This morning I saw Winchester, starring Helen Mirren and Jason Clarke.
Sarah Winchester (Mirren) is a grieving widow who uprooted her east coast life to (literally) rebuild in San Jose, California. She is continually (as in, 24-hrs. a day, 7 days a week) constructing more rooms for her mansion to satisfy the spirits of those killed with the firearms her husband's company manufactured. The year is 1906 and the company (which she partially inherited following her husband's death) would like to get rid of her. Dr. Price (Clarke) is sent to stay with her and prove she's mentally unfit.
Clarke is a favorite of mine from his Brotherhood days, and it goes without saying that Mirren is always perfection. But this film was a huge disappointment despite their best efforts to save a weak script.
Aside from the possessed grand-nephew and some "gotcha" ghoulish appearances, this doesn't feel much like a horror film, or even a thriller. Furthermore, the actual property (which, full disclosure: I have visited) is incredibly captivating, but most of what we see of it here are dark hallways, nails spitting out of walls and slammed doors. I was also let down by the San Francisco earthquake scene, expecting far more supernatural elements at play.
Though many of the facts are correct in the film (the house was severely damaged in the quake of 1906; Sarah did continually build; niece Marion really existed) the fictional story they created to harness the essence of the Winchester history falls flat.
As I sat and watched, I imagined how I would have re-written it (perhaps cold open with a seance; maybe bring to life the wheelbarrow man ghost that supposedly haunts the house present-day; show a present-day tour and flashback). So many possibilities—and the fact I had time to concoct them as I sat there means my boredom was high.
You'd be better off watching a documentary about the property. Those actually have the power to spook you.
~~~
Showing posts with label Helen Mirren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Helen Mirren. Show all posts
Sunday, February 04, 2018
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Trumbo
Today I saw Trumbo, starring Bryan Cranston and Diane Lane.
Dalton Trumbo (Cranston) was a successful screenwriter until his politics got in the way. A man of integrity, he stood by his beliefs instead of his riches and was ultimately blacklisted for being a communist.
After a brief sentence in prison, Trumbo had to find a way to feed his family so he returned to his only true skill: writing. He wrote screenplays like Roman Holiday under a pen name and countless other less prestigious titles. He never stopped writing and he also helped other blacklisted friends find 'underground' work.
Though it's a simple, well-documented true story, Cranston injects the late writer with such life it's almost as if he's still with us today. Always a pleasure to watch, Diane Lane is also perfect as his loyal wife, Cleo. The supporting cast is unsurprisingly impressive as well; among them: Helen Mirren, Elle Fanning, Louis C.K. and John Goodman.
So, why should anyone that's not obsessed with writers or communists go see this? Because at the end of the day it's about the very timely topic of endangered civil liberties. The decisions we're making as Americans today will determine our country's future. Films like this remind us that making the wrong decisions can be of great moral cost.
~~~
Dalton Trumbo (Cranston) was a successful screenwriter until his politics got in the way. A man of integrity, he stood by his beliefs instead of his riches and was ultimately blacklisted for being a communist.
After a brief sentence in prison, Trumbo had to find a way to feed his family so he returned to his only true skill: writing. He wrote screenplays like Roman Holiday under a pen name and countless other less prestigious titles. He never stopped writing and he also helped other blacklisted friends find 'underground' work.
Though it's a simple, well-documented true story, Cranston injects the late writer with such life it's almost as if he's still with us today. Always a pleasure to watch, Diane Lane is also perfect as his loyal wife, Cleo. The supporting cast is unsurprisingly impressive as well; among them: Helen Mirren, Elle Fanning, Louis C.K. and John Goodman.
So, why should anyone that's not obsessed with writers or communists go see this? Because at the end of the day it's about the very timely topic of endangered civil liberties. The decisions we're making as Americans today will determine our country's future. Films like this remind us that making the wrong decisions can be of great moral cost.
~~~
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Queen
Tonight I saw The Queen starring Helen Mirren and James Cromwell.
As the brits would say, it was "spot on."
This movie chronicles the actions of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in the days following Princess Diana's death and how the input of those around her supposedly did (and didn't) play a role in her response.
First, let me say that I understand why Ms. Mirren has generated so much Oscar buzz. Having grown up enamored with the drama of the royal family, I've watched the real queen all my life and studied her mannerisms. Seeing this film, I forgot I was watching Helen Mirren.
From the way she folds her glasses to her less-than-feminine walk, this woman has Her Majesty down.
The brilliance of her work however, was really in the supressed emotion that she conveyed—bubbling beneath the surface, yet refined and crisp in the presence of everyone except for a wandering stag, which she tenderly tries to save. I won't be angry if this actress takes the statue come March.
And the others weren't so bad either.
James Cromwell is perfectly cast as Prince Philip—bitter and irritable, always throwing in his two cents. And Alex Jennings as Charles is cowardly and awkward, even while trying to do the right thing as the actual Prince of Wales so often appears.
Michael Sheen, who portrays Tony Blair, is a little over-the-top and doesn't possess the real charm of the actual Prime Minister, but does an ample job of at least sounding like the man he's trying to imitate.
The writing is superb in that you can't bear to take sides as the crises unfolds.
In 1997, I was disgusted as many 'Diana fans' were, that the royal family didn't immediately fly the flag at half mast or make a public statement regarding the tragedy. But after seeing this, I'm left with mixed emotions.
While the silence of the queen was undoubtedly inappropriate, I no longer think it was because of any disdain she had for her former daughter-in-law. I think it was because she is a woman of duty and she believed her job was to remain strong.
In the end, she did the right thing by finally giving in to her advisers (in the movie it's implied it was mostly Blair and his team; I have to wonder in reality how true that was), but the damage she did to the reputation of the Monarchy may never be repaired.
Seeing the actual footage of Diana spliced in with the fictional reinactment gave it an eerie "I'm watching you" vibe, which quite frankly gave me goosebumps.
If only Her Majesty had realized the magic her grandsons' mother had with people while she was still alive, she may have reacted differently.
As the brits would say, it was "spot on."
This movie chronicles the actions of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in the days following Princess Diana's death and how the input of those around her supposedly did (and didn't) play a role in her response.
First, let me say that I understand why Ms. Mirren has generated so much Oscar buzz. Having grown up enamored with the drama of the royal family, I've watched the real queen all my life and studied her mannerisms. Seeing this film, I forgot I was watching Helen Mirren.
From the way she folds her glasses to her less-than-feminine walk, this woman has Her Majesty down.
The brilliance of her work however, was really in the supressed emotion that she conveyed—bubbling beneath the surface, yet refined and crisp in the presence of everyone except for a wandering stag, which she tenderly tries to save. I won't be angry if this actress takes the statue come March.
And the others weren't so bad either.
James Cromwell is perfectly cast as Prince Philip—bitter and irritable, always throwing in his two cents. And Alex Jennings as Charles is cowardly and awkward, even while trying to do the right thing as the actual Prince of Wales so often appears.
Michael Sheen, who portrays Tony Blair, is a little over-the-top and doesn't possess the real charm of the actual Prime Minister, but does an ample job of at least sounding like the man he's trying to imitate.
The writing is superb in that you can't bear to take sides as the crises unfolds.
In 1997, I was disgusted as many 'Diana fans' were, that the royal family didn't immediately fly the flag at half mast or make a public statement regarding the tragedy. But after seeing this, I'm left with mixed emotions.
While the silence of the queen was undoubtedly inappropriate, I no longer think it was because of any disdain she had for her former daughter-in-law. I think it was because she is a woman of duty and she believed her job was to remain strong.
In the end, she did the right thing by finally giving in to her advisers (in the movie it's implied it was mostly Blair and his team; I have to wonder in reality how true that was), but the damage she did to the reputation of the Monarchy may never be repaired.
Seeing the actual footage of Diana spliced in with the fictional reinactment gave it an eerie "I'm watching you" vibe, which quite frankly gave me goosebumps.
If only Her Majesty had realized the magic her grandsons' mother had with people while she was still alive, she may have reacted differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)