*** The movie reviews page ***
THE IRON LADY:
WRONG, HIGHLY UNETHICAL DISTRACTION OF A BIOGRAPHY
3 stars out of 10
It's simply wrong to make a biographical film about a person, as extraordinary as Margaret Thatcher and devote, I don't know, 70 or 80% of the time to her rather depressing late years of deteriorating health, especially on the mental side. And the real life Margaret Thatcher is a rather private person who tried to keep her health problems secret. Thus, most of what this film presents is obviously a piece of guesswork. Moreover, Thatcher's children described the film as "left-wing fantasy" and we also know that Thatcher's daughter Carol was often with her during this period. So, what's the point of a film, that pretends to be "biographical" when 80% of it is guesswork at best, and somebody else's fiction at worst?
It is also highly unethical to delve into the mental condition of a living person who tried and tries to keep her private life and health issues really private. There are reasons why we call it "private" and doctor-patient confidentiality "confidential". It seems like those principles are beyond the intellectual (moral, or both) capacity of the Hollywood suits behind this movie.
Thatcher became a household name, not only in the UK, but throughout the world, and yet, all her political achievements are presented in a telegraphic style, sometimes just as segments of a news bulletin read by some news presenter. She was called 'the iron lady' by the Soviet propaganda machine in an attempt to discredit her image, her strong positions and alliance with Reagan formed the core of the entire Western policy toward the Soviet union resulting in winning the Cold War, and yet, the authors of this movie choose to completely disregard this side of her story, as if this was some annoying mosquito, just spoiling the bizarre shadenfreude fun they are having with the senile, 80-year old lady.
Thatcher herself is adamant during one of her fights with her husband that he always knew she puts her works first and yet, the film tries to focus on her private life issues, again, by means of sheer guesswork. Why? The only explanation is ideological spin, since the creators try to present the old and rather frail former prime minister as sad, doubting her past, and in some scenes she is even insecure not only as an old, senile lady, wandering around her digs, but also during her prime time, as a head of government. Priceless screening time is wasted while none of the issues she had to deal with is presented with any depth whatsoever.
Occasionally, the film is reduced to a vaudeville, as in the scene where she is about to enter her No.10 residence for the first time as a PM or employs one-dimensional clichés, such as the symbolism of Thatcher talking about 'taking the wheel in her own hands' and then pushing the car to the right, while her daughter is in the driving seat. What is the purpose of this demented symbolism? No matter how unwashed the masses are, they can still figure that this film is about a confident, self-made woman who takes matters in her own hands and pushes her country to the right. Why an obvious metaphor, pointing at the obvious?
The only true merit, that can be attributed to this unhinged and rather prolonged exercise in shadenfreude, is that it represents the true spirit of her public life in general – a strong-willed, principled person, a woman with SPINE, successfully fighting against an intellectually and morally constipated establishment, unhinged left-wing militants and impotent political opposition. Well, the political opposition turned out impotent because it was Margaret Thatcher who single-handedly rendered it that way. There are some truly powerful moments, however, when the young Margaret was listening to her father's speech, clearly, his words having authoritative, formative, inspirational influence on what she was about to become, or when she masterfully fights off the attacks of both her political opponents and spineless colleagues.
Obviously, Meryl Streep is a very good actress, and she is spot on Thatcher's voice and mannerisms, but this is just good professionalism, nothing extraordinary, way too many actors are capable of doing that these days. Does she deserve another Oscar for this performance? If there is nothing better this year on the movie front in her category, hell yes.
The only reason this picture should be seen is as a weird example how a biopic (of a person of Margaret Thatcher's caliber) should not be made, it's a half-baked distraction of what her real biography should look like .
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Textbook Failure of a spy thriller
Many people seem to dislike the movie (see the imbd reviews) but are satisfied with the TV version and/or the book. Well, judging from the film, the spy story itself is ridiculous on so many levels. Le Carre, as a former spy, should have known better.
The opening scene in Budapest that sets everything in motion, sadly, doesn't pass the laughing test. A British undercover agent is to meet a potential defector - a Hungarian general who is willing to reveal to the British ultra-important information about a Soviet mole at the very top of MI6. Why would this general use a go-between and thus increase the chances of being discovered, exposing his go-between (probably a dear and trusted friend) to a mortal danger? It's absurd.
The Budapest operation had already been betrayed, however, and the Russians know. So they are supposed to be in full control - remember, the stakes couldn't have been higher. Instead, they let a sloppy Hungarian agent mimic nervously in front of everybody and let sweat drop in front of the British spy among other revealing signs and yet the British spook omits all those. Then the stupid Hungarian agent shoots the fleeing Brit, why, when they can just surround the place and apprehend him???? Only after all this nonsense takes place, some Russian spy chief pops out of nowhere and shouts that everybody is stupid.
A young woman breast-feeds there right in the middle of it, sitting in the open, in the cold, so that she gets shot in the head by mistake - the bullet aimed at the fleeing spy takes a left and ends up inside her brains contrary to real life ballistics. We are shown how the baby is still being fed although his mother is already dead. How cruel, how heart-breaking can this spy world be! Really? How dumber and more contrived can this go?
