaks frequently, he says nothing about how he prepares for games, or about which coaches or fellow professionals he admires. Nevertheless, it's a fascinating film, one in which we learn a lot about this footballing phenomenon, certainly one of the ten greatest forwards ever to play the world's most popular sport, and yet fated to be second best during his own playing career.

Ronaldo has been called a narcissist, a supreme egotist in what should be a team enterprise. And this documentary confirms that in so many ways he is. But actually his self-love is a part of that essential, unshakable self-belief without which he could never have attained the heights. The characteristic shot of him in the documentary is at the wheel of one of his garage full of luxury cars: he likes to be viewed as at the helm, in control. The past (represented by the Manchester United years under the arch-manager Sir Alex Ferguson) means little to him. The future is equally irrelevant except as the potential site of further personal trophies. He lives in the bubble of the present, and his goal each year is not so much team trophies for Real Madrid or Portugal like the Champions League or World Cup, but the Ballon d'Or, the annual FIFA trophy for the best player in world football. What animates him now is the desire to win more Ballons d'Or than Lionel Messi, the diminutive, far less photogenic Barcelona striker, who is two years younger, has won the Ballon d'Or four times to Ronaldo's twice, and is probably the greatest forward ever to grace the game.

The documentary focuses upon Ronaldo's relationships with his agent and with his family. And here we learn about the distant alcoholic father and the warm mother who Ronaldo strongly resembles and who lives every game he plays along her nerves. All this is interesting and tends to humanize this superman a little. And so too does Ronaldo's close relationship with his young son Cristiano Jr., born 2010. But this son has no mother: Ronaldo has never revealed who bore the child, and he has sole custody. It's as though he purchased an infant under the condition that it would be his alone to mould into what he chooses, namely a reproduction of himself. Yet it's clear from the documentary that footballers with Cristiano Ronaldo's talents are rare indeed and his skills are not transferable. How the devoted small child will take to being manipulated during his adolescence by a father whose achievements the son will never be able to match ought to be the stuff of another, probably less hagiographic documentary in ten years' time.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wild Tales (2014)
9/10
Forget Wild, These Tales Are Savage!
29 August 2016
This is a very watchable and often extremely funny anthology of six short films. The dialogue is in Spanish, the director and settings are Argentine. The stories are all slightly-over-the-top-realism in the manner of Almodóvar tinged with the dark surrealism of the Buñuel of The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. The scenarios are graphic rather than subtle, but they all work well most of the time, because most of us can identify with the main characters, recognizing how little it can take to shake us from complacency into violence.

The official English title "Wild Tales" suggests madcap craziness. But these tales are savage ("selvaje" in the original Spanish), a word that better suggests the ferocious beast lurking not far under the skin of all of us. The beast can be unchained by nothing more complicated than being cut off by a driver who doesn't signal or finding that our car has been impounded for an unwitting parking infraction.

In the first and shortest episode, what appears to be an absurd series of coincidences linking all the passengers on a plane turns out to have a logical and sinister rationale. The ending explains why in the opening scene the woman checking in at the airport is told that she will not earn frequent flyer points for her trip! And the final, longest episode hilariously tracks the chaotic degeneration of a stereotypical Jewish wedding party, initiated by the bride's discovery that the groom has been cheating on her with one of the guests. This is not a film for young children or for people who aren't willing to admit how close they sometimes are to dissolving in animal rage.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anthropoid (2016)
10/10
An Intelligent and Disturbing Take on a WWII Resistance Operation
21 August 2016
Its title makes this film sound like a monster thriller, and so it is, but not in the expected way. This is a violent, harrowing film about a real incident in WWII, and by the end you'll feel weak-legged and drained. But it's also a very fine film that gives real insight into the horrors of the Nazi occupation of central Europe and the difficulties of resisting it. Though there are plenty of bad guys here, there are no purely good ones. We are reminded that Czechoslovakia was handed over by the allies to Hitler to appease him, entirely in vain. Under the Nazi jackboot not even close family can be trusted to keep secrets. We see acts of extraordinary bravery while continually questioning whether the price for those acts was too high.

Two expatriates have been parachuted secretly into their homeland tasked by their government-in-exile to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich, Hitler's third-in-command and the monster overseeing the brutal repression of Czechoslovakia. Meeting what is left of the local resistance in Prague, they expect a hero's welcome. Instead they find themselves caught up in violent arguments about whether their mission, Operation Anthropoid, won't lead to worse atrocities.

