Reviews

Well, what depths of bs so-called entertainment are you folks accustomed to these days? I suspect, the majority of you are not noticing how bad the stuff you pay to see is. I'm not saying this film is completely bad, its just that it could have been so much better. There was a nice set up, some good location, filmset and costume choices. However, some of the casting selections really do irritate even when we can see there is a purpose to making certain characters 'villains' - I note specifically Tim Keys in his role as Commissioner and Harris Dickinson as a rather too limp-wristed, soft-effeminite-speaking Richard Attenborough. The first of these conveys no sense of pompous self-importance nor gravitas of the self-important as the character clearly warrants & the 2nd, really, I don't know where to start. Let's just say, wallflowers don't make very good actors - real or fictionalized. Given the dire tripe on offer in cinemas these days, if you really do have a couple of hours to waste, no harm will come to you whilst watching this mildly engaging fantasy trip.

The more I think about this film the less I rate it. If you bother to watch it, your heart string might be twanged a couple of times but, other than that, it will leave you cold. Or, as happened in the cinema I attended, a group of very disgruntled people (at least a dozen) will leave, noisily, half way through. There is just a scintilla of truth to the story, i.e. Goya's portrait was taken from the gallery & Kempton Bunton was associated with the story. Everything else. Rubbish. For your information, if you are not old enough to know, streets in England were very very clean in the 1960's, there were even spittoons as it was illegal to spit on the pavement. Metal dustbins contained ashes (from coal fires) were collected by very efficient and cleanliness aware dustmen from the back alleys of the terraced houses. The fronts of the houses were kept very neat and clean, women scrubbing and polishing their front step was a common sight. Paper was valued as a it had multiple uses. Rags were collected by rag and bone men for the purpose of making brown paper (also much valued). Foods - ie fruit and veg were not wrapped. Take out food was fish and chips in yesterday's newspaper. There is much more that is misrepresented in this presentation. I cant be bothered telling you any more.

This film suffers, like most other presentations that ought to be documentaries but are made into semi-fictions in in order to spread the story, by a really kak-handed script and dodgy film set ups. Fair enough, the story ought to be compelling - after all, we all know what Teflon (TM) is don't we? However, the over emphasis of the 'difficult' relationship the lawyer has with his firm, the lacuna in the lawyer's memory about something it is claimed really mattered to him as a child. No sorry. Hits the too fake, backstory filling blah blah button. At times, the film drones on as you wait for these formalities to be gotten over with. No actor is especially outstanding, not a surprise as there is nothing to run with. Nevertheless, the film carries an important message though. Perhaps this film should have ended on the occurrence of a separate legal challenge with a different manufacturer elsewhere in the US over other pollution issues. There's thousands of them, and they continue to arise. Nothing is solved. Nothing is changed. The story is eternal.

Until this film, I did not understand the term "company town". This was quite enlightening and fills a knowledge gap not actually covered in the movie. McDormand, of course, is the perfect choice as the lead character. She brings more than her acting skills to this presentation, which, all things considered, is remarkable. The real people. The real landscapes. The real vehicles. They add a little; nevertheless, there is a great void. None of the people are 'running away', they are 'seeking' - seeking belonging what we can only guess. For most, it seems, they are not content with the false security that an apparently settled life affords to some. There's a sense of loss that is more than four walls and a roof, work and pay from an unseen corporate employer, connections with people that are other than transactional. The abandoned dog will just stick in your mind. A sad film. A sad reflection on the state of humanity.

A couple of star actors attempt to fill the gaps a poor script leaves them. Meanwhile, the director fails to spot easy to accomplish film scenes that require little other than a bit of thought and setting up that would have provided depth to this very superficial film treatment. Come on you people, are you blind? This is not an every day depiction of marital love, it is a parody of what goes on between a couple when illness intrudes. Cliche follows cliche in this film which makes it just the dreamscape background to your own thoughts as you wait for this thing to end. Ok, one of the actors takes her togs off and you get to gawp, I guess that's why you'll go. There's no other reason to.

Tom Hanks is the only actor who could have played Fred Rogers with any kind of conviction and, he does so with convincing steadiness in this film. Mr Rogers clearly had a talent for being in the present and seeing people for where they were right then. We get hints that Mr Rogers had difficult passages in his own life and in bringing up two boys himself. We can guess why. Projecting 'future's' on to young minds doesn't help them deal with their present issues. This is what Mr Rogers has the good sense to spot. He's rather like a Dog Whisperer/Horse Whisperer wrapped in one Human Whisperer. He's not apparently sentimental - just realistic. Death is around the corner but it doesn't frighten him even though some of the people who he helps clearly are fearful. A beautiful film of compassion and understanding. Several audience members were audibly weeping in my cinema, just be warned!

The set up for this film appears, on the face of it, quite promising. However, there is too much 'wrong' in the execution of it that the final product fails on all fronts. Is it a spoof? A comedy? Historical reconstruction? Ten minutes in and you won't care, you just know you're in for some dull stuff that isn't bad enough for you to walk out. Besides, you want to see what your rated actors are going to do with this lemon. Not a lot as it turns out. If only this enterprise had been taken the next step, that is, turned into a proper pantomime, then we would have laughed, appreciated the pratfalls, slapstick and other tricks that fall flat in straight film making. TV trash. Nothing more.

