BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Recently watched movies.

Ah-chie · February 5, 2015 3:19 am

I just remembered another movie we recently saw that I was pretty impressed with - The Wipers Times.

Again we saw this on Netflix and it's the reason why I am so glad we got this service. You can pick up all sorts of movies that you would never get a chance to see on regular Canadian TV or in the local cinemas in a city the size the one we live in.

I looked it up afterwards and apparently it was a TV movie presented on the BBC Two back in 2013 and starred Ben Chaplin (as Captain Fred Roberts) and Julian Rhind-Tutt as his "side kick" Lt Jack Pearson. Michael Palin had a smaller but no less significant role as a General. Briefly the story is set in the trench warfare of WWI when a British Captain (Roberts) comes across a printing press and gets the bright idea of producing a "newspaper" journal by the soldiers for the soldiers in the trenches.

This actually did happen (the latest reproduction edition of The Wipers Times was put out in 2006) and it was filled with poetry, satrical articles and commentary. The Wipers Times was a huge hit among the troops but unloved intensely by the military brass (except by the General who figured out that it was good for morale).

Both Dan and I love movies usually that are set in WWI and this one, though it took its time finding its feet, did a bang up job when it started chugging along.

What made this film so different was it's presentation. It was almost surreal at times - often breaking away from the main story with periphial sidebars that had a dreamlike quality about them (almost reminiscent of the acts up on the stage during the play Caberet). At first I found this rather jarring but then upon further thought I learned to appreciate them and saw that they really added to the nightmarish atmosphere that the men were under when in combat.

There was a lot of subtle and sometime not so subtle humour in this film. Chaplin was absolutely fabulous in his role. His wasn't an overly animated performance but after a while you did realise just how much emotion he was conveying with his actions and almost stoic facial expressions. You had to pay close attention but the cumulative effect of his performance was very dramatic when reflected upon later.

I suspect this production didn't cost a lot of money to make but it didn't look cheap to me. I think they did very well indeed with the budget they must have had to work with.

If you like WWI movies or any story about the pressure people face in the face of apocalyptic war and how they cope, then you might give this one a try. It tackles some fairly wide and deep themes (but it isn't preachy or ham-fisted at all I think) and does it with wry humour and understated performances.

I found myself thoroughly engaged with the story and surprisingly pleased by the innovative form that was chosen as the method of delivering it.

-Val

stoertebeker · February 8, 2015 10:21 pm

I saw Boyhood on DVD yesterday. Well, it was a nice movie, I liked it and I can recomment watching it. I found the concept of the movie quite fascinating, showing the childhood of a boy from age 6 to 18 by filming with the same actors over a time period of 12 years. It is truely a very ambitious idea. It was interesting to see the boy Mason grew up and observe the development and physical changes of the children whereas the adults almost seemed to remain static the whole time (I mean mainly their physical appearances). But IMO this concept of the movie is also it's biggest problem. The movie is about two and a half hours long, that's roughly 10 to 12 minutes for each year, but IMO still to short to give a deep impression of the different characters. There were a lot of events during Mason's life I wished to knew more about. E.g. (!! spoiler !!) when Mason's mother left her alcoholic husband we never got to know what happend to his children/her step-children. Also Mason's teenage years were partly a bit short (a lot of stuff were only implied). Overall, IMO the different (and difficult) relationships between the characters unfortunately stayed mostly on the surface.

As I said, it was a good movie, but I don't really understand the hype about it and all the awards for best movie (I am ok with the directing one though). Maybe it is the ambitious idea that's been rewarded.

SolarSystem · February 8, 2015 10:36 pm

stoertebeker wrote:
As I said, it was a good movie, but I don't really understand the hype about it and all the awards for best movie (I am ok with the directing one though). Maybe it is the ambitious idea that's been rewarded.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I suppose that's basically it. I'm sure it's a very unusual movie based on an extraordinary idea, but in the end I want to see a convincing story that makes sense and that manages to touch me, one way or another. Maybe "Boyhood" is more convincing as a sociological project than as a film.

