Movie Review - The King's Man

Director: Matthew Vaughn
Genre: Action/ Adventure
Runtime: 130 minutes
Year: 2021
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton, Rhys Ifans, Djimon Hounsou, Charles Dance, Matthew Goode, Daniel Brühl, Tom Hollander
 
Description: In the early years of the 20^th century, the Kingsman agency is formed to stand against a cabal plotting a war to wipe out millions.

Review: “The King’s Man” is a continuation of “Kingsman: The Secret Service” and “Kingsman: The Gold Circle” and is set before these films. Director Matthew Vaughn did the same with “X-Men: First Class”, where he made the series interesting again by bringing the subject matter back to its starting point. It doesn’t quite works as well with this franchise though.
The Kingsman agency’s origins is traced back to World War I. This results not so much in an interesting setting, but in a rather clumsy attempt to go through the entire war as fast as possible. Only not the war we know from the history books, but a hugely fictionalized version of it.
Vaughn rewrites World War I into a conflict completely orchestrated by a shadowy organization. As such, the war depicted has almost more in common with the Clone Wars from “Star Wars” then with the actual conflict that claimed forty million lives. It is quite daring, but the result is in the end rather stale because Vaughn is a little too eager to tick off all the familiar chapter.
For example, Russia withdraws from the war after a few years, only because of the Communists taking power, but simply as yet another move in a huge chess game. Or in other words: less interesting than real history. But then again, for a history-telling, you’re in the wrong place with “The King’s Man”. This is the type of film in which one look at a scary man with a big beard is enough to know that Hollywood has once again brought out its favorite Russian villain Rasputin.
The central figure in the story is the British aristocrat Orlando Oxford, who has the necessary experience with violence and therefore tries with all his might to keep his son safe. A fine premise and Ralph Fiennes is really good in his role (is he hardly ever not good?). It is quite refreshing to see him in a role as action hero, which he can truly embrace in the finale of the film. Which is also the highlight. It’s just a pity that the road leading up to it is rather long and muddled. Vaughn does manage to simplify the war enormously, but doesn’t get it right with the overarching plot.
That doesn’t take away from the fact that there is some creativity here and there in the messy narrative. For example, there is the very fun idea of presenting the German emperor, the Russian tsar and the British king as three quarreling nephews who, in their conceit, tear Europe apart. Only in doing so, World War I is reduced to a conflict between tree powers, conveniently leaving out France entirely.
The first movie in this series really pleasantly surprised me and I liked it way more then I expected too. And it’s a movie I would rewatch many time. “The King’s Man” is not bad, but not very good either. It’s entertaining, but aside from the wonderful finale the movie doesn’t have much to remember.

Rating: 2,5/ 5

10s Movie Review - The Guernsey Literary Society

Director: Mike Newell
Genre: Drama/ Romance
Runtime: 123 minutes
Year: 2018
Starring: Lily James, Michiel Huisman, Matthew Goode, Penelope Wilton, Jessica Brown Findlay, Katherine Parkinson, Tom Courtenay, Glen Powell

I WATCHED THIS MOVIE FOR MY 2022 MOVIE CHALLENGE
WEEK 7: A MOVIE SET IN A EUROPEAN COUNTRY
 
Description: In the aftermath of World War II, a writer (Lily James) forms an unexpected bond with the residents of Guernsey Island when she decides to write a book about their experiences during the war.

Review: London, 1946: Juliet Ashton, a young, successful writer, is invited by a small but fanatical book club to the Island of Guernsey. Once she arrives, it turns out that there is a deeper story behind the jolly islanders and their club.
At first glance, “The Guernsey Literary Society” is simple and cheerful, one of those movies where everything works out and everyone is happy. How director Mike Newell slowly deepens the film and unravels the underlying layers is beautifully executed. Two hours for a story of this proportion is somewhat excessive though.
The cast is top-notch, but the heart of the film lies with Lily James, who proves she can easily carry a movie. Michiel Huisman (fellow Dutchman) also gives a strong performance, as does Penelope Wilton. I absolutely loved this movie.

