Movies seen in September '24
Oct. 2nd, 2024 08:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shallownessSticking with early nineteenth century France, but watching a French film made by French people, I went to see The Count of Monte Cristo at the start of the month. I haven’t read the book, I vaguely remember the Guy Pearce adaptation from years ago. I believe this is from the team who made the two The Musketeers films recently, and the desire to watch them has been reignited in me by this.
This movie was made with a lot of cinematic brio, the opening two segments sweep you along, and the location scouts, costume and production designers clearly had a blast. There’s some swashbuckling: tall ships, Chekhov’s duelling pistols, and some high drama, not least one of the most famous prison breaks in literature. But ultimately, it’s about the price of revenge (for a grave injustice), so it’s an odd mix that must be true of the original. There were elements that reminded me of Les Mis, and also our protagonist Ethan Hunts about to execute his revenge. I did wonder sometimes if a three-part TV adaptation would be better for clarity, but then the sweep of this demands a big screen, because some of the characters are thinly drawn and I misunderstood some things (some of that is probably on me, but I think some of it is on the film-makers.) I had a quibble about the ending, but I have no idea how close it is to the novel’s, and I think it was a hard balance to find the right ending given the journey our hero had been on. (If I get specific, I’ll get spoily.) But if you want a cinematic French take on a nineteenth-century novel that’s both yarn and a bit serious about the interplay between justice/revenge/mercy, it’s well worth seeing.
I went to see Lee, a biopic of Lee Miller, starring and a passion project for Kate Winslet (who is very good). While it was interesting to watch it in the same year as I’d seen One Life and Civil War, I would emphasise that it’s about the impact of trauma (it has a 15 certificate in the UK), and even though I knew that going in, I was probably in too raw a state for it. Much is made of truth-telling in this movie (yes, especially in news!), but you are allowed to want your entertainment to provide you with bright, sparkly things on a Saturday too.
And it is flawed. While I understood why they’d gone for the device of an interview about (parts of) her life with an elderly Miller by the end of the film, I’m unconvinced about what the audience got out of it. I thought the actresses mostly came out of it better than the actors. Winslet is particularly good at showing the weight of what Miller witnessed and photographed in continental Europe 1944-45 (possibly helped by make-up, but it’s a strong performance.) Marion Cotillard has only a small role, but there’s a charge to seeing her share the screen with Winslet, while Andrea Riseborough’s role deepens the female gaze of it all – Miller had to fight chauvinism to get to be a war photographer, and while she can’t have known the toll it would take, the point that she saw things in a way men wouldn’t is made. But though I rate him, Alexander Skarsgard’s English accent was deeply unconvincing, and I felt that Davey, played straight by Andy Samberg, Lee’s colleague, was too much of a cypher. It’s worth seeing, but you have to be in a certain headspace for it.
I took the chance (like a lot of other people at the screening I was at) to see The Batman in the cinema a few days ago. (Though I rolled my eyes at the people who were so late they came in after it had started and they annoyingly had to switch the lights on on their cameras because the film had started because they were so late.) I’ve watched it before, but on Blu-Ray (and relied on audio description then. I could see it better now and on a big screen, and I think I followed some details better from having ‘watched’ it before, (although it was interesting that some things hadn’t left a deep impression on me.) I think it’s fairly well done, but definitely too long.
I like the story starting at this point, when the Batman identity is still a work in progress. I think Pattinson makes a fine, raspy Batman, and the grungy, rooted reboot offers something different to the Nolan take. (Even more dour, though.) I wasn’t always entirely in sync with the throughline – I kept glomping onto Selina as the most well-developed female character, and I still think the revelation that Martha Wayne was an Arkham and that Bruce has inherited some of his mental health issues from her as well as his trauma is more interesting than sad rich boys who have lost their daddies and how Bruce here recognises what Alfred means to him (and that Gordon is a bit of a father figure too.) Farrell’s great turn as The Penguin makes me think I might even try to catch his spin-off on DVD/Blu-Ray, even if it is more of a mafia drama. But I am looking forward to another The Batman film – I think it is on, even though this was a tough shoot (COVID) and because of the DCU’s convulsions.