Then, the captured Brit is tortured, why, when the Russians have this much better informed mole, higher, at the very top of MI6. And then the Russian master spy, named Karla (because that's how Le Carre wants to present him - a master spook) lets the Brit back to the UK, so that he would tell how he was tortured, how they unnecessarily blew the brains out of a young nice woman in front of him absolutely for no reason (this is another one, not the breast-feeding one), and most importantly, the captured British agent had talked to the mole before leaving for Budapest. So if he is let back to the UK, he would immediately point at the all important mole as the potential source of the information that betrayed the entire Budapest operation. This officially makes the Russian the worst agent-runner in history, despite Le Carre's half-baked attempts to make him a master spy.
But it is not only the Russian "master" spies who are stupid. So are the British: when the mole (played by Firth) is finally caught and in custody, the British let him outside the safe house, in the open (???), in the open (???) so that everybody who wants revenge or just to shut his mouth can easily sneak in and put a bullet in his head, no sweat. Really? This is how the British will keep their uber-important detainee? The man who is supposed to give them some idea how much damage has been done, how many operations have been compromised???
And this goes on and on ..., nothing makes sense in the "spy" story.
The director is employing a series of cheap shots to impress the easily impressionable - the young breastfeeding woman, the completely unnecessary violence all along. The story is boring, as many reviewers already pointed out, incoherent from A to Z.
On a personal level, Smiley, as smart and deeply intellectual as he pretentiously is supposed to be, finds out his wife is cheating on him only by chance, simply because she is so careless that she makes out with the mole at some ridiculously set party at the MI6 headquarters. I thought he was supposed to be able to read people, if he is so good. It turns out his wife was betraying him every step of the way.
Most of the characters are 2-dimensional at best, John Hurt's Control is a caricature of a human being, who would allow a person with such unhinged behavior to be the head of British intelligence? We've heard about British eccentricity and propensity for alcohol, but how do you go up in such a hierarchy with behavior that outrageous?
The gay element also seems contrived. For obvious political correctness. Since we all heard how some of those Soviet moles in MI6 were homosexual, here comes Le Carre (or the director) to remind us that gays can also be the good gays who catch moles. And sacrifice their personal lives, for the cause. This is sophisticated world, people, make no mistake.
We don't learn anything about most of the characters and their motivation with very few exceptions, such as the British rogue agent in Istanbul, who wants to save a Russian damsel in distress just out of some basic human decency. This, give or take, is the only plausible event in the whole story.
Oldman's acting is reasonable but nothing extraordinary, although I found some elements of his performance rather pretentious than anything else. But it could only be me.
The director employs clichés that I'm sure the cinema-snobbery would fawn over. For example, the main character, Oldman/Smiley is shown several times swimming in some pond with deep, deep, dark, dirty waters. So if you are so dumb and not getting it how Smiley is swimming in the dangerous and muddy waters of international espionage, here comes the director of this movie with his mind-blowing 'symbolism', generously helping you out.
The film was tremendous disappointment for me, especially since I saw some of the ads on British TV, presenting it as something like the best spy thriller ever. What?
The Dark Knight Thing
Harvey Dent, after becoming Two-Face
It's a belated review, but nonetheless necessary.
I was reading people's reactions to the latest Twilight installment, New Moon, and both rabid fans and haters were comparing it with Dark Knight (commercially-wise, of course).
Since I don't like blockbuster movies in general (99% is crap in my book), predictably, I had seen very, very few of those movies.
But that's why I got acquainted to all these three. I needed to see who is right and who is wrong in this heated fan-hater exchange. After all Twilight is social and cultural phenomenon (and a very sad one, indeed) so you gotta see what it's all about.
Here, I'll lay out my views on Dark Knight, but just for the record, the Twilight movies are childish and doesn't amount to serious cinematography, so … I have no bias here.
The Dark Knight (2008), director Christopher Nolan
The main and only attraction in this movie, The Joker (Heath Ledger)
If one has to describe the last Batman movie in a single word, it's definitely 'incoherent.'
In two words? “Stunningly Incoherent.
There is no connection between crucial elements of the story.
How the Joker took his hostages, the DA Harvey Dent and his overwhelmingly unimpressive assistant (Rachel) and had the time to place them where they were, disabled and strapped to explosives. After all Batman was protecting them and they were clearly his priority.
Not a single frame, word, hint. And of all developments along this 150-minute cine-torture experience, this is the most important one. And the director, Christopher Nolan, doesn't care to explain as to how this had happened. 'Cinema Nouveau.' The unwashed masses wouldn't understand it anyway.
And then the Joker somehow turns Harvey Dent, Gotham’s crime-fighting poster boy, into a monster. How? It's another 'Cinema Nouveau' people. And the director is a genius, so, shhhhhh. Don't ask, don't tell.
That's exactly what Benny Hill and Steve Martin (Bowfinger) were mocking in their parodies. I borrowed the CN expression from Bowfinger, where Steve Martin explains the deficiencies in his picture with these two magical words. 'Cinema Nouveau'.