Rating: 4,5/ 5

00s Movie Review - The Lookout

Director: Scott Frank
Genre: Action/ Crime/ Drama
Runtime: 99 minutes
Year: 2007
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jeff Daniels, Matthew Goode, Carla Cugino, Bruce McGill, Isla Fisher, Alex Borstein

Description: Chris (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is once a promising high school athlete whose life is turned upside down following a tragic accident. As h tries to maintain a normal life, he takes a job as a janitor at a bank, where he ultimately finds himself caught up in a planned heist.

Review: Chris has trouble ordering actions, and as a result must attend therapy at e center for independent living. Simple things like telling how his day went already cause him problems. This is due to a car accident when he was still in school. Fortunately, besides the center, there is Chris’ blind roommate Lewis who wants to help him with his daily struggles. Chris works at night, as a janitor for the local bank. When he meets Gary at a bar, it looks like he got some new friends. But Gary has other plans, because he is more interested in the bank then in Chris personally.
It's a conventional story in many ways, but since the character of Chris is so interesting is goes a little deeper beyond the surface. One of the strengths of the film is the fact that the dramatic development of Chris always remains central and is the engine of all events. The heist itself is only a small part of the film.
“The Lookout” is definitely not a perfect movie, the thriller aspect is predictable and fall short of the realistic approach of what came before it. But these are basically minor criticisms of a film that convinces in its drama, which again is mostly due to the excellent performance of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Chris. An actor I have always enjoyed watching.

Rating: 4/ 5

00s Movie Review - A Single Man

Director: Tom Ford
Genre: Drama
Runtime: 99 minutes
Year: 2009
Starring: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Matthew Goode, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult, Ginnifer Goodwin, Lee Pace

Description: An English professor (Colin Firth), one year after the sudden death of his boyfriend (Matthew Goode), us unable to cope with his typical days in 1960s Los Angeles.

Review: When an established fashion designer like Tom Ford makes his feature film debut, you expect heavily stylized images, opulent costumes and a somewhat kitschy visual style. You get all of those too, but the big surprise is that the visuals rarely get in the way of the content and only enhance the film’s theme. As a result, “A Single Man” is not only a visually stunning film, but also one of the best debuts in ages in terms of content.
Based on a novel by Christopher Isherwood, “A Single Man” begins with a 1962 car accident that kills Jim, for sixteen years the partner of British professor George Falconer. Falconer is inconsolable and decides that a life without Jim is of little value to him. Nice is then how Falconer, after hearing the terrible news, tries to keep up a façade to the outside world. Impeccably dressed, he simple goes about his daily routines, without seeming to have anything wrong with him at first glance. Inside, however, he is consumed by grief and one day decides to end his life. The film follows him in his preparations and thus largely takes place on that one day.   
The visual bravura of “A Single Man” cannot be denied by anyone. The costumes are obviously very beautiful, as you would expect from a fashion designer, but it is the production design and the use of color where director Ford can really shine. Every detail has been meticulously attended to, allowing one to regularly marvel at the film’s stunning visual inventions and colorful depiction of the 1960s.
The film relies entirely on Colin Firth’s acting for emotional depth and it is largely thanks to him that the film becomes more than a visual masterpiece. First, a highly respected actor who has alternated between major and minor productions for years, had to wait a long time for that one big breakthrough role that would earn him an Oscar nomination. He did get nominated for the role, but didn’t win. Only a year later he took home the statue for his role in “The King’s Speech”.
Firth’s class is best showcased in a key scene early in the film, when Falconer is told that his partner died. The camera then stays focused on his face for minutes, with the actor beautifully managing to portray  how this man’s world collapses from one moment to the next. Although Ford unfortunately does not consistently maintain the subtlety of this scene and sometimes relies too much on the sound of swelling violins, it is thanks to Firth that you still start to sympathize with the tragic story of George Falconer. A bachelor, but above all a lonely man.

Rating: 4 / 5

10s Movie Review - Official Secrets

Director: Gavin Hood
Genre: Drama/ Thriller
Runtime: 112 minutes
Year: 2019
Starring: Keira Knightley, Matt Smith, Ralph Fiennes, Matthew Goode, Rhys Ifans, Conleth Hill, Jeremy Northam

Description: The true story of a British whistleblower (Keira Knightley) who leaked information to the press about an illegal NSA spy operation designed to push the UN Security Council into sanctioning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Review: “Official Secrets” tells the true story of whistleblower Katharine Gun, who worked for the British intelligence agency GCHQ in 2003. Not as a senior officer, but simply as a office worker with the task of listening to recorded Chinese phone calls for indications of possible attacks. In this respect, her work does not seem to be very different from the practices that Edward Snowden would later warn about. But she has no problem with a government that keeps an eye on its citizens in order to pick out the rotten apples. Her moral objections arise only with appearance of an internal memo stating that the British organization should assist its American counterparts at the NSA in gathering blackmailable information about UN member states that are obstructionist in supporting a resolution for the impending Iraq war. A shadowy favor to strengthen transatlantic ties.

Katharine passes the information on to the press through some intermediaries, after which some journalists from The Observer start working on it. This Sunday paper has already come out in favor of military intervention in Iraq, but the old-fashioned editor-in-chief lets his journalistic instincts do the talking; it’s a damn good story and it’s okay for politicians to back off. One would hope that this would also be the case with less strong stories, but it has to be done. At that point “Official Secrets” briefly becomes a variation on “All the President’s Men”, resulting in a nicely self-conscious remark when a journalist meets his contact in an underground parking garage: “This is a bit Deep Throat, isn’t it?” But the reason turns out to be simple: there is no cell phone coverage here.
Perhaps even more than Katharine, the story is central. For while we get a glimpse into the world of the British press, Katharine is absent for some time. She sits in silent fear, waiting to see what will happen with the leaked information. We only see her again when she discovers that the story ends up on the front page of The Observer. But with that, it comes back to her. Because her bosses know immediately that someone leaked the information. An internal investigation is launched, but Katharine keeps the credit to herself and turns herself in. The consequences are dire: she is fired, publicly branded a spy and indicted for her actions.
The charge of espionage is an interesting one. In the traditional sense, that word denotes the passing of sensitive information to a hostile party or country. But Katharine merely rang the bell about the internal malfeasance of a government agency. Because her contract prohibits the disclosure of state-sensitive information, she is liable for punishment, but that does raise the question of how you then hold a government accountable when it does not follow the rules. After all, a government does not work for itself or for friendly nations, but for the people. Katharine is sued and thus needs legal defense. But just when that seems to be settled, it is made clear to her that discussing the information passe on with her lawyers is also a breach of her contract. By joining the government, she has given up virtually all of her right.
But in the end, every viewer knows how this ends: that war just happened. Katharine suffers that loss early on in the film, and this tragedy constantly reverberates. “Official Secrets” thus outlines a system in which the government has become so disconnected from its own riles that nor even the truth can intervene. It is therefore no coincidence that the law under which Katharine is charged was only introduced after and earlier whistleblower could not be legally prosecuted. “Official Secrets” manages to make this a highly entertaining ‘David-against-Goliath’ tale, which nicely shows that Goliath, in the form of the British government, conspicuously often uses pure bluff poker. Apparently a winning strategy, because despite all that Katharine had to endure, she was unable to stop the Iraq War (or British involvement in it). At least we got a great movie out of it.

Rating: 4,5/ 5

100 Movie Challenge 2017 - # 25: Stoker

Director: Chan-wook Park
Genre: Drama/ Thriller
Runtime: 99 minutes
Year: 2013
Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman, Matthew Goode, Jacki Weaver, Dermot Mulroney

Description: After India's (Mia Wasikowska) father (Dermot Mulroney) dies, her Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode), who she never knew existed, comes to live with her and her unstable mother (Nicole Kidman). She comes to suspect this mysterious, charming man has ulterior motives and becomes increasingly infatuated with him.