If you do not know this story, or if you read the book so long ago you have forgotten it then this film will not make any sense. The same actresses play both the children/young teenagers and the 20 something women they become so it is hard to work out which period of their lives is being depicted at any one time. This is before the use of time backflips and fast forwards that are spliced together willy-nilly. There is hardly any dialogue so that we get lots of gurning, irritating giggling like the actresses are secretly going knickerless for laughs, and touching and hugging each other as if to threaten placing a hand somewhere where it shouldn't. I went in error as, after all, the woman who gets listed as an actresss but has none of the requisite skills, namely Laura Dern, is in it. This alone is the only indicator you will need to avoid this utter tripe and offal film.

This is an incredibly well put together documentary. Imelda Marcos doesn't exactly shoot herself in the foot - she is too smart to do that, but you nonetheless get to see the realities she so flagrantly ignores whilst living in her self made fantasy world. How many billions has this power crazed matriarch squirreled away in 140 countries across the world. There are only 8 and a bit billion people on the planet and handing each one a single dollar might seem like generosity but this very much hides the manipulations of the Marcos clan. We note other world leaders seem to be in the same exclusive club as this gurning despot. Lord help us all.

Prepare to be moved to tears. Renee Zellweger pulls off a believable, sympathetic and engaging portrayal of Judy Garland. Even without knowing the true extent of the personal difficulties Garland had to face in her short life, this film manages to convey the singer's compulsion to perform. The people surrounding her, whilst often acknowledging her incredible skill, nevertheless seemed to have been hell-bent on undermining her. This film hints at the toxic environment Garland inhabited in order to ply her trade. The story is sad but Garland shines through. What a star! And what a marvelous film, actors, script, cinematography all working beautifully together. Deserves to win all the awards and plaudits.

Certain of Lowry's paintings have become iconic since the painter's death so, we cannot really feel the rejection he is subjected to by his screen mother, Vanessa Redgrave. Redgrave gives somewhat of a likeable performance of a woman who by all accounts was a harridan with ideas well above her station in life. The real Mrs Lowry did suffer some unfortunate life experiences and yes, blaming her son - whose birth was extremely difficult - is understandable to an extent. However, to persist with this attitude towards her son for 52 years is damnable. We don't really get to see this real nastiness in this saccharined and tidied up portrayal. For all its faults though, Spall and Redgrave give a creditable sense of depth to this brief view of one of Britain's most beloved modern artist's life. Older viewers will spot a number of glaring prop errors but that still doesn't deflect from a nicely told fictional tale based on a real person.

I deliberately didn't read, listen to, or watch any reviews of this film before watching it. Let Tarantino tell me himself, let the movie speak. And so it does. Superficially, there is a tale of thwarted acting ambition, precarious employment, precarious life, gallows humour, trouble and strife (beautiful wives often coming with some hard to live with personal habits/traits they can do nothing about), the contrast between the 'haves' and have not's', outward appearances and the very different internal dialogue of certain characters...much more in fact. This, as we all knew before we stepped into the movie theatre, is a film we will revisit many, many times. It has plenty to keep us entertained for decades. Tarantino manages to conflate fact and fiction in a very entertaining, if gruesome, tale. His story references the Californian Tate and LaBianca murders, the Manson Family cult, the film careers of Burt Reynolds (who had, ironically been cast by Tarantino as the blind recluse at the Manson Family ranch, George Spahn, in this film but died) and Hal Needham, Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood, a precocious child actor - possibly Jodie Foster etc, and all the while referencing his own (Tarantino's) filmography - e.g. the reading of pulp fiction, 'Dogs' , music references etc. I haven't awarded a 10 only because this film cannot convey it's full message in one sitting - this isn't necessarily a fault but, by the very fact that this film has to be seen more than once sets it apart. It's a grim tale with some horrid truths wrapped in it. This is not everyone's cup of tea. I enjoyed it though.

There is no doubt that time and expense were not spared in the production of this film. This does not prevent it being an absolute dud. Whilst there are big orchestral pieces there is no memorable tune or anything else to engage with. The script lacks vivacity and drags on and on until we eventually reach the predictable end. Was the whole shot against a green background? If not why are the actors so oddly placed, their eyes pointing in peculiar directions. Blunt gives a creditable performance undermined only by the lack of decent story line and script. Stand out performance is Streep as Cousin Topsy. Shame the rest of the film wasn't as magical as Streep's little set piece. Watch once and forget.

Ralph Fiennes manages to steer a somewhat tortuous journey through Nureyev's early life and then his dance career up to the time of his defection to the West. At times, the story arc is rather confused by the constant flips between past and 'present'. Nevertheless, we soon see that precedents for Nureyev's life choices prove interesting in themselves. Dancing by Oleg Ivenko is evocative of the great man himself. A downside of the almost documentary style treatment is that Nureyev's adult professional dance career is compressed and reduced in importance such that when we reach the key point of the film we are nonplussed as to why this particular dancer is the subject of so much controversy, closely watched by KGB agents and feted by professional dancers we've never heard of. Beautiful script by David Hare, lovely cinematography, well chosen actors but in total, a mite too uneven to be perfection. Viewers should also note that there was an earlier docudrama entitled 'Rudolph Nureyev- Dance to Freedom', 2015, from which White Crow appears to filch its story arc. In truth, Nureyev is far more of an enigma than either film suggests.