Coincidentally, at the end of Bowfinger he mocks Hong Kong-made martial arts movies. Dark Knight's fighting scenes are so poorly made, chopped, dark light, that nobody actually understands what's going on. It's humiliating for the modern average movie-goer to be treated like that. After all, we are not in the 1950s.
The Batman-junkies react angrily to this and any other type of criticism with the following outbirst: 'Hey, this is comics, remember? Don't expect it to be another Citizen Cane or whatever. Lighten up!'
Well, it was comics somewhere in the past. Now we have a director that pretends it to be high quality cinema and wants to make millions out of our 10 dollars. So … he better offers something that doesn't insult our intelligence and actually makes sense. Is that too much to ask for?
In my naivety, that's what I was hoping for. Sigh.
If you are a Batman junkie, you'll like it regardless of how big the crap is, but then there must be the rest of us ....
The Characters
Christian Bale as Batman is as exciting as my latest insurance salesman. “Sorry, my last insurance salesman!'
The latest Batman, Christian Bale. If you have insomnia, watch his performance in Dark Knight and will sleep like a baby
The only memorable element of his performance is his voice when he plops into the Batman costume. It is so hoarse that irritates the hell out of you. If that was the goal of your Batman character, then you scored a major success, director Nolan.
Apart from that, he is as confused about why he is in this movie as any of us.
There are times when he simply is AWOL from the scene although something dramatically happens and he is supposed to be there. His Mr. Q, (played by Morgan Freeman) who makes super-gadgets for him, actually is able to listen and tap everything. So he must have let him know there is a crisis here and there.
But no, director Nolan doesn't need him for his artificial schemes so Batman is urgently sent on an administrative leave for the time being. When Nolan needs you, you'll be back Batman. Don't worry, you'll get your paycheck.
And who cares about plausibility in Hollywood blockbusters, anyway?
Everything in this movie is not good versus evil. On the contrary.
Nolan wants to make something new, revolutionary, earth-shattering, 'Cinema Nouveau'. OK, I'm actually for that. But it all depends on what you replace the Hollywood cliché with.
His substitute ideas are as contrived and one-dimensional as a white string. Instead of good entities versus evil ones he offers us Mishmash (of randomly mixed shades of gray) A versus Mishmash B, versus Mishmash C …
It's so trumped up that it's gonna make me start liking the Hollywood thing. Some of them are rip off scenes. The Batman dilemma who to save (Dent or the lady) is taken from Spiderman situations.
The boats dilemma, giving your victims a remote control so they can kill the others and save themselves is what bad guys offer their victims in probably 50% of the movies. Corrupt them, make them same as you so you feel better. After all, they are no better than you actually.
Then, the director offers us totally contrived “love triangle”. It's between Wayne/Batman, current assistant DA Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and Harvey-the-DA-himself-Dent.
There is no depth, no emotions, no intrigue in Nolan's two-dimensional love geometry, nothing.
Sit down, take a blank sheet, a pen and a ruler, and draw a triangle. Then write down there the names Batman, Rachel, Harvey. Exciting, huh?
But then Rachel writes a letter to Batman telling him that she prefers Harvey. Ain't that original, exciting? It's 'Cinema Nouveau' people. So revolutionary subtle that you're not smart enough to comprehend the aftertaste of the ink on the paper. And it is actually sooo exquisite.
The commander (a fantastically uninspiring Gary Oldman), the Gotham mayor and Harvey Dent are lost between the lines. Harvey becomes interesting only after the 'incident', transforming himself into a two-faced Tarantino psycho-killing machine. It's the Joker who turns him into this monster, but how? Well, 'Cinema Nouveau', sorry.
We know that Tarantino can't get off without a salvo of meaningless psycho-murders, he is so understandable. But here? Nolan offers no explanation as to how this transformation happened. Use your imagination. If you can't see it, then you have no imagination, sorry. It's that simple.
The Music
Then there is the music. From The Da Vinci Code we know that Hans Zimmer could be a great composer, at least very talented, and at best … you know where I'm going.
So his music can't be bad, it's fine. But director Nolan plays it everywhere, superimposing on us bass-loaded rhythms even when nothing's going on. Wow! Why?
Oh, yeah, compensating for lack of value in the other departments maybe?
The Good Stuff
Surprise, surprise, there is at least one thing that is good about The Dark Knight. Well, sort of.
Heath Ledger's Joker is the only, really good, memorable component of this cinematic tragi-comedy. His psychopath is entertaining, worth watching, even if he overplays it a bit. He plays around with the character the way a composer plays variations on a certain theme. It's evil of course, but masterfully so. Mimics, lines, gestures. Whether he actually overplays it is actually subjective, so … we can forgive and forget it. Easily.
If only everything else in this movie was as good as he is. Sigh.
So we learned he is a talented actor.
Well, was. His demise, the controversy, the hype around it, is what saved this 'movie' at the box office.
And it gave the critics fodder to write about something that is really good. After all, Ledger is no more, he was a very talented actor, he played in this politically correct gay movie that Hollywood loves so much, so … so we can't trash his last movie too much. We can't say it's a total disaster, after all, the man is dead.
Ironic, isn't it? Heath Ledger's physical demise prevented Christopher Nolan's professional one.
|
Movies