Review: Director Chan-wook Park created a cult hit with “Oldboy”. A movie that was later remade and made his way to the US. Park made a debut with “Stoker”, where it is his first English language film, based on a screenplay by Wentworth Miller. Miller you might know as Michael Schofield from “Prison Break”, but he has been working on the script for “Stoker” for eight years.
When her father unexpectedly dies on her 18th birthday, India Stokes and her mother Evelyn have to adapt to life without father and husband Richard. But then uncle Charlie appears, Richard’s brother that they never met. He moves in with India and Evelyn. But there is a mystery circling around Charlie.
With a plot like this, you expect a thriller or maybe even a horror film. “Stoker” is in fact more of an interesting character study of an unusual family. Mia Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman and Matthew Goode all deliver great performances. Their characters are intriguing. Even though India distrusts her uncle Charlie, there is also a certain attraction between the two. Matthew Goode plays the role of Charlie wonderfully. Creepy yet irresistible. Kidman shines as the fragile mother, but is also the most ‘human’ person in the film.
Acting is of a high level, but it’s Park who deserves the most credit. The images are mind blowing. His eye for detail really made me happy. He has a feeling for it, the camera work is beautiful. Almost every shot is a little work of art.
Although the thriller and horror element are more in the background, there is constantly this tension and dark atmosphere. “Stoker” is a great film, that is probably not for everyone. It’s a movie that is hard to categorize. Maybe it’s a darker version of a coming of age story. It makes for a hypnotizing viewing experience.

Rating: 4,5/ 5

Movie Battle: The Theory of Everything Vs. The Imitation Game

The two movies I choose this time, both depict well known British scientists. I saw both movies this year and they were nominated for Academy Awards. Let’s get them face to face: “The Theory of Everything” Vs. “The Imitation Game”.

 

 

ACTORS

The Theory of Everything: Eddie Redmayne plays Stephen Hawking and does that with great conviction. Especially the minimal facial expression are done very well. Felicity Jones, as Jane, shows us the path from optimistic girl to depressed woman. Very well acted by her.

The Imitation Game: Benedict Cumberbatch plays mathematician Alan Turing. He shows us why he is so hard to ignore these days. He is excellent as the British pioneer and almost just as brilliant in his role as the man himself. Keira Knightley, as Joan Clarke, shows us again that she can overshadow her co-stars. Not Cumberbatch, but all the other male performers don’t stand a chance.

STORY

The Theory of Everything: We follow the life of Stephen Hawking and the woman behind him, Jane Wilde. It’s more for the romance fans then for the scientists. It focusses more on Hawking’s personal life then his work.

The Imitation Game: During World War II, mathematician Alan Turing tries to crack the enigma code with help from fellow mathematicians. A story that I didn’t know about before seeing this movie, this made is interesting for me.

EFFECTS

The Theory of Everything: It feels like the movie is set in that period of time. The home video’s also make it feel like you are personally involved.

The Imitation Game: The color palet is perfect, it feels like the movie is set during World War II.

WINNER

For some reason “The Theory of Everything” didn’t give me what I hoped for and “The Imitation Game” did, so I’ll give it to Benedict Cumberbatch and company.

100 Movie Challenge 2015 - # 8: The Imitation Game

Director: Morten Tyldum

Genre: Drama/ Thriller

Runtime: 113 minutes

Year: 2014

Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, Rory Kinnear, Allen Leech, Matthew Beard, Charles Dance, Mark Strong

Description: During World War II, mathematician Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) tries to crack the enigma code with help from fellow mathematicians.

Review: During World War II, it looks like the Nazis take the upper hand, with their so called Enigma decoding machine. Mathematician Alan Turing is given the task to break that code and intercept messages. His genius is overshadowed by his social handicap. This makes it hard for his co-workers. The pressure to perform is growing and Alan’s secret is also not making it any easier.

Who has seen “A Beautiful Mind”, with Russell Crowe as John Nash, will certainly see some parallels. Both center a genius man who suffer social disabilities. In “The Imitation Game” we see three different time periods: 1927, during WO II and the fifties. This makes the buildup of the story interesting and you really get to know Alan Turing.

Benedict Cumberbatch is hard to ignore these days and in “The Imitation Game” he shows us why. He is excellent as the British pioneer and almost just as brilliant in his role as the man himself. Keira Knightley, one of my personal favorites, shows us again that she can overshadow her co-stars. Not Cumberbatch, but all the other male performers don’t stand a chance.

The décor, the great performances by Cumberbatch and Knightley and the wonderful story, make “The Imitation Game” worth your time.

Rating: 4/ 5