dbaytug

What is it nowadays with Hollywood? So many blue eyes. Now, even Jesus, apparently. And JP as Jesus! My goodness how he hams it up....

...This is the major flaw of the film. No matter how well-intending the performances, no matter all the positives and negative that might be said elsewhere, the simple fact is:

There is no compelling drama for the viewer, when the 16 year old is so obviously deserving jail time. The only remaining drama, is how do the parents justify themselves -- oh! By being caricatures of white rich middle class, utterly obsessed with their offshoots.

There is no genuine drama here, nor any satire. The drama is not worth analyzing and as for satire, well, satire usually first requires that something is a "norm" or "pleasant" to begin with, which upon inspection from another angle, just isn't all that it seems. In this movie, we are never offered any basis to understand why there might be more than meets the eye and so there is no scope for decent satire. I kept thinking the issues would resolve upon a revelation buried in the brothers' upbringing, but there wasn't -- other than it is clear there were two competing perspectives of that aspect of the narrative.

Both the main actors should be congratulated and Olivia Colman nails the "vulnerability" aspect completely. Such honesty.

Likewise, Peter Mullen's honesty in his portrayal is like something seldom seen. He portrays without caricature. This is a character who seldom yields, so much so that when his humanity is revealed, no matter its warts, it is moving--- and Mullan makes that utterly believable.

The literature world sometimes has an awful manner of self-justifying itself beyond the obvious. People like to read. I get that. What they don't like, is to be told by a literati why it is they might choose to so do.

So, on this basis, the film has an air of pretension about it. Beyond that, a stranger approaches you in a park one day and claims to be the true author of a book bearing your name, just published to wild acclaim. What would you do? I'll tell you what I would do: ask the person to prove their claim, otherwise stop scamming me. That is where this film should have ended or explored.

In the same way "They Shoot Horses Don't They?" was a satire, then so is this movie. It is demonstrating that in moral vacuums, in the "anything goes" era, anything can be justified in the name of one type of "spiritualism" or another.

It is no longer the "why?" forming the moral predicate before action, but rather, the "why not?". So madam would like a reversal of the moral test, for satisfying an egocentric need for an after life on her own terms??? Why not!

It is showing that in the permissive society, where egos shape their own virtues without reference to anything else, then mass murder can be justified on the basis of "well, why not?" --- and hence that is as superficial as it needs to be in this superficial age of ours.

A genuine surprise with many strong performances. Superb satire. Jonestown rebooted.

This is a case of the kettle taking it time to come up to heat -- but my goodness, the final 20 mins or so of this film were genuinely unnerving. It dispenses with the idea that the occult is "happenstance" or summoned at the behest of a glass upturned on a Ouija board. No, if you want to summon the wotnots, then you have to work for it. Not hours--or days, even--but months of dedication and deprivations.

My only niggles with this film: first, its ultimate "message" about forgiveness and that in getting there, we are never told what really happened in the first place. I grant you there is a lot of innuendo in such regards, but not enough detail to feel entirely comfortable with the outcome. Second, I thought there was one scene of a sexual kind that was frankly over the top voyeuristic, and not needed anyhow. That aspect of titillation felt like a "cheap" shot.

So two points off.

This said, the entire team should be congratulated on this work and also their being innovative on a low budget to create a film which feels much bigger, taking the viewer into a type of world where one can begin to understand that thankfully, to summon the spirits, requires a helluva lot more knowledge, effort and stamina than Hollywood would otherwise have us believe...

I thought this was worth its salt even though it did tend towards cliché as it wore on. The disappointing aspect of this film is that Jennifer Lawrence somehow portrays an ego that is beyond the character. It's a kind of "you know that I know I'm only acting this and the real movie is me" that seems to have perpetuated in every film she had made since Silver linings Playbook, bar X-Men (when she was covered in paint and having to "live in" the previous "humble" shoes of Rebecca Romijn) and American Hustle (where she was greedy White Trash). She needs a director who can "humble her down", in the same way Eastwood did for Jolie in Changeling, so that her ego is less of a distraction for her acting.

I thought the film was fair enough and of type for its genre. But what ruined it for me was awful acting by the lead. Rarely am I moved to comment in such matters but for pity's sake, even if you can get past her hammy acting, her accent was so think it was as if she was barely comfortable speaking English. I cannot believe I am the only one who is of this view.

CAPS FOR EMPHASIS

I reject this series as being anything representative of Americana albeit in stylized form.