In order to get to a point where the story really begins to play out, there is a very long and unfocused backstory introduction. We don't really know what we are supposed to be taking note of. We feel like a fly on the wall, or indeed the drone filming the family wedding...too distant to be engaged in the real actions. We are given a few mis-directions and red herrings, not that we could ever work this out to begin with. We start to believe that a teenage girl has set up a huge scam. This is preposterous but we do so anyway. One character does suspect the truth and is alone in speaking out. Everyone else tip toes about keeping the secrets everyone else also knows. The victims are ultimately the ones who try to make amends. It's a sad tale where no one wins. A subtle and well made film of toxic family closeness.

IMDB refused to allow my earlier review - all I did was refer to some information recorded in the IMDB listing information for this title. Go have a look. I warned against thinking this as an entertainment. I retain that view. Ms Coleman deserved her Oscar, but not because this is a good film. Do not waste your money or time going to see this. It will NEVER be screened on TV because of its content. Take that as a big hint.

What is a human life worth? For some, too many in fact, the answer is nothing. The teenage boy in this tale knows he is 'nothing', nothing to his parents, to his society and in Lebanese law. Nevertheless, he takes charge of what he can and tries valliantly to save his closest sister from the kind of future their own mother has lived. He fails and falls into another hell-hole of grinding poverty and alienation only to be given caring responsibilities for the undocumented child of an undocumented immigrant from Ethiopia. The boy has one outstanding trait, compassion for the lost child. He suffers hideous deprivations to keep this child alive and relatively safe. He doesn't know about the cataclysmic events that are playing out around him. All is pain. It is a marvel that anyone in this story can bear to go on. They do and the chaos just keeps going. This is a very powerful and eloquent film. It depicts the Lebanon but this same story is playing out in countries all over the world. Like the boy, all we have the hang on to is hope.

Here we are again. Let's take some real historical characters and rewrite their lives to fit with our modern day sensibilities. I'd rather 'fictionalised' characters were put into these stories but then, the audiences would have to think. Thinking is too hard, apparently. We instead have to be given a right thorough wash over with emote. There's only crying to be done with this rather morose film. We're missing all those other feelings that give us a nip. Marginal intellect engaged, hankies used, mood altered. I guess that will have to do.

In the great scheme of things, 200 years isn't a long time. In terms of recognising women as fully fledged human beings equal to males, it is far too long. Hurrah for farsighted people like President Carter who enabled the race and gender equality process to begin in earnest. Hurrah hurrah for the The Notorious RBG. Without her, the plight of all disadvantaged people would be as though stuck in the dark ages. This biopic skims rapidly through the great landmark actions that RBG promoted. It's a great testament to her and all those who have worked for the same aims. All men and women are the 'same' and deserve to be treated equally. Recommended viewing for all.

For those of us without too much classical music knowledge, the music and dancing at the beginning is a bit of a challenge. It turns out this is 'The Merry Widow Waltz' and thus, those knowing viewers are already one step ahead in this game of cat and mouse. Watching this as a complete ignoramus, one is put in exactly the same position as young Charlie and the rest of the Newton family. They don't know they are harboring a dangerous man, and wouldn't (don't) believe anyone who would say anything bad about their jolly, outgoing and personable relative. Hitchcock has managed to depict the true horror of finding out truths no-one else will believe and knowing that someone really has it in for you at the same time. Irrespective of how old this film is, it really does pack a punch and deserves to be in one's top ten of classic films.

In addressing directly the racism experienced by black people in a white dominated society, this film manages to expose the mendacity and inhumane motives of those corporate mammoths we cannot avoid in all our daily lives. This is achieved in the most inventive of ways using overdubbing, dream sequencing, 'realised' split-screening, fabulous music and excellent dialogue. All the characters are believable...down to the satyr like creatures the big corp is developing. There's so much to pay attention to one must at first just accept the whole and go with it. Far from being preachy and dull, this really is an uplifting film. Beautifully executed from script, cinematography to acting. I want to see it again.

Imagine yourself on the margins of economic well being. You're jammed into very small living quarters with barely an inch to yourself. Your work is unskilled and insecure. Your life lacks most of the things everyone else seems to take for granted. Nevertheless, you do have some, if small, control in the way you live your life. In the absence of blood family you choose an odd collection of other people similarly dispossessed. You have a kind of happiness and non-judgmental regard from those companions. Fortified, you begin to supplement your thin earnings with shop lifting. This becomes an exciting little game that you then begin to teach to a couple of child waifs and strays you take into your care. They delight you and they love you. Perfect, hey? We know it isn't. We watch unsurprised when the whole venture starts to unravel. Love lives on though. Even the thief is honest. This film is a compassionate treatment of a difficult subject. It is a little rough around the edges but a satisfying entertainment nevertheless.