The narrative includes many hand-held shots with facial close-ups, giving it an immediate, documentary intensity. The colour footage has a washed- out quality that gives a 1940s feel, and the Prague location shots are totally convincing. Even the obligatory romances are fully and plausibly incorporated into the main narrative. The acting is universally excellent: if you didn't know these actors, you'd swear they were all Czechoslovaks. Warning: the dialogue is all in heavily accented English, so it can be sometimes be difficult to hear. But it's never difficult to figure out the intended meaning. This is a film in which actions speak louder than words.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Fault Is in the Stars
20 August 2016
I wanted to like this film. It's based on a compelling true story in which, years after the event, a traumatized Scottish ex-prisoner of war returns to the Burma "Death" Railway to confront his Japanese torturer. Such a scenario is essentially dramatic and gripping without much need of elaboration: recall Death and the Maiden. But though it has its moments, this film is too unrooted in real historical people, places, and events, and just doesn't feel authentic enough.

A major problem is with the casting. Colin Firth is a fine actor when playing within his range, but a ravaged survivor of a POW camp is outside his comfort zone. When a film pairs Firth with Nicole Kidman, romance will be inevitably the chief order of the day. But the romance diverts attention from what should be the central relationship here: that between Lomax and his torturer Nagase. Kidman's a star more than an actress; she has a rootless, cool beauty that doesn't go with the messy historical reality of this scenario. Meanwhile, Stellan Skarsgård as Finlay has a Swedish accent: he's as implausible as a Scotsman as he was as a London detective, but River wasn't beholden to real events.

The casting problem is compounded by the fact that young Lomax is played very well by a different actor (Jeremy Irvine) who doesn't resemble Firth. And then the opening shot of the Forth Bridge suggests Lomax's Scottish background. But there's little else Scottish in the film, robbing Lomax of his real context. Watch the 90-second video of the meeting between Lomax and Nagase: it has all the emotional authenticity this feature failed to attain
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Social Progress Is Possible!
17 August 2016
The latest Moore feature doesn't have the searing anger that fueled Roger & Me or Bowling for Columbine, so it feels like a slightly lesser achievement than those great documentaries. But it's still an eye- opener, even for non-Americans. Moore reminds us that the USA once led the world in developing and implementing progressive social policies. These policies include treating all human beings as equally worthy of respect, ensuring all children are properly nurtured, viewing education as a social good accessible to all, imposing no cruel and unusual punishments on criminals, and making sure women are fully represented at all levels of practical governance.

But in recent years the USA has turned its back on such policies, and Moore crosses the Atlantic to show how other countries (including such unlikely ones as Slovenia and Tunisia), have taken up the progressive torch with remarkable results. Moore's trope of "invading" other countries in order to plant the Stars and Stripes and steal their policies is overdone, but there are plenty of "A-ha!" moments in the film. And Moore doesn't shirk awkward issues: he movingly shows the effort that modern Germany makes to come to terms with its Nazi past, and how against all odds Norway manages to treat its homegrown mass murderer as a human being. His film is also full of good humour. Perhaps being off American soil has liberated his curiosity at the expense of his anger.

So why in Moore's view has America lost its progressive soul? There are several clues in the documentary. One is a chart that shows that the USA actually has by far the highest taxes in the developed world to pay for the massive proportion of its budget that goes on military spending. It's just that these taxes are disguised as something else: tuition fees, for example. One should probably go back to Moore's earlier documentaries for fuller answers. Meanwhile, watch this heartening film and learn that social change for the better is not a Utopian dream--it can actually be achieved.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
45 Years (2015)
8/10
The Difficulty of Moving on after Losing a Loved One
16 August 2016
The promotion for this film leads you to think that it's a murder mystery involving a dark secret from the past. It isn't. It's a much more subtle scenario than that, and probably repays more than one viewing. Watch the slideshow scene very carefully. This is a film that plays its cards close to the chest. It's certainly not one for people who expect a strong plot, compelling action, and a Hollywood ending in which all is satisfactorily resolved.

Years before, Geoff (Tom Courtenay) lost his first love Katya when she fell down a crevasse in a glacier on a Swiss mountain. Now Geoff and Kate (Charlotte Rampling) have been married for 45 years, but he is still emotionally bound to Katya, even though neither he nor Kate have realized the full extent of his fixation. Then Katya's body is found, frozen in time, and this discovery brings the past trauma to the surface where it can no longer be ignored.

Geoff and Kate have enjoyed a long and close (though childless) marriage, and the film climaxes with the party celebrating their 45 years together. The film adopts Kate's point of view. She's consumed by jealousy of Katya, by the sense that she, Kate, was only ever a poor substitute in Geoff's eyes for the dead woman with the similar name. After the final shot, be prepared for a debate about whether men or women deal better with the harsh realities of life.

The film hinges on the performances of Courtenay and Rampling: he's very good, she's excellent. And watch for a brilliant cameo by the dog Max as Kate ascends into the attic! The flat, undramatic East Anglian setting suggests an unconscious choice by Geoff to live in a place as different as possible from the mountainous scene of the trauma, but there are bodies long buried in the Norfolk mud, too. This is a serious film about how difficult it can be to "move on" after the loss of a loved one, and this is not a message that anyone likes to hear, even though it's almost certainly true.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed