Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Gone Girl (2014)
David Fincher back on form
7 October 2014
This is a critic proof film. And I don't mean that bad reviews will not hamper it's success, but that the way it is executed means that it is almost impossible to review in any kind of meaningful way without giving away gigantic plot details which will ruin a viewers enjoyment. This in itself is a great compliment, because the plot developments and the twists and turns in it are to a great degree what makes it such a good film.

As the movie opens, we are introduced to Nick Dunne, who seems an affable enough man, on his wedding anniversary. He goes to a bar in the middle of the day and has an exchange with the barmaid and we are not told what kind of relationship he and the barmaid have, which turns out to be a rather important one to the story. Nick tells the barmaid that it is the day of his and his wife's anniversary and there is a suggestion that the marriage is not an entirely happy one, but is anyone really happy in marriage? He is then called by one of his neighbours who informs him that he can see that the front door of his home is ajar. Nick thanks him and makes his way home, where he finds the open door, an overturned coffee table and a few other bits of what appear to be evidence of some sort of disturbance. There is no sign of his wife. Nick calls her name several times and she does not appear, we see the neighbour who alerted Nick to his open front door with an expression of concern on his face when he hears Nick calling for his wife. When Nick realises his wife is nowhere to be seen, he calls the police. The remainder of 'Gone Girl' is an absolutely spellbinding mystery-thriller, and handled with masterful brushstrokes by Mr. Fincher. I have been led to believe that the film follows the book fairly faithfully (I haven't read it), metronoming between Nick's ordeal with the media circus and his wife's diary and by extension flashbacks to how they met and their marriage story.

I think there are many reasons this film works so well, not the least of which is that Gillian Flynn adapted her own novel for it. Inspired casting plays a major role too. Ben Affleck has the exact sort of non-threatening good looks of a man caught up in circumstances he cannot apprehend or control, Rosamund Pike as the 'gone girl' is completely riveting, I believed every word she spoke, in fact, I would have believed that her dialogue was not rehearsed at all.

I have no doubt that, come Oscar nomination time, 'Gone Girl' will be recognized in adapted screenplay, actor, actress, writing and directing categories, and they will all be very well deserved.

One of my learned movie critic colleagues said of this film 'It knows what it is' and before I saw 'Gone Girl', I was not entirely clear that such a statement belonged in a movie review. After seeing it, I now believe I know what he meant and why he said it. I believe he said it because David Fincher has never been a director to follow audience led formulas, nor does he have a reputation for 'giving in' to test audiences and changing things after audience feedback and at the behest of studio executives. But this film is different. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of him considering audience expectations, but there is an element of formula here. Which is not to say that we see anything coming. Quite the contrary, this film takes a great many unexpected directions, but the way it is executed in itself can be considered formulaic. I want to be clear, the twists and turns here are delightfully revealed, but the very idea of twists and turns is in itself a bit formulaic. This is no criticism, but observation.

David Fincher has finally found a story that satisfies almost every aspect of his film-making urges, and the exuberance with which he tells this story is in every single frame.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Misery (1990)
10/10
Now that's how you do a thriller!
9 September 2014
I have long held the belief that most, if not all, of Stephen King's stories start out in his mind as 'what if' scenarios, we all have them, but King takes things to the most extreme conclusions possible and scares the daylights out of us in so doing. With 'Misery', he has given us a story so close to autobiographical horror that you could be forgiven for being duped into thinking it actually happened to him.

Paul Sheldon is a talented writer who has been bashing out trashy pulp romances which take place in the early 1900's involving a woman named Misery Chastain. They are wildly successful novels which amass him a fortune, facilitate sending his daughter to the best schools and all the other luxuries that a writer of such success enjoys. But he feels as though he has sold out, he has a burning urge to publish his 'real' book and to be taken more seriously, and in this adaptation of King's novel, we are introduced to him as he finishes his opus while holed up in a remote cabin in Colorado. He then attempts to navigate his car through a blizzard and ends up skidding off the road and landing on a snowy bank, upside down. A figure appears and carries him out of the snowed in vehicle. This figure, we soon learn, is Annie Wilkes, and she is his self-proclaimed 'number one fan'. She also happens to be a nurse, and begins the long process of treating his injuries and nursing him back to health in her home. She tells him she has called a doctor and been given what seems fairly reasonable advice about keeping him there until the weather clears if she is able to take care of him herself. I assure you that sharing these plot details gives nothing away, they are merely set-up for the very dark path the story goes down.

It turns out that Annie is not entirely of sound mind, and that is almost certainly an understatement. She comes home one day with the latest of his 'Misery' novels and when she discovers that he has killed her off, well, let's just say she is not a little annoyed! I can give no more of the plot away, save to say that this is a thriller of the highest order, and the way Annie's psychosis reveals is performed by Kathy Bates with such masterful skill that she quite literally disappears into the role.

Rob Reiner, whose credits include 'The Princess Bride', 'This is Spinal Tap' and King's own 'Stand by Me', at first seems a strange director to helm a horror adaptation, but I rush to assure you he has crafted an incredibly effective thriller. He seems quite at home creating scenes of almost unbearable suspense, but this is not solely to his credit. The casting here is sublime. I have never seen anything Kathy Bates has appeared in, and I believe my lack of knowledge of her work only enhanced my complete belief in her characters state of mind. Other viewers may not be so lucky. There are playful scenes at the beginning of the film which hint that she may not be the full ticket, but then, quite suddenly, we are in no doubt: This woman is completely unhinged. Although some who have read the novel may feel that some of the more horrifying things she does to Sheldon have been watered down a bit, I thought the changes worked here. James Caan, who Reiner coaxed out of retirement and has spent virtually his entire career playing tough, virile and energetic characters, spends almost the entire running time of this film in bed. The dichotomy of having such a physical actor playing a helpless victim is absolutely inspired, and he carries his weight right along with Bates. The cat and mouse chemistry between these two is nothing short of fantastic. These are performers at the top of their game. The supporting cast is rounded out by fine actors too. Richard Farnsworth and the criminally underused Frances Sternhagen play the aging local sheriff and his plucky wife, and we are treated to Lauren Bacall as Sheldon's agent, who is dignity itself.

A thrilling story by Stephen King, adapted screenplay by William Goldman, direction by Rob Reiner, performers of the highest standard, and a massively effective score all add up to one of the most suspenseful and effective horror-thrillers of recent years. Have fun, I did.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Exorcist (1973)
10/10
Jason Miller!
23 May 2010
There is one thing consistently missing from reviews of this film, and that is of the performance by Jason Miller. I have watched this film probably more than thirty times, and, notwithstanding Mark Kermode's claims that it is simply the best film ever made (a claim I have difficulty refuting), even his accolades don't contain appropriate kudos to Mr Miller's acting. Don't get me wrong, Ellen Burstyn really should have won the Oscar for actress for this, she is mesmerising, and von sydow and all the supporting actors are amazing, but Miller's performance is a complete revelation, his character experiences the most dramatic emotional and spiritual arc, there is a moment during the exorcism in which he is looking at Regan and Merrin, it is one of the most believable moments of transition I think I have ever seen, his faith is being restored because he is witnessing the true exorcism of a true demon...........next time you watch this film, watch him, he really is amazing.....
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Braveheart (1995)
7/10
The Academy got it wrong but.....
7 May 2010
I have tried to sit through this film on many occasions and haven't managed for several reasons, the primary one being that the Academy thought Gibson was a better director than Michael Mann and Ron Howard ( I don't recall if Mann was nominated, he certainly should have been), another being that I just can't stand the sight of Mel Gibson, another being that the Scottish accents are absolutely DREADFUL. I have, however, set myself a goal to see every Best Picture winner in reverse chronological order (yes I am an anorak) and Braveheart happens to be the first I haven't seen. So I finally managed to get through it and my conclusions are as follows:

  • It's really quite a well made film, actually most of Gibsons directing efforts are good films production wise - I guess it wouldn't have had such commercial appeal if he used Scottish actors and no-one understood what the hell they were saying -the Academy showered it with awards because it has all the ingredients of what they normally give all the big awards to ie, an inspirational true story (although Gibson was quite creative with historical events), a great soundtrack, a tragic tear-jerking ending....


So yes, the Academy got it wrong, but it's not the first or last time, the biggest injustice ever is that Slumdog Millionaire was showered with so many awards, it was a good, entertaining film, but that's it, no way it deserved the awards it got. Oh, and considering the other nominees for '95, I think probably Sense and Sensibility and Apollo 13 were better films than Braveheart, but 'Heat' was the best big studio film of the year and it wasn't nominated, and Michael Mann was the best director.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Avatar (2009)
10/10
There's something wrong with you if you don't like this film
20 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
When I left my flat to see a screening of Avatar earlier, I noticed a beautiful, thin, orange sliver of a crescent moon in the sky, and it was, from my perspective, sitting just above the cinema I was going to and I thought 'How beautiful, I hope it's a sign of how good this film is going to be.' It was.

What other action director has a heart as big as Jim Cameron? Remember the way he brought Linsay back to life and how she and Virgil fall in love with each other all over again in The Abyss? The relationship between Arnie's terminator and young John Connor in T2? The romance at the heart of True Lies? And then he gave us the emotional mega-whammy of 'Titanic'! Now he delivers a film with not only a beautiful love story at it's heart, but suggests that there is a planet somewhere on which every inhabitant is completely in tune with every other creature and the planet's ROOTS in such a way that if and when it's existence is threatened, they all come together to defend it....

Any director who goes to the trouble of INVENTING the technology needed to see his vision come to life the way he wants and the patience to disappear off the radar for 12 years, painstakingly making sure it looks and feels and sounds exactly as he envisioned it deserves a new category of Academy Award. Most Groundbreaking Film of the Year award perhaps? About half an hour into watching this film, I realised I was watching it as a film critic, looking for flaws, then I turned that part of my mind off and decided to just let myself enjoy the story, and the effects, and the music, and the colours, and the humour....

Yes, we have seen the basic story before, it does resemble Dances With Wolves and The Last Samurai, and Cameron sets it all up a bit quickly and too easily, but I can think of no other director who can take such familiar material and inject it with such joyous, ecstatic enthusiasm. It does take a while to build up, but until the action really kicks off just sit back and soak up the beauty of what you are seeing (the reinvention of how films are made). Incidentally, don't go in expecting any shocking moments of things seemingly flying out of the screen, it's not that kind of 3D film (although there are little white spidery type things that seem to dance in front of the screen), the 3D here just invites you in, in fact I'm looking forward to seeing it again in 2D just to enjoy the emotion of it, and again in IMAX to really get the full monty, and probably again just because it has to be seen on a big screen before it leaves cinemas, but I suspect that is a long way off.

Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich take note, the master is back, and he has pushed 'the boat' out yet again.

Edited 24/12/09....I have been watching this films position on IMDBs highest grossing movies of all time and it has jumped from #295 to #240 in 24 hours!!! So to all you naysayers, whether you like it or not, something about this film has captured people's imaginations and hearts just like Titanic did. According to my calculations, all Avatar has to do is perform like this for another month or so and it will be neck and neck with Titanic as far as gross ticket sales is concerned, and I couldn't be happier!!
25 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Almost perfect
20 September 2009
This is as close to a perfect film as I believe I have ever seen. Everything about it just WORKS. Stephen King famously sells his stories to filmmakers for one dollar, well this has got to be the best dollar he has ever spent. Shawshank arrived with no fanfare, no big premiere, it just opened. When I first read the Stephen King story, I thought it would be one of the best King stories to be made into a film I could imagine, and Frank Darabont did not let me down.

Casting Morgan Freeman was probably the biggest coup for this film, he is the absolute soul of dignity in everything he appears in, Tim Robbins, relatively unknown at the time of filming, is a revelation. It is, in fact, almost impossible to imagine any other actors in a single role in this film it is so perfectly cast. Then there is the music, so wonderfully incidental and appropriate. I could go on and on about specifics, photography, lighting, but it is probably best to say that anyone with a heart and a keen eye for good film-making should not miss this film. Every time I watch it I have a lump in my throat for nearly the entire running time, maybe because I have such a soft spot for it, but also because, when you know the story and it unfolds for you, every time you watch it different emotions come to the fore. There have been criticisms that Shawshank is nothing more than the most manipulative form of emotional heart-string tugging, but those criticisms are wrong, whenever Darabont was at risk of overdoing it with the manipulation, he pulled back. There is a moment near the end when it would have been perfectly appropriate for Freeman's character to burst into tears (the character does in the story), but he does not. It is an immensely effective moment, the expression on his face is so convincing that you cannot help but be reduced to tears yourself. Whether it was the actors decision or the directors is as irrelevant as the many detractors of this beautifully realised masterpiece.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Tarantino RULES
20 August 2009
'Death Proof' was unfairly treated by critics in my opinion, and this is being hailed as a return to form for Mr Tarantino, which it most definitely is. He has been apparently working on this for years and now that it has finally hit the screens, it was well worth the wait. He completely outdoes himself here, there is not a single scene that doesn't work, a single actor out of place. Until I saw this, 'Jackie Brown' was my favourite of Tarantino's films, but this just nudges that one into second place. Christoph Waltz is a complete revelation, Tarantino wouldn't make this film unless he could find an actor who could really speak all the languages he speaks, and now we can see why, it simply would not have worked otherwise.

Anyone who enjoys films and how they are made or anyone who just enjoys films would be crazy to miss this, it will go down in history as one of the very best ever made.
2 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Monster (2003)
10/10
amazing film
24 June 2009
I just finished watching this film with director's commentary and Theron's commentary. I saw it at the cinema on it's release and once in between then and now, and I just don't know where to begin....

This film got a lot of attention because of Theron's performance, and it is possibly one of the most richly deserved Oscars in Oscar history (along with Meryl Streep in Sophie's choice and Robert De Niro in Raging Bull), but it should not be viewed as a stage for her performance alone, it is a film of astonishing power, I don't believe I have ever felt so drained after watching a film. The story of this woman's incredibly unfortunate life unfolds with more compassion than perhaps some would think she deserves, and question marks must remain over how much artistic license was taken in making it (the director herself says that Wuornos was a great animal lover but to include that in the film would have been a logistical nightmare), but as this film washes over you all is forgiven.

Theron's performance is nothing short of extraordinary, she uses her entire body to convey emotions in ways I have never seen, she asked the director to move a prop so she could lean on it (you'll know when, people comment on the scene). Roger Ebert said 'This is one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema' and he is right. Theron seems to have transcended every other method ever known to actors and created a technique not ever seen before, you will have to see it to believe.

And I repeat myself, for which I apologize, but this should not be seen just for Theron's performance, this is a film of incredible emotional power, Christina Ricci should not go unmentioned for her performance, although against Theron's it must surely be overshadowed.

I have seen both documentaries on the subject of Aileen Wuornos, and this film captures her anger at what life threw at her, her confusion at why she had to do the things she felt she had to do, her complexities, her rage, her agonizing hope.........

If you have not availed yourself of this wonderful film, I urge you to see it, you will not be sorry, it is a true masterpiece.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed