Ghost Rider (2007)

Ghost Rider Review
Review #156

2/5 stars

Director – Mark Steven Johnson

Cast – Nicholas Cage, Eva Mendes, Wes Bentley, Sam Elliott, Donal Logue, Peter Fonda

——————–

– followed by Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

——————–

Who’d have thought that Nicholas Cages’ most subdued performance in years is as the guy with the flaming skull head…

Ghost Rider is, of course, based on the Marvel comic book of the same name. This particular super hero (who is not as firmly imbedded in the public consciousness as Superman or Batman) is the alter ego of motorcycle stunt driver Johnny Blaze. When angry, or in the presence of evil, he transforms into a skeleton with a flaming motor bike, black leather outfit (with spikes), and of course the aforementioned flaming-skull head. He whips a chain around, can light random things on fire, and is general a goth’s wet dream.

Is he the bad guy? Well, not really, though the movie certainly want us to think he is bad-ass. I mean, he wears leather after all. In practice he is nothing more than a reckless Spider-Man. But he has no unique world view, no over-riding idea to set him apart from any other superheroes. The best we are given is int he movies final lines, where he says he will keep his powers to be a “spirit of vengeance”, wandering around being good. Ghost Rider is so generic and dull in his powers (or at least as he is presented here) that he needs the hellfire and damnation angle just to make him interesting. The same is true of the movie itself. There is a neat little edge to the movie (it is essentially a gothic western, if that is even a term), but without that it is just another origin story of another frikin’ superhero. It has the same plot beats, the same ideas, and we get the same result.

Even Peter Fonda (as the devil) and Wes Bentley (the devil’s son) phone it in. Peter Fonda in particular looks plain bored, and I don’t blame him. He strides into a scene, looks vaguely ominous and then strides out. And it’s always “…blabla the Devil Himself.” Have you noticed that?

OVERALL

Ghost Rider tries for something new in its tone, but forgets to have an interesting story. Combine that with a hammy yet bored-looking cast, and we get a strange mix of dull and bizarre. Not really recommended.

NOTE: This review is part of a series called Superheroes: Bottom to Top, wherein I review every super-hero movie I own, from the lowest rated to the highest (according to Rotten Tomatoes). Next up is Fantastic Four.

——————–

TRAILER

“Ghost Rider” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

Superman III (1983)

Superman III Review
Review #155

2.5/5 stars

Director – Richard Lester

Cast – Christopher Reeve, Richard Pryor, Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, Annette O’Toole, Annie Ross, Pamela Stephenson, Robert Vaughn, Margot Kidder

——————–

– follows Superman II

– followed by Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

——————–

And, we’re back to Superman! This article is part of the series Superheroes: Bottom to Top, where I watch all the superhero movies I own, from worst rated to best (according to Rotten Tomatoes).

First, a small bit of background. Superman: The Movie was directed by Richard Donner, and released to critical acclaim. Come Superman II, Donner was fired halfway through filming, and replaced by Richard Lester, who re-shot some scenes, and shoehorned in a lot of awkward humour. While the movie was still received well, many people noticed the clash of styles, and weren’t too happy. And then, Richard Lester was given full control over Superman III. Comedian Richard Pryor was given the lead, the opening credits sequence was full of Marx Bros.-esque slapstick and didn’t even feature Superman… and fans were pissed.

Their Superman was noble and grand. He fought evil interplanetary beings, and vicious madmen, not a tycoon who wants to buy more coffee. Now personaly, and this is where I come into disagreement with most people, I was glad to see some comedy in this movie. Now it does go over the top a bit, and Richard Pryor is in way too much of the movie, but it felt right to me. The main reason is the ridiculousness of Superman’s character. His disguise is a pair of glasses. His co-worker is in love with his alter ego, yet does not notice the similarity between Kent and Superman. It’s absurd, really, and this movie recognizes that. So in that respect, I will defend the comedic aspects of Superman III.

Having said that, it does end up hurting the movie. By the half way point we stop caring about the characters, and we start getting sick off gags. It doesn’t help that the rest of the movie isn’t that great, either. The plot is draggy and unfocused, and as I said before, Richard Pryor’s hacker character drags the whole movie down. While it might have been an interesting idea to see a the typical superhero movie through the eyes of a man sucked up in the villain’s clutches, it doesn’t work here.

What does work? The special effects for one, which are definitely the best of the series. There is a sub plot involving Superman being infected (?) by some faux Kryptonite. He starts behaving erratically, and even turns evil for a bit. This story line doesn’t really work, but Reeves is very convincing as baddie Supes. I think Reeves is a better actor than he is usually given credit for.

Is the movie worth watching? I’ll go out on a  limb and say it pretty much is, but just for Superman complete-ists. It’s nothing special, and has a lot of flaws, but I found it curiously watchable. Not a ringing endorsement to be sure, but there it is.

OVERALL

Superman III is not a great movie, it really isn’t. The storyline is unfocused, and Richard Pryor is way too prominent. Having said that, Superman complete-ists may find something to enjoy here. Everyone else should steer clear.

NOTE: This review is part of a series called Superheroes: Bottom to Top, wherein I review every super-hero movie I own, from the lowest rated to the highest (according to Rotten Tomatoes). Next up, Nic Cage and Ghost Rider!

——————–

TRAILER

“Superman III” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

Batman and Robin (1997)

Batman and Robin Review
Review #154

1/5 stars

Director – Joel Schumacher

Cast – George Clooney, Chris O’Donnell, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Uma Thurman, Alicia Silverstone, Pat Hingle, Michael Gough

——————–

– follows Batman Forever

———————

As I sat watching the mind-numbing neon nightmare called Batman and Robin, I couldn’t help but think of the previous movie I watched for this series that I’ve called Superheroes: Bottom to Top. But while Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was awful due in large part to its low budget, this movie suffers for having too large a budget. Put simply, it doesn’t know where to stop, from it’s outlandish set pieces (which might have been fun for kids if not repeated so relentlessly), to the overt sexuality of the constantly-narrating Poison Ivy, which went too far for a kids movie.

And I think they thought they were making a kids movie. That’s what everyone wanted apparently, after the slightly dark first two Batman films. Well, parents groups, you got your wish. This movie has the tone of a Looney Tunes short, complete with whistles and bweeps during fight scenes, but unfortunately without the fun. The baddies refer to Batman and Robin as the heroes, and are self-aware enough to know they are the villains. The dialogue is right out of a comic book, full of exposition and plot-pushing. Let’s drop in on Poison Ivy talking to herself… “Mammals, a day of reckoning is coming. The same plants and flowers that saw you crawl from the primordial soup will reclaim the planet, and there will be no-one to protect you!” It seems Schumacher takes the dynamic duo as seriously as the Hasbro execs.

For that matter, so does Clooney.” Sleep walking” would perhaps be the term. Michael Gough seems to give it his all, and in fact his story becomes almost touching. Almost. Meanwhile, Uma and Arnold ham it up. They seem to think they’re in a children’s play. Well, who are we kidding. They are.

Now all this is not to say that a light tone and a tongue-in-cheek spirit can’t work. It just doesn’t here. Bright colours and jokey quips are well and good, but here it feels like being hit over the head with a neon baseball bat.

All-in-all the movie just reeks of corporate desperation. Director Joel Schumchaer himself admitted to being under pressure from toy companies to make a movie that would sell action figures. Ice Skating Batman, Hockey Goon sold separately! I don’t know if they succeeded. Out of pure spite I hope they didn’t.

OVERALL

Batman and Robin deserves its bad reputation and then some. It’s garish, loud, obnoxious, and dull. Enough said.

NOTE: This review is part of a series called Superheroes: Bottom to Top, wherein I review every super-hero movie I own, from the lowest rated to the highest (according to Rotten Tomatoes). Next up, Superman 3! Not sure why I put an exclamation mark there…

——————–

TRAILER

“Batman and Robin” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

The Guard (2011)

The Guard Review
Review # 152

4/5 stars

Director – John Michael McDonagh

Cast – Brendan Gleeson, Don Cheadle, Mark Strong, Liam Cunningham, David Wilmot, Rory Keenan, Laurence Kinlan

——————–

The Guard first came to my attention because the director, John Michael McDonagh, is the brother of the director of one of my favourite movies, In Bruges. That movie also starred Brendan Gleeson. My expectations were up, and I hoped for something akin to the dark humour and bleak tone of the former. While it definitely retains a dark sense of humour, the tone doesn’t seem as consistent, or as defined.

Of course, it is a bad habit (of which I am constantly guilty) to judge a movie merely because another one did something better. And while this isn’t as sharp as In Bruges (by a long shot), it is still a good movie. To be good rather than “Great” isn’t a horrible thing.

Plot wise, we follow Brendan Gleeson’s gleefully un-PC Irish cop (or “Garda”). He has been partnered with an American FBI agent (Don Cheadle), who is in Ireland to hunt down a gang of drug traffickers. In accordance with cop movie tradition they are two very different people. Gleeson is “unconventional”, while Cheadle goes by the book. Gleeson doesn’t mind making snide little jokes to Cheadle about his skin colour, and Cheadle has to try to learn to take them as a joke, as they are meant. Their relationship isn’t as “buddy cop” as a Riggs and Murtaugh, but the elements are there.

Brendan Gleeson is the standout in the film, of course, as he usually is. With his dry wit, cheeky jokes, and general orneriness, he creates an enormously fun character. It is a joy to watch Don Cheadle’s FBI agent do his best to keep up. He doesn’t succeed of course, but that’s the point of his character. He just sits by, rolls his eyes, and tries to catch Gleeson when he decides to come back to Earth once in a while.

The trio of drug traffickers are played play Mark Strong, David Wilmot, and Liam Cunningham. Again, poor Mark Strong, doing the villain thing. You can’t deny, he’s good at it. Here we get the impression he doesn’t like the job he finds himself doing. He’s disgusted by bent cops, and wishes for a special relationship. We don’t find him sympathetic, though, he sneers his lines out in a delicious way. He really is one of the best villain actors I can think of.

All in all, the best I can do is reiterate that importance of Gleeson’s character to the movie. As the main character of course he carries a lot of the weight anyway, but the uniqueness of the character he creates can not be under estimated. He is the heart of the movie, and the success of the ambiguous way in which the movie ends can be attributed mainly to him. A strong actor with a strong script is a wonderful thing to see.

OVERALL

The Guard is a dark, witty, and unique movie, whose success is due mainly to Brendan Gleeson’s wonderful turn as Sergeant Gerry Boyle. This is not to underestimate the other actors, Cheadle in particular. For those who enjoy an ambiguous ending, dark humour, and smart writing, this movie is for you.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Guard” on other trailers:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

Thor (2011)

Thor Review
Review # 150

3/5 stars

Director – Kenneth Branagh

Cast – Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hiddleston, Stellan Skarsgard

——————–

– followed by The Avengers

——————–

Thor continues Marvel’s journey to the intensely awaited The Avengers. Directed by Kenneth Branaugh (of all people), the movie follows the titular arrogant supernatural being/god as he finds himself banished on Earth after a brash attack on a similarly supernatural group of beings called Jötunn (or “Frost Giants”). To regain his superhuman abilities and the respect of his father, Odin, Thor must find humility and lose his arrogance. Or something like that.

Anthony Hopkins appears as Odin, Colm Feore plays the Frost Giant King, and Stellan Skarsgard mentors Natalie Portman’s young and ambitious scientist. I get the feeling that a cast like this would not have been possible without Kenneth Branaugh’s involvement as director. And seriously, how the hell did they get Mr. Shakespeare to do a superhero movie? In interviews Hopkins and Branaugh constantly mention the “Shakespearean themes” in the story. Well, there is a squabbling royal family, I guess that counts.

Released just months before Captain America, there was a lot riding on the success of the two films. Imagine if they both tanked and hadn’t found an audience, especially as The Avengers had already been started. Hundreds of millions of dollars would have been lost. But it wasn’t that likely, was it. The question remains though, could they find a way to make the films work?

They did, for the most part. Thor finds himself mingling with already introduced characters such as Agent Coulson, numerous references are made to Iron Man and other future Avengers, and the tone (on Earth anyway) is kept as realistic as we have come to expect. There may not be a huge amount of chemistry between Hemsworth and Portman, and the script gives them even less to work with, but it does get by, and in a fairly pleasant fashion.

Thor is best looked at as a part of a whole, that whole being the Avengers franchise. It serves to introduce both the character of Thor and his villainous brother Loki, and also the concept of supernatural beings as superheroes. Up to this point in the Marvel-verse superheroes are the result of serums (The Incredible Hulk and then Captain America), or super-suits (Iron Man), so to introduce gods into the equation seems a little off. All in all the movie meshes itself in well to the established continuity, and that is really all it wants to do. A more unique story would have been welcome, but what we have here is done well.

OVERALL

Thor is fairly unremarkable, though the special effects and most of the visual design is great. The script holds back the movie, which, while solid and workmanlike, likes to dips its toes in the pool of cliché once or twice too often. It is best seen as a build up to The Avengers, and as such it does what it is expected to.

——————–

TRAILER

“Thor” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)

Taste the Blood of Dracula Review
Review # 149

3.5/5 stars

Director – Peter Sasdy

Cast – Christopher Lee, Peter Sallis, Geoffrey Keen, Gwen Watford, Linda Hayden, Anthony Corlan, Isla Blair, John Carson, Martin Jarvis, Ralph Bates, Roy Kinnear

——————–

– follows Dracula Has Risen From the Grave

– followed by Scars of Dracula

——————–

We all know Dracula, the evil vampire and seducer of lore. The most recent movie adaptation of any note was Coppola’s 1992 Bram Stoker’s Dracula starring Gary Oldman. That is a movie that, while being hailed for its old-time charm and practical effects wizardry, I have yet been able to sit through once. But before Oldman and his famous (infamous?) hairstylings, the character was synonymous with Christopher Lee and his portrayal in the Hammer Productions films.

Christopher Lee is perhaps most famous to modern audiences as the villains Sauroman and Count Dooku, from the Lord of the Rings films and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones respectively. He also makes numerous cameos in Tim Burton movies. But back in the day Hammer films were his training ground, with appearances in The Hound of the Baskervilles and many other non-Dracula roles. His Dracula is suave and commanding, but doesn’t say much, except for counting down the number of victims he has killed. He doesn’t even appear (save one brief scene at the beginning) until 50 or 55 minutes into the movie.

The movie is told from the point of view of three men, friends who like going out on a Sunday night and living a little wild. (In a nice surprise one of these men is played by Peter Sallis, eventual voice of Wallace from Wallace and Gromit, and long time cast member of the BBC TV series The Last of the Summer Wine.) Once brothels start seeming a little tame, they talk to someone rumoured to have been once caught in the act of worshiping in a Black Mass. He is a rich and arrogant young man, and takes them to a remote castle. There he drinks the re-constituted blood of Dracula (after the three men chicken out), and after they flee we see him morph into a familiar fanged form. Dracula vows to hunt the men down. As you do.

The movie is slow to build up, and uneven pacing is its biggest problem. It is a beautiful looking movie, though, and clearly had a decent budget (for movies it its type.) I was intrigued by its way of keeping Dracula off-screen til the half way point. We saw the story through the eyes of three middle-aged gentlemen who realize they are in over their heads, and it was enough of a new take on the vampire genre to interest me. I must admit that other than that the story is fairly routine. The special effects aren’t great (what little there are), with the occasional visible wire or dodgy compositing, but we have to expect that from these productions.

OVERALL

Taste the Blood of Dracula is a solid entry into the Hammer Dracula series, as those movies go. Christopher Lee is back in fine form, but doesn’t have a lot to do, really. I would recommend this to fans of Hammer films, or Dracula films. There isn’t much in it for anyone else, but it does certainly have a quaint charm to it.

——————–

TRAILER 

“Taste the Blood of Dracula” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hunger Games Review
Review #148

3.5/5 stars

Director – Gary Ross

Cast – Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland, Wes Bentley, Toby Jones, Alexander Ludwig, Isabelle Fuhrman, Amandla Stenberg

——————–

I watched The Hunger Games with the same enjoyment with which I would eat a hotdog. It was fun, a little meaty, but probably would have been a lot more enjoyable if I was ten years younger.

Based on the best-selling young adult novel by Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games is set in a slightly dystopian future, where all twelve “districts” of a future nation (implied to be America) are required to sacrifice two “tributes” each year to fight in a televised fight-to-the-death. The tributes are to be between the ages of 12 and 18. The winner’s district apparently receives extra food, though I was a bit blurry on this point. Tributes are lauded and celebrated as celebrities, the survivor more so. They are built up in the public eye through media events, they seek sponsors, and train for a brief period of time before set loose in a large forest. The forest’s edges are cordoned off, and a laser-like dome/grid covers the whole area, as the Game Master monitors (and occasionally interferes with) the game. The main characters, Katniss (female) and Peta (male), are from a poor district. While Katniss is an excellent shot with a bow and has good survival skills, Peta is without a doubt in over his head. It was good to see that reversal of the usual gender dynamics.

I must admit that the tributes age took me aback a little, once they, you know, started slicing at each other with swords. Even within the group, it was a little bit disturbing to see a large, muscular 18-year-old hacking away at a young nerdy looking kid. Nothing was explicit, to be sure, but perhaps that makes it worse. It was very effective, which was good… I guess. It would have been easier if I could accept the premise that a society would both permit and even flock to such a gruesome spectacle. The vague explanation about “keeping the border districts in line” just didn’t really fly with me… I think as a younger person it would have gone down easier, they would accept the premise quicker. Seeing people your own age get cut down has a different effect. That’s something of a youthful fantasy as well, finding yourself alone against the odds, fighting to the death. Those questions didn’t quite leave the back of my mind, but the movie is not really aimed at me. It is targeted at teens who have read the Hunger Games trilogy. They will get more from it.

All this is not to say that the movie is not solid. It is very well made, and even has some sly little things to say about celebrity, pop culture, and reality TV. The beginning is especially engrossing, but once we reach the capital city to be prepped for the games, the movies start to drag slightly.

The final third of the movie consists of the game itself, and drags a bit as well. When action scenes do happen though, they are brutal and merciless, if a bit too “shaky-cam”. These kids mean to kill, and they are as brutal as the society that forces them to. I just wish that perhaps the movie had been as brutal with the targets of its satire. I love it when reality TV gets a little poke!

OVERALL

The Hunger Games is a solid and respectful film. It is a bit too long, but is impressive when it counts, and is anchored by excellent performances, both from the younger ones (like Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson) and the veterans (Stanley Tucci and Donald Sutherland, etc.). Tucci looks like he is having a ball here, and I have yet to see Woody Harrelson give a bad performance. He’s a joy to watch.

So, while readers of the books may get a bit more out of it, this is a solid movie that is rightfully managing to attract a large audience. Certainly worth your time, but don’t be expecting anything revolutionary. Just sit back and enjoy.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Hunger Games” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

——————–

A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy (1982)

A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy Review
Review #147

3.5/5 stars

Director – Woody Allen

Cast – Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Jose Ferrer, Julia Hagerty, Tony Roberts, Mary Steenburgen, Adam Redfield

——————–

Beside his unique look on life, Woody Allen is known for being both prolific and inconsistent. It seems that for every Annie Hall or Match Point there is a Whatever Works.

A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy lies somewhere in between those examples. It is not a Great Film to be sure, but not every movie has to be. Here we have a breezy, light, slightly fantastical take on romance, all done in Allen’s unmistakable style.

The story concerns a group of friends, three couples, who rent a house out in “the country” to spend a small vacation together. Of course each person finds themself desiring a member of another couple, and hijinks ensue. People climb out of windows, meet in wooded glades, and deal with the inevitable confusions and mixups that it all entails. It is all very laid back, but has a dry wit and enough imagination to keep it flowing nice and smoothly.

Allen also adds some strangely fantastical elements. A subplot which becomes a bit more relevant towards the end of the movie concerns spirits, and Allen’s inventor character even has a bicycle powered flying machine. Does it all quite fit? No, but we don’t care. Ferrer is funny in a strangely funny and sympathetic “old leche” role, and the cinematography is lush and vibrant. Woody Allen doesn’t normally do movies in natural settings, and purposefully wanted to try something different here, despite his self-professed hatred of anywhere outside of a city.

All in all, the movie is best described by its title. It is as relaxed, warm, and modest in ambition as a lazy, hot summer late-afternoon. It aspires to nothing more, and while it may not achieve too much, it is comforting and pleasant. I wish there were more movies like this.

OVERALL

Don’t expect a huge amount from A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy, but it is a sweet 90 minutes. Woody Allen has made better, to be sure, but he has also made much worse. This may not be a ringing endorsement, but is in no way an insult. Pleasant is the best word for this movie, just pleasant.

——————–

TRAILER 

“A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

John Carter (2012)

John Carter Review
Review # 146

2/5 stars

Director – Andrew Stanton

Cast – Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton, Mark Strong, Cirian Hinds, Thomas Haden Church, Dominic West, James Purefoy

——————–

After Brad Bird’s excellent Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, the bar was set for Andrew Stanton. Another prominent Pixar director who was making the switch to live action, Stanton had found success with his Finding Nemo and Wall-E, two little films you just may have heard of. His entry to the live action realm is John Carter, an adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ classic sci-fi book A Princess of Mars. Featuring a Civil War veteran mysteriously transported to Mars, the book is a widely loved and admired piece of work. It is a pity that the movie is set to be anything but. Critics have been lukewarm at best towards it, and it has been savaged by the industry for its alleged massive budget. I doesn’t look to be gaining much of it back, either. Even comparisons to Ishtar have been made. Ouch.

Maybe the whole situation was just made worse by Bird’s excellent film preceding this by mere months. It built up expectations that in the end just couldn’t pay off. While Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol was witty, fast, and delivered exactly what it promised, John Carter is dry, derivative, and dull. Very, very dull.

The key issue is the writing, frankly. It’s expositional, stiff, and all about plot. We can’t get good characterization if every line is “We must get over there!”, or “The good guys have the blue flag, the bad guys the red!”. Several different Mars factions are shown, from humanoids to 9-feet tall four armed aliens. None of their motivations are extremely clear. Mark Strong heads one group, so they must be the bad guys. Poor Mark Strong, you do something well and that’s all they’ll hire you to do…

It doesn’t help that Taylor Kitcsh is miscast as the titular character, and growls out every line as if imitating Christian Bale’s Batman voice. “I am JOHN CARTER!” The strange voices aren’t limited to him though; Lilly Collins has an affected British accent that comes and goes with every other line. James Purefoy and Dominic West come out unscathed, as do the special effects team. In fact the special effects are excellent. The production design and the effects are without a doubt the best thing in the movie. The 3D is pointless though. Even Stanton has said he didn’t really want it or like it.

OVERALL

John Carter is dull, muddled, and at least half an hour too long. Characterization is flat and uninteresting, and while it does have a couple laughs and half way interesting moments (the sequence near the beginning where John is repeatedly arrested is a sign of where the movie could have gone), the rest of the movie is dry as dust. Not recommended for any but sci-fi addicts.

——————–

TRAILER

 

“John Carter”on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-

The Iron Lady (2011)

The Iron Lady Review
Review #145

2/5 stars

Director – Phyllida Lloyd

Cast – Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Alexandra Roach, Harry Lloyd, Iain Glen, Olivia Colman, Anthony Head, Nicholas Farrell, Richard E. Grant, Roger Allam, Michael Pennington

——————–

The Iron Lady features Meryl Streep in an Academy Award winning role as the legendary (and to some, infamous) British Prime Minister. Streep is excellent. So is her makeup. And that’s all that works, really.

If I was feeling vicious I might say the movie is ridiculous, and that a dull pencil has more of a point. If I was feeling generous I might say that the movie lacks focus. As it is, I will just say that I was by turns bored, frustrated, and bored again.

In attempting to follow Thatcher’s life, we jump back and forth from the present (where, in a shockingly insensitive plot device, she constantly hallucinates images of her dead husband), to the past, where we get a bare thumbnail sketch of what made her the woman she became; and what we are given is composed of very broad strokes, I must add. Her father was politically conscious and a Conservative, so of course we see him addressing a group of similar feeling folk with a speech straight out of Torie 101. We constantly hear his face over the film in these sections… “Be Strong, Margaret,” “Be yourself, Margaret.” The platitudes do not let up as we continue, either.

Once we reach the stage in her flashbacks when she is prime minster, the movie falls into a rut of scenes in the past alternating between crushing political defeats and uplifting Great Moments (you know what I mean, the moments from which trailers can cherry pick to their heart’s content), to Margaret hobbling around her small flat, hallucinating that her old hubby is still around, charming her with his eccentricities. There really is no point, nor is one ever implied. I found myself yearning for something resembling a through line, but there is nothing, not amongst the plot, the films comments on Thatcher, her governing style, the era, nothing. The Iron Lady is essentially the emotional equivalent of a Transformers film; while the latter may bore us with repetitive and dull action scenes, the former hits us over the head with one dry, manipulative, and dull Emotional Moment after another.

How is Meryl Streep so good, yet is so rarely able to choose projects worthy good as her talents? This film, a period drama biopic, was for some reason helmed by Phyllia Lloyd, the same person as Mamma Mia. Mamma Mia… the ABBA musical. The ABBA musical that also somehow managed to be dry as dust and absolutely pointless. Are we supposed to like Margaret Thatcher? To hate her? To see her as just a human being? I don’t think the movie knows or cares, and by the last of the sugar-coated Great Moments, our teeth are numb, we feel listless, and we don’t care either.

OVERALL

The Iron Lady is frustratingly inept, but has a commanding performance by Meryl Streep. Actually, most of the actors acquit themselves well, but a lame duck of a script and muddled direction stop the movie from becoming anything. It is mainly frustrating because the motives behind the movie are so obviously pure. I can really only recommend this to Streep purists.

——————–

TRAILER

“The Iron Lady” on other websites:

IMDB —– Rotten Tomatoes —– Wikipedia

—————————————-