Tag / Spoiler Free

by theactivespectator

Emily – Review. 

Rating: 15 Cast: Emma Mackey, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Adrian Dunbar and Fionn Whitehead. Directed by Frances O’Connor. Written by Frances O’Connor. Length: 130mins. 

Emily is a loosely biographical drama about the Wuthering Heights author Emily Bronte which covers the years leading up to Brontë writing her novel, which is about cruel and haunted characters who play devastating games with love and social status. 

Frqancis O’Connor has made a really impressive debut as a writer and director with this glimpse of Emily Brontë, intelligently played by rising star Emma Mackey. It’s beautifully acted, creatively shot,  and nicely imagined. There were a few unusal moments with the editing, making scene changes a bit clunky and, at moments, questioning if there were technical glitches; but it just seemed to be harsh cuts that were used two or three times throughout. Emily manages to capture the Victorian era with a slight contemporary feel. Not modern in that post-Bridgerton sense, instead, the movie feels modern in the way it imagines Brontë’s reclusive nature and emotional swings with consideration towards trauma, depression and other possible mental health issues that we have the language for and understanding of today. The characters in the film can’t diagnose these things, but a contemporary audience will spot the signs that O’Connor subtly layers into the role, allowing it’s audience to be aware, but not let the issues detract from the progression of the story. 

 Mackey’s portrayal, excellent as it is, may be smoother around the edges and less windblown than the real thing but that’s not really a surprise, her skill seems to be so layered and each role, including this gritty, emotional period character, shows audiences her depth as a performer and I can’t wait to continue to watch her career grow. Adrian Dunbar, unsurprisingly, presents a solid character in Patrick Bronte, leaving his audiences searching for the moments of warmth and approval that the leading character spends so much of the film seeking as well. His performance allows the audience to empathise even more with the lead, which is a very generous trait for an supporting actor and also suggests deliberate and strong direction. 

While technically I think this was a good film with strong performances, and a really strong debut for O’Connor it did lack something. It’s visually quite dark, which although sounds like a small thing, it makes it a little more difficult to engage and stay focussed throughout. Some of this of course will be due to the time period and the miserable weather but it still has an impact on the audience. Personally I found it quite tricky to really invest in what was in front of us, Mackey’s Bronte isn’t particularly likeable and neither is Weightman – actually, none of the characters are very likeable with possibly the exception of Branwell, but even then it’s not an overwhelming likeability.  For me to truly enjoy a film I need to back characters to some degree and if you aren’t drawn to anything about anyone it makes the viewing experience a tricky one. My rating is purely for that reason, it’s a good film – just not for me.  

by theactivespectator

The Lost King – Review. 

Rating: 12A Cast: Sally Hawkins, Steve Coogan, Harry Lloyd, Mark Addy and James Fleet. Directed by Stephen Frears. Written by Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope. Length: 108mins.

In The Lost King, Sally Hawkins’s plays amateur historian-sleuth Philippa Langley who gets to butt heads with the archaeological establishment as she pursues her dream to find the mortal remains of King Richard III, as story well known to many and not too long ago… 

When Philippa reads a biography of Richard III that highlights the disconnect between his reputation and his “true” self, she resolves to set the record straight. So, after a couple of pub meetings with fellow Richard III fans, she’s banging on the doors of the establishment, seeking funding to dig up Richard’s bones, which she has become convinced lie under a car park in Leicester. 

The Lost King is an okay film – its plot is its focus and while based on true events it’s really about shining the light on a part of British history, and more importantly brings attention to Phillipa Langley and what she achieved while others took (partial) credit for her work. 

It lacks interesting characters which is fine due to the ‘point’ of the film, but I felt like the film makers were aware of this and pushed a bit too hard on some of the choices around the character of Phillipa. Obviously, I don’t know her – I hadn’t actually heard of her until watching this film, so I may be wrong, but it felt like the focal character was a woman who struggled with ME, had perhaps not been taken too seriously throughout her life but had the grit and determination to research and fight for her ultimate goals trusting her gut instinct, even when no one else was interested. While elements of this came across, the character of Phillipa was painted in a very feeble way. She came across as a bit weak, naive and the choice to include an imaginary King Richard who appears at various points throughout the film suggested mental illness to some degree, and yet this was never addressed and so I can only assume that this was a creative choice to try to add an extra ‘something’ to the film. It didn’t work in my opinion, it distracted from Phillipa’s hard work, made it a little cartoonish and didn’t really serve a purpose. 