So, a month topped and tailed with movies about the price of revenge/vengeance, (sandwiching a film about trauma from a female gaze.) Oh, and what they all had in common was that I didn't particularly want to see any of the upcoming films featured in the trailers section.
This movie was made with a lot of cinematic brio, the opening two segments sweep you along, and the location scouts, costume and production designers clearly had a blast. There’s some swashbuckling: tall ships, Chekhov’s duelling pistols, and some high drama, not least one of the most famous prison breaks in literature. But ultimately, it’s about the price of revenge (for a grave injustice), so it’s an odd mix that must be true of the original. There were elements that reminded me of Les Mis, and also our protagonist Ethan Hunts about to execute his revenge. I did wonder sometimes if a three-part TV adaptation would be better for clarity, but then the sweep of this demands a big screen, because some of the characters are thinly drawn and I misunderstood some things (some of that is probably on me, but I think some of it is on the film-makers.) I had a quibble about the ending, but I have no idea how close it is to the novel’s, and I think it was a hard balance to find the right ending given the journey our hero had been on. (If I get specific, I’ll get spoily.) But if you want a cinematic French take on a nineteenth-century novel that’s both yarn and a bit serious about the interplay between justice/revenge/mercy, it’s well worth seeing.
I went to see Lee, a biopic of Lee Miller, starring and a passion project for Kate Winslet (who is very good). While it was interesting to watch it in the same year as I’d seen One Life and Civil War, I would emphasise that it’s about the impact of trauma (it has a 15 certificate in the UK), and even though I knew that going in, I was probably in too raw a state for it. Much is made of truth-telling in this movie (yes, especially in news!), but you are allowed to want your entertainment to provide you with bright, sparkly things on a Saturday too.
And it is flawed. While I understood why they’d gone for the device of an interview about (parts of) her life with an elderly Miller by the end of the film, I’m unconvinced about what the audience got out of it. I thought the actresses mostly came out of it better than the actors. Winslet is particularly good at showing the weight of what Miller witnessed and photographed in continental Europe 1944-45 (possibly helped by make-up, but it’s a strong performance.) Marion Cotillard has only a small role, but there’s a charge to seeing her share the screen with Winslet, while Andrea Riseborough’s role deepens the female gaze of it all – Miller had to fight chauvinism to get to be a war photographer, and while she can’t have known the toll it would take, the point that she saw things in a way men wouldn’t is made. But though I rate him, Alexander Skarsgard’s English accent was deeply unconvincing, and I felt that Davey, played straight by Andy Samberg, Lee’s colleague, was too much of a cypher. It’s worth seeing, but you have to be in a certain headspace for it.
I took the chance (like a lot of other people at the screening I was at) to see The Batman in the cinema a few days ago. (Though I rolled my eyes at the people who were so late they came in after it had started and they annoyingly had to switch the lights on on their cameras because the film had started because they were so late.) I’ve watched it before, but on Blu-Ray (and relied on audio description then. I could see it better now and on a big screen, and I think I followed some details better from having ‘watched’ it before, (although it was interesting that some things hadn’t left a deep impression on me.) I think it’s fairly well done, but definitely too long.
I like the story starting at this point, when the Batman identity is still a work in progress. I think Pattinson makes a fine, raspy Batman, and the grungy, rooted reboot offers something different to the Nolan take. (Even more dour, though.) I wasn’t always entirely in sync with the throughline – I kept glomping onto Selina as the most well-developed female character, and I still think the revelation that Martha Wayne was an Arkham and that Bruce has inherited some of his mental health issues from her as well as his trauma is more interesting than sad rich boys who have lost their daddies and how Bruce here recognises what Alfred means to him (and that Gordon is a bit of a father figure too.) Farrell’s great turn as The Penguin makes me think I might even try to catch his spin-off on DVD/Blu-Ray, even if it is more of a mafia drama. But I am looking forward to another The Batman film – I think it is on, even though this was a tough shoot (COVID) and because of the DCU’s convulsions.
So, a month topped and tailed with movies about the price of revenge/vengeance, (sandwiching a film about trauma from a female gaze.) Oh, and what they all had in common was that I didn't particularly want to see any of the upcoming films featured in the trailers section.
