Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Sylvia (2003)
Patchy
17 November 2003
I am pretty familiar with Plath's story, and am also a keen fan of her work, which i think contributed to my hesitancy in seeing the film. I did not have high hopes for this film at all, and honestly, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised.

My main criticisms:

I found it hard to get past the whole 'Oooh look it's Gwyneth Paltrow as Sylvia Plath'. Someone who isn't famous on a global scale would have been more credible.

The whole premise of the film hinges on the deep passionate relationship of Plath and Hughes, yet I never really felt convinced by it. The relationship came across as quite two dimensional, and even pretty one sided on the part of Paltrow/Plath. Instead of being portrayed as an emotionally fragile woman driven to the edge by Hughes' constant philandering and ultimate betrayal, Plath actually seemed to come across as being deeply insecure and neurotic, constantly suffering from extreme PMT, and overreacting every time she saw Hughes even talking to another woman, rather than having genuine reason to suspect his infidelity.

There were a couple of key dramatic moments (such as after they have made love for the first time, and when they are out in the boat together) that felt very hammy, so disrupted the momentum of the piece.

The score is just awful. Totally totally overwrought, over the top, too loud and too much of it. Plus, as Paltrow/Plath really starts to lose her mind there is an almost constant sound of howling wind in the backgroud. Again, OTT. Less definitely would have been more.

HOWEVER

Ok, I complained about Paltrow above, but she really did a great job. She really is a very talented actress, and it is a shame the whole celebrity thing gets in the way. She was particularly fine in the latter stages of the film, and the sad descent into loneliness and irreversible depression was very well judged.

Likewise, Daniel Craig was very enigmatic, although I wonder whether the one sidedness of the relationship as mentioned above may have come from him.

As a whole the film was very sympathetic, and showed how hard it must have been for Hughes to live with Plath. It doesn't justify his behaviour but rather tries to show an understanding. It also evokes a sense of a time when poets were considered important.

This film stayed with me for some days after watching it, and I would recommend it. It is somewhat uneven in pace and direction, but I think Christine Jeffs is a director with talent, although her inexperience showed. But above all, it renewed my interest in both Plath and Hughes.

7/10
61 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Extremely disappointing
17 November 2003
Ok, they spent so much time worrying about the special effects they forgot about the script!

The first Matrix film was truly astonishing. Enigmatic, new, exciting, original and refreshing, it came like a bolt out of the blue and made us feel excited about 'movies' again......but then came the utter bollocks that was 'Reloaded', and now, even worse, the total tripe that is 'Revolutions'.

The script of 'Revolutions' is totally, totally awful, with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have ever heard in a cinema. As a whole the film is absolutely and utterly predictable. The acting was patchy, with only Carrie Ann Moss and Hugo Weaving really standing out. Of course we had the usual couple of unintentionally hilarious Keanu moments.

In praise, a couple of set pieces worked very well, and were exhilarating visual treats. It's a pity that the rest of the film hung around it was so sub standard in comparison. The trilogy now comes across like any other blockbusting action film - a few great sequences with impressive special effects, but with not much else to offer in the way of storyline, dialogue and performance.

It just feels like they should have left 'The Matrix' as it was, and not bothered with the remaining two installments. The Wachowski Brothers seemed to be totally out of their depth in terms of the ridiculous storyline with 'Reloaded' and then got in even deeper trying to dig their way out in the final installment. But is it really the final installment? Seemed to me like the ending was an ending that was not completely final, and a way has been left open for even more sequels in this franchise. Another reviewer here has said that Hollywood now no longer produces films, but franchises. That, my friends, is it in a nutshell.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Amores Perros (2000)
10/10
Outstanding. 10 out of 10.
11 February 2003
I never got to see this film while it was in the theatres. I was always so busy and anyway, the talk of dog fighting put me off. But after hearing so many glowing recommendations, I finally got around to renting it on DVD.

Set in Mexico and focusing on three separate yet interwoven stories, the film uses a terrible car crash as a jumping off point.

In the first segment a young man, Octavio, (played by the superb Gael Garcia) is in love with his abusive brother's wife. He wants to raise enough money for them to run away together so he uses his beloved dog 'Cofi' and gets involved in the violent world of dog fighting. The second act tells the tale of a supermodel whose lover leaves his wife and daughters to set up home with her. She is devoted to her terrior 'Richie' and is devastated when he disappears through a hole in the floor and doesn't return. Throughout both of these segments we catch glimpses of a transient, scruffy character who is perpetually surrounded by a pack of adoring dogs, and we finally learn his story in the third and final act.

At three hours, the structure of the film is impressive, especially as it begins at a frenetic pace and then slows down somewhat - but it leads us to a satisfying conclusion. The soundtrack in particular is brilliant, as is the acting, writing, photography and design.

'Amores Perros' is as the title states, a film about love, and all types of love. Blind love, foolish love, familial love, co-dependant love, unrequited love, parental love, thwarted love, sexual love - it's all there and played out through the love the principal characters have for their pet dogs. In one way the film examines the human 'animal instinct', the human capacity for violence and our deep seated need for survival. It is a huge, sprawling piece which is exhilarating, visceral, violent, heartbreaking, funny, passionate, vibrant and urgent.

Films like this don't come along very often. You really should see it.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Together (2000)
A gentle and observant comedy
11 February 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** A warm and big hearted comedy, with poignant, bittersweet overtones.

Set in a Swedish commune of hippies in the 1970's, the 'Together collective' is a group of political idealists who wish to reject the bourgeois values of modern society. Naturally the socialist utopia begins to break down as the reality of the traditional conventions of human nature creep in.

Goran, a leading member of the collective, brings his sister Elisabeth and her two children to stay at the commune when she leaves her abusive and alcoholic husband. Initally pretty bewildered by the bizarre environment she finds herself in, she begins to enjoy her new life after being befriended by Anna, a member of the commune who, according to her ex-husband Lasse, has decided to become a lesbian for 'political reasons'.

Lasse is in turn being pursued by Klas, a naive homosexual, and Lena, Goran's girlfriend, is also sleeping with Erik, the rich man's son who has rejected his background to become a welder - a job at which he does not excel - and is the most ardently political member of the collective. Whilst Goran and Lena practice an 'open relationship', Goran ultimately struggles and finally cracks in one of the most climactic scenes of the film.

Director Moodysson shows his brilliant understanding of childhood in his portrayal of the budding relationship between Eva, the teenage daughter of Elisabeth, and Frederik, the son of an uptight middle class family who live across the street. Both loners who don't have any friends at school, they bond through the discovery that they both have bad eyesight and slowly become friends. The pain of adolescence, sexual naivety and acute awkardness is captured here perfectly.

Conflict in the house soon ensues when the rejected conventions begin to creep in - Goran and Lasse buy a TV for the kids to watch, the kids picket for meat and begin to play with Lego. Two members leave in disgust to join the rival commune ' Mother Earth', and Erik leaves, full of disappointment with what he sees as the political apathy of the house.

Despite the problems at the collective, it's warmth and love is illustrated in the contrast with the loneliness of Elisabeth's abandoned husband. He initially drowns his sorrows with yet more alcohol, but is shocked into repentance after a disastrous night out with his children when he gets drunk and is eventually arrested. A plumber, he meets another man who's wife has also left him, and is so lonely he calls him out to fix a non-existent toilet purely for someone to talk to.

Eventually the film ends on a feelgood note, but of course as viewers from the 21st century we know that this particular brand of idealism is approaching it's sell by date. However, while this is really a film about the conflict of individuality versus the complexity of family and community, it never judges or damns, it simply observes.

Moodysson treats the era with a wry sense of humour without actually laughing at it, and lets the plot gently unfold with a deft hand. An extremely intelligent piece, the acting is impeccable throughout.

Highly recommended.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
very strange, but very good
20 November 2002
I won't summarise the plot as it is done so by other reviewers.

This is a highly original and unconventional yet mesmerising piece and I agree with many others that Lynne Ramsay is an exceptional talent, who possesses a vision the likes of Guy Ritchie could never even begin to imagine.

This is not an easy film to watch and it requires patience and concentration. Ramsay lets the film unfurl, slowly, with confidence and an assured touch that uses mystery and a touch of incoherence to create a confusing but oddly compelling dreamscape. Where are we? What are we seeing? What exactly is Morvern thinking and feeling? She is clearly in a very strange, disorientated headspace and this film is perfectly engineered to assist us in understanding and occupying that space.

The mystery and enigma of Morvern is wonderfully portrayed by Samantha Morton and the soundtrack encapsulates the atmosphere, as does the lack of incidental music.