The Lost King is filled with a top billed cast and I can’t fault the work that they did, unfortunately what didn’t work seemed to filter down from creative choices which is a shame because the target audience for a film like this would, in my opinion, have been equally happy with a basic telling of the story without embellishments or imaginary Kings. 

It’s important to recognise that with all retellings, or ‘dramatisations’ of true events there are always two sides to a story and one side will often be painted as the villain while the other a hero. As far as I can tell, real life Langley has said that she was indeed “sidelined and marginalised” by the academics, but representatives of the University have accused The Lost King of creating “an artificial narrative of a sexist, male-dominated university [by] removing all the key female academic leads”, with real life Buckley also complaining that “there is no truth to our department being under threat of closure or my job being on the line” and describes these plot points as “just nonsense”. I think the characters probably need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but focus should be on the telling of Ms Langley’s story and the incredible discovery that was made because of it.  

The Lost King is an easy and relatively interesting watch with small splashes of humour throughout. It’s not going to impact anyones life in a big way but is a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours, if you enjoy a true story without high drama then this is probably for you.  

by theactivespectator

See How They Run – Review. 

Rating:12A                                                                                                                                                       Cast: Sam Rockwell, Saoirse Ronan, Adrien Brody, David Oyelowo, Ruth Wilson, Harris Dickinson and Pearl Chandra.                                                 Directed by Tom George.                                                                                              Written by Mark Chappell.                                             Length: 98mins. 

See How They Run is a brilliantly likable whodunnit spoof centred on Agatha Christie’s long running play, The Mousetrap. It is expanded as a brutal homicide takes place backstage in its London West End theatre in 1953 during a party celebrating 100 performances. 

The concept see’s a brash Hollywood director (Brody) who plans to transition the famous play to a movie who, after seeing him upset one or two of our company, is murdered in the costume department. Sam Rockwell is brought in as lead investigating officer with an overeager, movie loving assistant (Ronan) to take charge of the situation and solve the murder under the scrutiny of their seniors. 

There’s a very entertaining silliness to See How They Run and I actually think it’s a brilliantly clever idea. While widely described as a spoof – it takes itself very seriously which is the main reason it works, there’s no slapstick here. Director Tom George appears to deeply trust his script, written by Mark Chappell, and allows the humour to flow from the dialogue, of course, through deeply hilarious performers – particularly Ronan with her doe-eyed expressions, innocent optimism and wonderful comic timing. With the confidence in the dialogue, it allows the director to really play with the cinematography which has a kind of Wes Anderson feel to it.  

Saoirse Ronan and Sam Rockwell are a duo that work wonderfully well together, two very experienced actors who throw everything into the quirky characters that they have in front of them. The ensemble cast is not lacking in experience either – David Oyelowo fits beautifully into his role as the scorned writer, Brody seems to enjoy his time as the cocky director turned victim and honestly there’s not really a weak link in the whole cast. 

Part of this movies genius is that it’s not trying to trick the audience. The villain isn’t necessarily obvious, but you can comfortably walk down the path they lead you and probably work it out before the big reveal – allowing the audience the satisfaction of feeling a part of the mystery without having to pay too much attention and to enjoy the moments of poking fun at perhaps more serious films in the same genre. 

This is an easy film with no pretensions, entirely without the deadly seriousness with which Agatha Christie is now adapted and is the opportunity to watch some world class performers having a bit of fun. It’s nice to see Tom George making some creative choices that aren’t necessarily the obvious ones and is well written by Mark Chappell. I would absolutely recommend going to see this film in the cinema, particularly for a bit of a laugh and a solid dose of escapism.  

by theactivespectator

Fisherman’s Friends: One and All – Review.

Rating: 12A Cast: James Purefoy, Sam Swainsbury, Dave Johns and Richard Hainsworth. Directed by Meg Leonard and Nick Moorcroft. Written by Piers Ashworth, Meg Leonard and Nick Moorcroft. Length: 111mins. 

Fisherman’s Friends: One and All is the follow up to 2019’s surprise hit ‘Fisherman’s Friends’, the tale of a group of rough and ready fishermen who become recording artists after a music executive spots them while on holiday in Cornwall. Based on a true story it was just so very British – it was nice, featured a few catchy tunes, saw normal people succeed and gave a gorgeous glimpse into the Cornish coast and coastal life. While the first film sat nicely with audiences, was there enough story to make a sequel? 

In short, probably not. But that hasn’t stopped audiences attending the cinema for a pleasant viewing – and that’s what you get. I can’t imagine anyone watching expecting a blockbuster.  

The story picks up where the first left off. The harmonising fishermen have a top 10 album and a sell out show under their belts but with their record label asking questions over the chances continued success, some members of the group (and their families) struggling with minor fame and the group leader, Jim, in the midst of grief for the loss of his father. The premise is relatively simple; the group need a new member who once joins clashes significantly with Jim and Jim faces personal issues around substance abuse. 

It’s a little scrappy and with a moment of high tension involving an accident at a derelict mine which seems random and a little out of place, it manages to maintain some of the charm of the first film but lacks a little magic ‘something’. While breezing over the themes of bereavement, substance abuse and male mental health issues it doesn’t really address anything and feels slightly like some issues were thrown in to appear progressive but just back out of any commitment to in depth themes. It was almost an interesting conversation where they matched small town, coastal folk with traditional opinions faced with a chance to learn about contemporary societal issues however, again, it felt like they took the safe route and backed out, throwing a bit of humour around the subject and trundling on through. 

Its heart is undoubtedly in the right place but is quite predictable and the clash between simple fishermen and sharp London suits running the record label was covered in the first film. Having said this, it is an easy watch. The music is still entertaining and the light hearted nature of the film is just ‘nice’; a word often used as a negative but sometimes ‘nice’ is what we need. 

by theactivespectator

Where the Crawdads Sing – Review.

Rating:15 Cast: Daisy Edgar-Jones, Taylor John Smith, Harris Dickenson and David Strathairn. Directed by Olivia Newman. Written by Lucy Alibar (screenplay) and Delia Owens (based on the novel by). Length: 125mins. 

The film is set in the beautiful and dangerous marshland of North Carolina in the 50s and 60s, a place ‘where the crawdads sing’. Edgar-Jones plays Kya, a young woman who has basically raised herself in a remote shack deep in the marshland. She’s had to learn to survive when her drunken and violent Pa drove her mother and siblings away after years of domestic abuse; that is until her Pa dies leaving her to fend for herself. As a teenager Kya is basically on her own, making a living by selling mussels to the local store, roaming wild and free on the wetlands in her boat and drawing pictures of the nature that she’s so at one with. This unusual lifestyle separates Kya from the ‘normality’ of the townsfolk and she is treated with contempt by most, with few allies and, once an adult, catches the attention of two young men. The first, Tate, taught her to read and encouraged her artistic talents but soon went off to study. The second, Chase, picks up the pieces of her somewhat broken heart and does his best to win her affection… 

The opening scenes of the film show the discovery of a dead body in the marshland, the body belonging to Chase. He’s a popular man about town and everyone is in shock at his demise. Considering the location of his body Kya or ‘the marsh girl’ as she’s known becomes the number one suspect and we find our plot. Kya is arrested and the film jumps between her trial and her story. While in the present we see evidence against her and the noble defence of the outcast girl, broken up appropriately with Kya’s upbringing, experiences and life as a young woman all leading up to the moment that Chase lost his life. 

I find films like this to be so interesting. First and foremost, this being based on a best selling book with a large fan base – often when popular books are made into movies there’s an element of disappointment at the result, however every single fan of the book that I spoke to said it was just as good as the book, a rare situation indeed! Secondly, I was baffled by the majority of the critics reviews being so very negative. Yes, this film is not perfect, but for some reason critics seem to focus on unusual elements such as costume choices or details around Kya’s hygiene rather than the plot, performances, direction and cinematography. It seems as though there was an agreed upon opinion for this film from the very beginning, one which I’m pleased to say I disagree with and in speaking to vast audiences, so do the masses. 

I do agree that perhaps the ending is a little cheesy and that there were definitely moments that felt slow, but as a general rule the movie was engaging, interesting and shot beautifully. A personal criticism is the choice in names for the male leads, I found myself forgetting who was Tate and who was Chase as their names were so similar but that is likely just me and not really a criticism at all! Where the Crawdads Sing is a really solid film and I would highly recommend, it’s definitely one to watch to form your own opinions on but it is worth noting that it does include some upsetting scenes. 

by theactivespectator

Minions: The Rise of Gru – Review 

Rating: U Cast: Steve Carell, Pierre Coffin, Alan Arkin, Russell Bran and Julie Andrews. Directed by Kyle Balda, Brad Ableson and Jonathan del Val. Written by Matthew Fogel and Brian Lynch. Length: 87mins.

Minions: The Rise of Gru is the second of the Minions movies (its prequel opening in 2015) and is a spin off series of films from the hit movie trilogy – Despicable Me. It’s not difficult to see why film makers have jumped on this opportunity. When the small yellow minions took a supporting role in the original trilogy their silliness, gobbeldy-goop language and obsession with bananas stole the hearts of many children (and adults) across the world. But how many stories can be told about this group of minions? In this new release, film makers take us back to Gru’s childhood, with a glimpse of how the minions joined Gru and on an adventure to assist Gru to his dream; becoming the world’s greatest super villain. 

The story is relatively simple, no surprises there…Gru wants to join the vicious six (a league of the most evil super villains) when they kick out one of their own. They laugh Gru off for being a child so Gru steals from them and ends up being kidnapped by the wronged villain who is no longer in the ‘gang’ and the minions take it upon themselves to rescue Gru. With the minions splitting up – one on a mission to regain what was stolen and three determined to find and rescue Gru we get to follow our little yellow heroes along their adventure. The plot changes direction a couple of times but lets be honest – audiences aren’t really there for a gripping adventure plot. 

While full of slapstick style gags, the humour is average; unlike the Despicable Me films which didn’t fail to make audiences of all ages laugh. The good news is that Minions: The Rise of Gru is quite a short film and so didn’t feel like too much of a waste of time. It seems to be a film that will pack in audiences purely for it’s previous charm and history – I don’t think anyone really cares about the quality of the content.  

I wouldn’t tell anyone to rush out and see Minions: The Rise of Gru. If it’s raining and you’re looking for a way to waste an hour or two then it’s a perfectly reasonable way to entertain the children, but other than that, you wont miss anything from not watching it. I imagine they’ll make more minion movies but it’s just a money making thing at this point. They know children love minions and will just throw any old storyline together to produce something for them to watch while the dollars flow in through the box office.  

by theactivespectator

Elvis – Review

Rating: 12A Cast: Austin Butler, Tom Hanks, Olivia DeJonge, Helen Thomson and Richard Roxburgh. Directed by Baz Luhrmann. Written by Baz Luhrmann, Sam Bromell and Craig Pearce. Length: 159mins. 

The release date for Baz Luhrmann’s ‘Elvis’ has arrived and it’s sure to get audiences dancing. We seem to be going through a phase of legendary musician biopics and this one falls slightly out of the framework pattern but that isn’t a surprise to those who know the previous work of Luhrmann. This is the story of Elvis’s dramatic rise to superstardom and the mistreatment he suffered at the hands of those he trusted. 

The film opens with a voiceover by Elvis’s former manager, the infamous Colonel Tom Parker, played by Tom Hanks (unrecognisable beneath layers of prosthetics and unflattering makeup). After sharing details of his gambling addiction, he finishes with the ominous reveal: ‘some people say I robbed Elvis … some even say I killed him’. We get the basics of Presley’s career: the early days of hardship, the profound influence of black music, the blues and gospel; a glimpse at his days on the country circuit before signing for Parker, his huge success, military service in Germany, marriage to Priscilla, a flash of Hollywood, the Comeback Special and the long Vegas goodbye…considering this is the basics and not really in too much detail, it’s an awful lot. With a run time of 2hr39 it’s a bit of a slog but having said this I would have no idea what you can cut. The challenge of a biopic is that audiences need to see a journey, but when the journey includes so much it’s inevitably going to be a lengthy watch.  

This is a very technical film that screams awards season which is unusual for a movie released at this time of year. I hope that it is recognised for what it is as the performances, scoring, editing and direction are bold and deserve acknowledgement. I do feel like some audiences might be disappointed with Elvis – not because it’s bad, it’s actually quite brilliant. It’s just that the trailer presents a movie that is very appealing to the masses. It suggests a straight forward story with a few well known songs and it’s much more complex than that. It’s full of interesting cuts, colours and a wonderfully fused score of music of the era and contemporary hits. 

Elvis is a brilliant film, it’s not one that I would watch again but I would definitely recommend that people give it a watch. It’s another reminder that the grass is not always greener on the other side and that when people appear to have it all – there’s often a lot going on that isn’t known.  

by theactivespectator

Top Gun: Maverick – Review

Rating: 12a Cast: Tom Cruise, Jennifer Connelly, Miles Teller, Val Kilmer and Glen Powell. Directed by Joseph Kosinski. Written by Peter Craig, Justin Marks, Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer and Christopher McQuarrie. Length: 130mins. 

 Thirty-six years after Top Gun was released and became a smash hit, Tom Cruise is back doing what he does best – flashing his superstar smile and jumping into an aircraft for this brand new blockbuster that doesn’t fail to take your breath away. Top Gun: Maverick re-joins our hero – Naval captain Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell, not quite where we left him at the end of the first movie. He’s still flying, he’s still fast and he’s still unapologetically himself. He’s recalled to Top Gun, to train the Navy’s best young aviators for an almost impossible, dangerous and time sensitive mission. While the mission is a challenge in itself, Maverick has to face (and train) the son of his ex-wingman and best friend ‘Goose’ as well as reuniting with an old flame… 

What is so wonderful about this film is that the original was a perfect standalone – it didn’t need a sequel, it was so well rounded just as it was and was released in a time where it was much more common to release a film on its own. BUT, come 2022…delayed ever so slightly due to Covid:19 the sequel lands and it is almost perfect. It embodies just the right amount of nostalgia and reference to the original, the plot is interesting and exciting – different to ‘Top Gun’ but is so well thought out and fitting with the first film. I just think it’s so difficult to create a really great sequel full stop, but to manage to create a sequel over 30 years later and for a film that no one expected a sequel for seems like an impossible task and the creative team nailed it. 

I don’t know enough about how much Tom Cruise was involved, other than I expect him to have been the driving force and quite frankly he deserves a pat on the back. This film released at the perfect time, bringing audiences of all ages back into cinemas and reminding folk what watching motion pictures on the big screen, as they were designed, is all about.  

Tom Cruise doesn’t drop a beat with his Maverick; I expect the initial role was so important to him and he seems to pick the character straight back up with ease. The casting was perfect. Particularly in the selection of Miles Teller as ‘Rooster’. Not only does Teller look like his fictional father but he brings really authentic emotion. This character ‘feels’ so much in this film and is really going through all sorts while still competing to be selected for this mission and Teller nails it. It’s really quite wonderful to watch the character develop and grow in confidence throughout the movie and see his relationships change with him. Jennifer Connelly plays the beautiful, confident bar owner Penny who, of course, captures the eye (and heart) of Maverick. My only slight comment here was that the romantic element wasn’t really necessary. It’s nice – it’s well performed, it breaks up the story a bit and of course the romantics are there for it but it didn’t progress the plot. Maybe I’m scraping the barrel for criticism, but that’s all I’ve got!  

Top Gun: Maverick is simply, a brilliant piece of cinema. Everyone should watch it, at least once, on the big screen. It has a relatively short running time but it holds its audiences from the first moment and doesn’t drop them.  

by theactivespectator

The Lost City – Review

Rating: 12a Cast: Sandra Bullock, Channing Tatum, Daniel Radcliffe, Da’Vine Joy Randolph and Brad Pitt. Directed by Aaron Nee and Adam Nee. Written by Oren Uziel, Dana Fox, Adam Nee and Aaron Nee. Length: 112mins

In the Lost City Sandra Bullock plays Loretta, the author of a novel franchise-series that focuses on fictional stories around archeological realities that Loretta and her late husband studied together while he was alive. Her Lara Croft style adventures feature her own character going on adventures with her lover, a character named Dash. What real life Loretta isn’t too keen on, is the reality that her cover model, Alan (Tatum), is a key factor in selling the books and some have trouble separating the fictional characters from the real life. The story ramps up though, when Loretta is kidnapped by an evil British billionaire who takes her to a mysterious Island which is about to be destroyed by a volcano in the hopes that she can help him find an ancient treasure; meanwhile Alan takes it upon himself to rescue her and quickly discovers that ‘Alan’ isn’t quite the natural hero as his character in the books…

The Lost City isn’t a particularly ‘unique’ film – it fits neatly into the genre of ‘adventure comedy’ and it’s not shy about using cliches like a seemingly charming British villain or a volcano due to erupt at any point…but it’s okay. I think most of its audiences are very aware of the ‘type’ of film that they’re going to watch and as long as that is the case, then there won’t be any disappointment.  

Bullock is an absolute master at this level of comedy, she brings such an authentic feel to ridiculous situations and I think just having her lead a cast automatically relaxes an audience into something that’s a bit familiar. Tatum is also playing his stereotype – the handsome idiot – but it’s his stereotype for a reason and he’s very good at it. It was interesting to see him play a more family friendly role and was nice to see that he doesn’t solely rely on some of the more, perhaps, cheap laughs around language or sexuality that we’ve seen him do so many times. The real genius that probably comes from their sheer level of experience is that both Bullock and Tatum are smart enough to know how silly the whole thing is. They perform in a way that suggests ‘they know that we know, that they know’ how ridiculous the action is.

The Lost City is the perfect film for escapism. It isn’t the best in its genre. In recent years I would suggest that films like Jungle Cruise hit the mark a little better than this one. But, it’s a solid, amusing film to watch when the real world just gets a little too much.

by theactivespectator

Downton Abbey: A New Era – Review

Rating: PG Cast: Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Allan Leech, Elizabeth McGovern and Maggie Smith. Directed by Simon Curtis. Written by Jullian Fellowes. Length: 125mins.

Downton Abbey: A New Era pulls its fans back in three years after its first motion picture and seven years after the wildly successful television series came to an end. As a fan of Downton Abbey, I was happy to hear that they were going to make a film or two, but it’s very clear that this is a money move rather than anything else. They wrapped the series up nicely and there was no real need to make a feature – having said this, of course, the fans flocked back to the cinemas in 2019 to see what their beloved Crawley family and staff had been up to.

This second film rejoins the family, going about their business but with a leaky roof and no sure way of funding the repairs. As it happens, the estate is approached by a company wanting to use Downton as a location for their latest silent movie and they’re willing to pay. While the traditional members of the family aren’t keen to have their home invaded by filmmakers, Lady Mary, who is now in charge, deems it an interesting proposition and invites the company into the walls of Downton, much to the delight of the gang downstairs. While this is going on, it is discovered that Lady Violet has mysteriously been left a villa in the south of France by a gentleman that she spent a short amount of time with, many years ago… Of course this lends itself for several of the family to visit France to investigate that situation, while Lady Mary and the staff keep a close eye on the creation of the silent film and its stars all while getting a little more involved than initially planned.

I’ve seen several criticisms of this movie, mostly from people who just aren’t Downton fans – which makes sense to me. As previously stated it’s a film created for the money that it will clearly generate and will just not appeal to anyone who doesn’t know the characters. The plot is, in all honesty, a bit of a rip off of Singin’ In The Rain and is terribly predictable, but also, terribly enjoyable. You can see everything that’s coming before it lands and that’s sort of the comfort of a film like this, it’s easy to watch and fairly easy to forget. BUT fans will be thrilled to see some of their favourite television characters getting to wrap up their stories – I’m confident that they won’t make another Downton film, they wrap everything up nicely in a way that manages expectations and doesn’t leave any questions.

I enjoyed Downton Abbey: A New Era, it was so easy to watch and pretty nostalgic, but i’m very aware that my opinion is based purely on having watched the characters develop over years. I found the first movie fairly forgettable and I think I preferred this one, but time will tell if it will have done enough to remain in my head. The long and short of it is, if you enjoyed the series and last film you will more than likely enjoy this one, but if not, it’s very basic and probably lands at ‘fine’.