Last edited by SolarSystem (February 8, 2015 10:38 pm)

Davina · February 9, 2015 10:03 am

Caught The Grand Budapest Hotel on TV the other day. I loved, loved, loved this film. It is so very differ in feel from anything else I've seen. Deserving of awards. Ralph Feinnes is amazingly good, and so outrageously funny, in it.

The Theory of Everything: very, very strong performances here, especially from the leads but also from whole the ensemble- not a single weak link. I expect it to win awards for the acting but not for the overall film as it has some pacing issues and lacks a certain je ne sais quoi overall.

Next: probably Jupiter Ascending & I am going to try to watch Locke on Netflix.

SolarSystem · February 9, 2015 10:19 am

Davina wrote:
Caught The Grand Budapest Hotel on TV the other day. I loved, loved, loved this film. It is so very differ in feel from anything else I've seen. Deserving of awards. Ralph Feinnes is amazingly good, and so outrageously funny, in it.

Has this been your first Wes Anderson film? Then I recommend to go and watch some others as well. All of his movies have this special feeling to them, "Moonrise Kingdom" would be a good one to start with.

Whisky · February 10, 2015 3:34 pm

Thinking of getting one of the BAFTA Films on DVD. Which one? (cannot afford all)
So far I think The Grand Budapest Hotel might be the choice...?

SolarSystem · February 10, 2015 5:32 pm

I can definitely recommend it, although I know that Wes Anderson's films aren't everybody's cup of tea.

miriel68 · February 11, 2015 3:21 pm

I loved The Grand Budapest Hotel - it's like eating Sacher Torte for almost two hour without getting the nausea! Every single shoot is a masterpiece, the rythm, the irony, the soundtrack - all delicious. It may not have a particularly deep emotional impact, but it is a sublime esthetic performance.

On the other hand, I was forced to re-watch TTOE yesterday because my daughter wanted to see it and I disliked it even more than the first time - a reaction I seldom get while watching the movies. For me, it isn't just a mediocre film, it's an abysmal script and such a missed opportunity. A kind of glossy and soapy hommage to Hawking that says absolutely nothing about him as a character and a human being, and the dialogue seems taken from a very cheap b-tv movie.
Also, my opinion about Eddie Redmayne's performance changed in worse. The first time, in spite of film's weaknesses, I was impressed by his physical tour-de-force impresonation of Hawking progressive disability, but now that I could focus on details, I could see that he didn't to manage to anything else with his character. It seems to me that he had no vision of Hawking's personality and character and just stopped at a meticolous imitation of his physical apperance. Of course, bad script is partly to be blamed, but may be also the director?

I've re-watched "My week with Marilyn" recently and Redmayne was really good in it and managed to create a very nuanced and complex personality. So may be he just need to have a good director to steer him into the performance.

Ah-chie · February 13, 2015 1:23 am

I really liked TGBH as well miriel6. Your description of it likening it to eating Sacher Torte (which I had the joy of sampling when we visited Austria a couple of years ago) is dead on. I also found it didn't have a profound impact on me (which it would have to, to be elevated to a truly great film for me) it was certainly a thoroughly enjoyable movie to watch and a confectionary delight of memorable creative elements.

Re: "forced to re-watch" - Hah! that would be my reaction to having sit through TToE again too. I probably wouldn't feel quite as put upon having made to sit through it again as you would, but definitely I would classify it as a "one and done" type of movie for me as well.

I just watched My Week with Marilyn recently and I am totally in step with you about Redmayne's performance comparisons when matched up with TToE. The former was much better to me - the latter, definitely there was a lack of emotional depth that the movie cried out for. There didn't seem to be anything (especially in the last half of TToE) behind his eyes that gave us a peek into what made Hawking tick.

Speaking of being forced to watch movies (that happens when you go with a group) - we had to go to American Sniper last night. I really didn't want to go (and neither did Dan) because I find the whole concept of the movie reprehenible. But now that we did see it I am glad I did because now I can feel justified with my original apprehensions and not feel like I am one of those who forms an opinion without any practical research or knowledge.

IMO it doesn't deserve to even be on the 80th best movie list for this year, let along the top eight vying for the BP Oscar. Dan, who is more than a bit of a war film buff (and an author of more than several books centring on the affect of war on soldiers), said it was very poorly plotted out - dragged in the wrong parts, rushed through others when it should have lingered more. To us it suffered greatly from a total lack of thoughtful editing. We both found it also was so emotionally subdued (mainly by the actor in the protagonist's role) that it failed to show us any affecting core. I think the words "jingoistic propaganda" and "flag waving agenda" were the words that cropped up more than a few times in our discussion afterward.

BTW at the theatre we went to there were just as many in the audience at TIG (the day before) as there was the afternoon when we went to American Sniper. The only difference was the reaction as they walked out - I overheard several people praising BC's efforts in TIG ("he's such a good actor!")... I only heard negative remarks by those filing out of American Sniper (ranged from "too long" to "no pay off in the end" etc.).
Probably not significant but interesting nevertheless to me.

Now I just have to see Selma, Whiplash and Boyhood to complete my list of Best Picture contenders. All of those are absent from the theatres anywhere within a 100 mile radius of us, so I suppose they will have to be viewed in DVD or Netflix after the February 22 date.

-Val

Russell · February 13, 2015 11:49 pm

I must be wanting to depress myself lately! Was glad to finally sit down and find the uploads of Hawking and Stuart on youtube and see why everyone loved them. So great. Then was equally thrilled my small-town theater got The Imitation Game back (missed it the first time, if they ever had it for long with putting up other blockbusters, and must have brought it back for awards season?), and teared up at yet another sad/true ending. All those people Benedict got to share their stories with and portrayed so amazingly… they really were something else. Especially Turing, which, based on all the discussion of what the film tackled, thought it balanced everything very nicely. Loved it (and teared up at the end too, of course)

And then, I finally got a copy of 'Le hérisson' (The Hedgehog), based on the French book "The Elegance of the Hedgehog" by Muriel Barbery. More of an independent film never highly distributed overseas so had to buy online. Read the book couple years ago - one of the hardest ones I've read! Not only is the writer highly intellectual and fills the book with heavy philosophy and cultural book-smarts, but despite being a big reader, even I was looking up words in the dictionary every 10 pages. Then there's the deeply emotional look at life with the main character Renee a lowly, anti-social, unattractive concierge of a Parisian luxury apartment building, its tenants and her all keeping to presupposed ideas of class. Except for the young girl Paloma (who wants to commit suicide rather than grow up in a prison-like 'fishbowl' of society), who sees past her exterior and ideas of socialite classes to know there's more to Renee, and starts a beautiful friendship and teared me up at the end just like the book did. Recommend it if you life poignant stories like that, or have read it. Aside from unfortunately having to cut out a lot of backstory and philosophy, very faithful to the book as well!

miriel68 · February 14, 2015 7:56 am

I didn't know whether to be outraged or amused when I stumbled on TTOE review by David Sexton yesterday and read BC played Hawking some years ago and his performance "which seemed very good then falls flat in comparison with ER performance". Having re-watched BBC Hawking recently as an antidotum to TTOE syrup I can say without any prejudice that it is a far superior film: it has an intelligent script which actually tries to TELL something about Hawking himself and those who interact with him: his parents, teachers and Jane. Also, Benedict conveys far better Hawking angst and desperation upond learning about the illness and trying to cope with it, something in TTOE is brushed away in five minutes in a very tacky way ("I love him and he loves me").

Finally saw "Turner" yesterday. Honestly, I didn't like it very much as a film. It has beautiful, very painting-like visuals, little details of everyday life are delicious, but the first part of the film especially seems rather disjointed and not leading anywhere, with not real plot. It wouldn't be so bad if we had a psychological insight into the characters instead, but again, I had a feeling I wasn't really learning anything meaningful about the people who surrounded Turner, his family, friends etc., nor about himself.
However, the film grows better and more "human" in the second half and Timothy Spall's performance as he shows Turner's decline and deatch is sensational. I was deeply impressed by it and cannot really understand how he missed Bafta nomination for it.

Last edited by miriel68 (February 14, 2015 7:56 am)

Ah-chie · February 28, 2015 7:00 am

We saw Still Alice today. I was very curious about this film for a couple of reasons. One personal and the other from a movie lovers POV.

First the movie lover in me...

After watching the Oscars this year and seeing Julianne Moore cop an award for Best Actress I was curious about the role that got her the statue. I had heard that she was the odds on favourite and a lock to get the Oscar since before she was nominated. So it was no surprise that she did indeed get it, but I had also heard that the reason the film was released the way it was, was to hurry into this year's award season because of the relative weakness of the field for Best Actress possibilities.

So it intrigued me as to whether she did have a rare and touching performance or whether it was just more of a case of being kind of the tallest one in a short group.

Right of the bat I would like to say that she was good in the role. She probably was the best thing about the movie (some of the writing was pretty good too). She handled the nuances of her degenerative disease well enough and did let me into her character's soul. There was even one scene that moved me to tears. Her performance held my interest throughout and I can't really find fault with any one scene.

But I wasn't blown away by the movie - it just lacked the terrifying power that a movie on the subject of Alzheimer's should have. My mind still hearkens back to the movie that did blow me away on this topic - Iris, made in 2001, and this one couldn't hold a candle to it. Period.

The reason it lacked the emotional impact of Iris? The writing for one thing. Still Alice had all the parts to summon up the makings of a truly great movie on this subject but it just didn't pull it off. Many times in the film I felt things were left by the wayside or left dangling or unexplored. The movie clocked in at 1 hour 39 minutes and to be truthful it could have been much improved with and additional 20 minutes or more that could have been used to great effect to bring more of the story into focus.

Also some of the acting wasn't very good. I am not a big fan of Alex Baldwin (I like some of his work but he just doesn't seem suited for heavy duty drama - a bit too wooden in his acting approach for my tastes). He did a passable job in Still Alice but he often was overwhelmed on the screen by Julianne Moore... and they had a lot of scenes together.

And except for Kristen Stewart, the actors who played the grown-up children of Moore's character weren't especially strong either. There was no depth to them and as Alice as a character faded they just sat there on the screen like lumps so the dramatic elements of the film came to almost a dead standstill.

Now onto the personal reasons I was so anxious to see this film...

I have lived with the spectre of Alzheimer's in my family for years. My mother died while being in the early-late stages of Alzheimer's. I was her main caregiver all the way through it. And it was extremely difficult (even in the early stages because in the beginning I lived in a far away location from her and had to travel long distances to care for her). I won't go into the horrible details but I will say it was probably the worse thing I have ever experienced in my life.

Not only my mother had Alzheimer's but her sister also had it and there were other relatives of mine who had it as well. Fingers crossed for myself so far, but I am aware it everyday as a result of my personal up-front look at the disease.

So I really, really wanted to see something on screen that I could relate to when I walked into the theatre. I saw a glimpse, now and again, but nothing really struck home. Disappointed? Yes, a little. But then it is perhaps very difficult to capture the exact pain and fear that this disease can bring to the victims and the family.

I think that if the producers had not rushed the movie to get it out for this year's Oscars perhaps we would have seen a film that didn't give the topic short shrift like Still Alice seemed to do (for me at least).

Overall I can't really highly recommend this film but it wasn't a terrible movie either. I wouldn't watch it again if I was given the opportunity to but it was entertaining for the afternoon. Definitely fine enough fare for a rainy weekend to watch on the TV but not in any way a powerful house of a film that it could have been with a bit more effort in the aspects of writing and acting. There was nothing in the film that made me wince in the recognition of the pain of living through the experience of having a loved one with Alzheimer's.

After the movie Dan summed it up rather succinctly when he said the movie Still Alice reminded him the most of was TToE. Disease of the Week Movie that missed the mark of a truly great film because, while the lead actors were both competent, neither were exceptional so the movie felt lacking in depth.

-Val

miriel68 · February 28, 2015 7:52 am

Val, I am one of - seemingly very few - people who have seen Still Alice. It has been on our screens for a week or so and disappeared, no one interested in it, its topic probably considered too depressing.
I too found Julianne Moore very good in it and I am glad she got the Oscar, since I am a great fan of her, but the film itself is just nothing but mediocre. It has a fell of your average TV movie and it's ironic but also sad how different is the quality between Oscars for the best actors and best actresses in leading performance.
Let's face it: Moore hasn't got her Oscar for the quality of her performance, she got it for playing the woman with Alzheimer in a film nobody is interested to watch (I suspect most voters haven't even bother to watch the movie, either).
And I find it slightly... cheap? disgusting? that the movie plays Alzheimer card by inventing a highly improbable case of a 50 years old woman getting ill and by giving the role to a still beautiful and sexy actress. It would be a far more powerful and "true" film if it had dare to deal with real tragedy of Azheimer afffecting elderly people, but then no one would even dream about an Oscar nomination.

tonnaree · February 28, 2015 1:09 pm

On a lighter note, last week I saw Kingsman: The Secret Service and loved it!
So much fun watching Colin Firth kick ass with an umbrella! Of course thinking of Mycroft doing "field work" during the whole scene. It was funny and exciting and even touching in places. It's based on comic books and the idea is to do more movies. I certainly think they should. I also think they should cast Martin and Mark in the sequel!!

Ah-chie · February 28, 2015 1:45 pm

miriel68 wrote:
Val, I am one of - seemingly very few - people who have seen Still Alice. It has been on our screens for a week or so and disappeared, no one interested in it, its topic probably considered too depressing.
I too found Julianne Moore very good in it and I am glad she got the Oscar, since I am a great fan of her, but the film itself is just nothing but mediocre. It has a fell of your average TV movie and it's ironic but also sad how different is the quality between Oscars for the best actors and best actresses in leading performance.
Let's face it: Moore hasn't got her Oscar for the quality of her performance, she got it for playing the woman with Alzheimer in a film nobody is interested to watch (I suspect most voters haven't even bother to watch the movie, either).
And I find it slightly... cheap? disgusting? that the movie plays Alzheimer card by inventing a highly improbable case of a 50 years old woman getting ill and by giving the role to a still beautiful and sexy actress. It would be a far more powerful and "true" film if it had dare to deal with real tragedy of Azheimer afffecting elderly people, but then no one would even dream about an Oscar nomination.

Thanks for your reply to my comment miriel68. Have you seen Iris? It is by far the more superior film on this topic. Both Judi Dench and Kate Winslet got nominations (Dench for B. Actress, Winslet for B. Supporting Actress) and Jim Broadbent won for BA that year.

It wasn't a box office hit though. It just cleared its production budget of $5.5 million USD in NA box office ( and made a total of $15 million world wide). Respectable but not remarkable. Again the mark against it was it was deemed a "depressing topic" and people just didn't want to hear/see the truth that this film depicted. But, like this year's TIG, the movie was a passion project of all the involved cast and crew - many of them forgoing their usual payments to get this film done.

A truly remarkable film and the gold standard that I hold other movies up to on this topic as a result.

Still Alice really looked like weak tea beside Iris to me.

-Val

Last edited by Ah-chie (February 28, 2015 1:55 pm)

This Is The Phantom Lady · February 28, 2015 10:24 pm

I finally watched 'The Theory of Everything' tonight

I've been a fan of Stephen Hawking for a long time; I think he was one of my first heroes.
I really enjoyed watching this; It was made so brilliantly. It was heartbreaking enough to tell the extraordinary tale of what he had to endure; but was also brave enough to show how hard it is to love someone who is wasting away in your hands... the strain it put on Jane.
I don't feel like it sugar coated it.

But at the same time it had Hawking's awesome sense of humour, it really showed the funny sides too.

I am really astonished by ER's work. He really looked so much like Stephen! And those scenes just after he lost the ability to talk... it tore my heart to pieces. He expressed so much emotion just with his eyes.

Personally it was a bit of an assault on my senses... but that's another story... as someone who sometimes have trouble walking and moving around, and loving a man who for 15 years of his life couldn't talk after an accident; he can now though even if he still struggles... some of the things were a bit hard to watch.
But in a way I think it was healthy too.

This is certainly one I'd like to add to my collection!

Ah-chie · March 1, 2015 10:57 pm

We finally had a chance to see Anna Karenia (2012) today on Netflix.

I loved it totally! It really reminded me of Grand Budapest Hotel actually in its style - kind of quirky and esoteric. Keira Knightley was sublime as Anna. Such a role for her to play - too bad she didn't get more recognition for it.

The movie did win one Oscar (and a number of other awards) and was nominated for 2 others but nothing in the major categories including acting. I also think the Academy was totally remiss in not nominating it for sound editing - I have never seen a movie where the sound was more expertly done. Some of the bridging by the use of sound was so precisely done it was hard to believe and really lent to the almost dreamlike quality of the film.

I also loved the stage play frame to the story. Brilliant! I know not everyone would like that approach but it just sang out to me and made the movie really unique.

The costumes (it won its Oscar for best costume design) were gorgeous. You could feel the fabrics on screen.

The story is Tolstoy of course but Tom Stoppard ( who went on to do Parade's End next) did a bang up screenplay and did differ it from the book enough to keep it fresh. Tragic yes, but there were dramatic elements I thought that did put a almost feminist touch to the tragedy of Anna's situation.

I couldn't help but think that BC would have made a great Count Alexei Vronsky and would have had a great acting dynamic with Keira.

I also loved Jude Law's performance in this film. He was so corked and proper and yet there was so much bubbling underneath that cool exterior in his portrayal.

Downton Abbey fans would have recognised Michelle Dockery (Lady Mary) in a mostly minor role but still instantly recognisable.

Just a delight to view on a Sunday afternoon. i remember seeing the trailers in the movie theatres when this came out and looking forward to going to it, but it never came to our city so it the opportunity just slipped away. Really glad I got to rectify that situation.

-Val

miriel68 · March 4, 2015 10:02 am

Hi Val,

Yes, I have seen Iris - yet another film which got many awards & nominations, but which actually wasn't seen by anyone, it seems (only got something like 5 mln in USA). It is superior to Still Alice, no doubt, as a film, not necessarily as the performance, because JM is the one udobutly good thing about Still Alice.
However, I think the nominations were a combination of Alzheimer topic - genius - biopic factors. And in fact, Still Alice just repeats this pattern in order to make the film more dramatic (a linguist professor getting an early Alzheimer).

I loved Anna Karenina, as well, but then, I usually love Stoppard's writing. And to think that Benedict was considered for it... not for Wronsky, but for Anna's brother. (So it would be another pathetic husband for him, lol).

Ah-chie · March 5, 2015 5:35 pm

miriel68 wrote:
Hi Val,
I loved Anna Karenina, as well, but then, I usually love Stoppard's writing. And to think that Benedict was considered for it... not for Wronsky, but for Anna's brother. (So it would be another pathetic husband for him, lol).

Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

I didn't know that BC was once considered for a role in "Anna Karenia". Interesting.

The role of Anna's brother would perhaps have not been that challenging of a role (although I have to imagine if BC was doing Stiva Oblonsky it would have turned out much differently than it did with Matthew Macfadyen in that part).

I still would have loved to see Benedict's take on Count Alexei Vronsky. I think he could have brought a depth to it that I just felt Theo Morrissey lacked. It wasn't that he did a poor job (I enjoyed his scenes to a degree) but BC is a much more superior actor IMO and could have plumbed so much of the complicated dynamic with the Anna character.

Still the movie was extremely gorgeous to watch and highly entertaining.

Really enjoyable talking movies with you!

-Val

miriel68 · March 5, 2015 6:59 pm

I liked Theo Morissey much more than Sean Bean (I used to like him and I still like him, but he is not top notch actor). I felt kind of outraged first, but then found his cabotin-over-the-top appearance refreshing (far too many romantic Vronskys in earlier adaptations!)
Benedict would have been excellent as everything: he could have played Karenin, Oblonsky or Vronsky and he would have certainly brought a great depth to these characters. But may be the depth was not such a desiderable quality in Vronsky - not in this adaptation, at least.