First, I am no prude but the profanity and reference to sex and multiple usage of explicit sexual terminology really is a feature here. It's not enough to say "My husband died in a very uncompromising position with your wife as he drove the car" (which we would understand as a reference to fellatio) NO! We have to be told it in VERY clear terms ---- and several times over.

In other words, there is no CHARM in the dialogue. More than that, it is vulgar. Why refrain using the "C" word when you can use 10 times in a episode??!

It's Calipornication by stealth. How many times must we see some hapless naked adult undergoing (in effect) a reverse birth?

Second, the story is very slow. So, when a character takes a bath, it is not enough that we see a bath of water and the bathroom door being shut (say, in total 20 seconds). No, we have to have close-up upon close-up including drips from taps, the spray of water, close-ups of mildew on bath tiles. Then we have to observe the bather. From several angles. Not that he does anything mind you (for example, take a phone call). Talk about padding out!

More padding out: It's not enough that Chernabog (Peter Stormare) wants to kill you. NO! We have to be told over and over in over-detail, ladled with endless cliché to boot. So it is no longer a character but a grotesque caricature, with the acting awfully hammy and hamstrung at the same time, on account of being bloated by EXTREME dialogue peppered with profanity.

It's show-off dialogue. So it drags and drags and drags and drags, only to be counter-punctuated by OTT visuals that also (guess what) drag on and on and on. Yes! I get it! MTV no longer plays pop videos so there must be an outlet for these avant garde creative-talent types. But seriously????

Not a patch on JUSTIFIED in terms of tight no-nonsense Americana narrative. Or, indeed OUTCAST and BANSHEE.

It is as if the director and writer wanted to "revenge porn" matters but instead by using fiction dressed as fact. It would have been enough to fictionalize it and make it non-country specific. But no! That does not sell enough!

As it is it really is noting more than a record of how it is White Anglo-Saxons used to "get away" with horrible caricatures and then have the gall to claim it as "truth" to simply increase ticket sales.

No wonder Parker later tried to redeem himself with Mississippi Burning.

I appreciate there may be temptation to "feminize" certain narratives but a mining disaster film is not one of them when the narrative's main tension is whether or not the protagonist male is or is not going to say one thing or the other. That was the tension in the film that was poorly developed in order to develop a side-bar that of itself was not developed either but was there in my view to justify Elizabeth Banks' character's errant behavior. As it was, her husband's character barely got a look in, despite his being blamed for the fandango, facing ruination and despite having to deal with the same (side-bar) loss as Elizabeth Banks.

I am not sure what the film was trying to say and therefore I give it only a 7. This said, the performances were super and the photography very impressive. The director (who also wrote this) has a very strong talent in my view but must resist the urge to feminize narratives to the point of it losing focus on what the central drama is: men losing lives and whether the mine will survive (to the relief of the remaining miners) or close on account of compensation payments that will bankrupt it (to the relief of the families caught)

That's really all that can be said. Take lots of caffeine beforehand might also be said. Overlong and too odd to imbibe anything meaningful. I mean, there should be some hint of an answer as to what a movie is trying to say or ask. Here, there is none --- apart from "Do you think I am cleverer than you???"

The premise is great. The execution is patchy none more so that the annoying character played by Siff who is unbelievable on so many levels that half of it could be enough.

I can understand it was considered a "coup" to have Siff on board, so why was she not cast in Giamatti's role or indeed, as Axelrod's business partner (rather than having an idiot-stooge per the "Wags" character)???

.....and second series, the "Siff defect" has not relented, it has only gotten worse. We are supposed to believe she is a character so powerful and so "knowing" that everyone but the local dog is throwing untold riches at her to bid her employment. Really???

After a while it just grates. Like, really grates. And thus it represents a really poor aspect of character/plot development to the point whereby the "Siff character" even undermines Axelrod's business decisions. Really? Not only can she cure with a wag of her finger all the needs and defects of a successful hedge fund, but what is more, with no obvious reason why, she can decide who will make a competent astronaut after....one interview. Really?? Really!

The end point is: one has to wait till about episode 8 of Series 2 before the narrative gets interesting again. Until then it is just build-up and a lot of "housekeeping" from Series 1, which in itself cast the "Siff Character" in an impossible position and therefore completely unbelievable (i.e., talk about conflict of interest???).

Drop the Siff character I'd give it an 8, but with her character, 5 is generous as it is.