Those that want to quibble over inconsistencies such as the direction of the computer keyboard delete key and whether it is in fact possible to bury a body on the moors with a trowel should get over it, step back and look at the big picture.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Brutal, harrowing and brilliant
11 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILERS**

Three cheers to Peter Mullan for telling this story.

Yet another filthy and disgusting aspect of the sordid history of the Catholic Church comes to light. In Ireland many young women who were seen as 'wayward' and 'impure' are sent away and imprisoned in Catholic laundries to repent their 'sins' and cleanse their souls. Run by bullying Nuns who brutalise the girls both physically and mentally there was little chance of escape for those who were sent there, and indeed many women spent their entire lives in these laundries.

This film tells the stories of three young women who are sent to a Magdalene Asylum. Margaret is raped by her cousin at a family wedding but is obviously seen as being a liability to her family. Rose has had a baby out of wedlock, and is sent to the convent in disgrace after being forced by her parents and local priest to give up her son for adoption. Bernadette is in an orphanage and flirts with the local boys, much to the concern of those who run the institution. Once there we also meet Crispina, an unfortunate and simple minded soul who is brilliantly played by Eileen Walsh.

The bulk of the story focuses on the tedium and brutality of the daily regime, and hopelessness of the situation the girls are in. The Nuns are cruel, hypocritical and corrupt. The priest is no better and takes advantage of his position.

I think the film also shows, quite well, how this kind of system so easily institutionalises the people in these kind of situations - captors as well as captives. In one scene Margaret finds a gate carelessly left open. She can escape, unseen, but chooses not to. She is almost too afraid to leave the asylum.

We eventually see a triumphant ending for a couple of the girls, and a tragic ending for another as she is sent away to a madhouse to keep her from telling tales. This is one of the most harrowing scenes in the film, and stayed with me long after I had seen it. However, what hurt the most is the knowledge that despite the escape of two girls, many more were left with no hope of any release whatsoever.

This film is well written, well acted and very well shot. At times the pace is slightly laboured and ponderous, with a couple of very heavy handed scenes which could have used a lighter touch - the same effect would have been achieved. All in all though this is very highly recommended.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Absolutely awful
10 October 2002
I was very much looking forward to seeing this film, and was extremely disappointed.

Pretentious and self indulgent, the character development and plotline construction within the film seem to be far less important than the use of flashy stylistic techniques. A particular 'motif' that runs through the film is the use of running the film backward. Initally it is used extremely effectively and was an excellent way of introducing the main protagonists. However this style is overused and merely becomes a gimmick. The characters become two dimensional cardboard cut outs, with little to explain the motivation behind their behaviour and the dynamics of their relationships with others. The film is very misogynistic and is led by a character whose self loathing is only matching by his contempt for women. The only woman he has any respect for and falls in love with is in fact a virgin. He loves and covets her because he sees her as 'pure'

Despite this on the whole the performances are good. James Van Der Beeck slightly overdoes the cynical antihero, whilst Shannyn Sossamon is excellent, bringing sweetness and sadness to her character who is essentially very naive - so naive that she is raped but doesn't seem to realise!

This film is extrmely flawed and falls way short of the mark. With a little more depth and more thought about the substance rather than style it could have been much, much better.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Why didn't I think this was very funny?
9 October 2002
I went to see this movie as I was in the mood for a light hearted easy viewing comedy. Except I didn't find it that funny. It made me smile a couple of times rather than laugh out loud.

This movie is ok, but it takes character stereotyping onto a new level, and the jokes are incredibly predictable - I could see them coming a mile off. Although I must admit it is probably funnier than 90% of the 'comedy' that we are treated to by the studios.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sweet Sixteen (I) (2002)
10/10
Stunning
7 October 2002
I felt like I had been punched after I watched this film - it is one of the most powerful movies I have seen in a long time.

This is Ken Loach at his very best, with a wonderful script from Paul Laverty. A tragic, bittersweet tale of a young boys hope and optimism crushed by his uncaring family and the harsh world in which he lives. Despite the fact that this film is a tragedy, it is also very sweet, with some touching moments and a great deal of humour. There is also hope of a sort - the central character Liam has an older sister who cares about him deeply and is always there for him.

The acting is stellar, it is shot with finesse and all in all is a masterful piece of film making. See this.
34 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed