Crimson Peak (2015)

Summary
Edith Cushing is running away from a family tragedy. She marries Thomas Sharpe, a mysterious stranger. She comes to live with him and his sister, Lady Lucille Sharpe. She starts to find out that the Sharpe's home is filled with ghosts.

Genre : Mystery/Drama/Horror
Country : USA/Canada

Cast :
Mia Wasikowska : Edith Cushing
Jessica Chastain : Lucille Sharpe
Tom Hiddleston : Thomas Sharpe

Director : Guillermo del Torro

My opinion  

“Ghosts are real. This I know.”

"Crimson Peak" is visually overwhelming and ingeniously devised. Although it was a bit of a disappointment for me, it made a crushing, lasting impression on me on the other hand. Not because of the story itself or the cautious use of special effects, but the overall atmosphere and detailed decoration of this gothic love drama. I assumed that this would be an excellent horror. And that because of the trailer. Normally I try to avoid trailers. But avoiding trailers in a theater is rather difficult. Eagerly I saw that it was about a house that comes to life. I was expecting a baroque-looking Amityville House. The house wasn't disappointing. A Victorian, ghostly ruin full of dark corridors, murky caverns and sinister secrets. The Adams family would be jealous. But apart from some ghostly apparitions it was no more than a obscure drama in which a romance and a diabolical fraud scenario occurred. 

Del Toro succeeded in surprising me with "Splice" and especially "Mama". After his intermezzo with "Pacific Rim", he returns to the darker and creepier genre. "Mama" was more frightening as a paranormal horror story than this movie. There are some great horror moments that will give you the chills. The scarce ghostly presences look pretty decent and occasionally it made me think of how the creature in "Mama" was moving around. But the darkness in this movie, is mainly achieved by the overall Gothic decorations. Both the sets and the costumes contributed to that. A house like a morgue. Deathlike, chilly with those blacks shades and rotting walls full of secrets, while standing on a blood-red surface.  

The characters of this Victorian era also look eerily deathlike. An appearance as if an undertaker took care of their makeup. Mia Wasikowska plays Edith Cushing, the fragile daughter of a wealthy entrepreneur who wants to become a writer. Her literary work deals with ghosts. Since her childhood, she has the ability to see ghosts. Her mother, who died of cholera, visited her when she was only 10 years old and warned her for a place called "Crimson Peak". This particular moment is subtly visualized. A chilling moment that contrasts with the other appearances. And then she meets the likeable, sophisticated English landowner Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston) when he knocks at her father's door with the demand to help financing a modern clay machine. What follows is the predictable romantic development, a sudden tragedy and Edith deliberately seeking solace in the arms of Thomas. And before she knows it she's on her way to England to move into "Allerdale Hall," the family patrimony which is sinking into the red clay, along with her husband Thomas and his sinister sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain).

"Crimson Peak" has its pros and cons. First there's the atmospheric cinematography. There's a huge Edgar Allan Poe feeling about it. Furthermore there are the beautiful costumes and the detailed decorations. And finally the solid acting and performances. Hiddleston, who reminded me of Coppola's Dracula at a certain moment, and Wasikowska act impressively. But Chastain rises above everyone as the crazy sister. The whole resembles a ride in a haunted house at the fair. Through the pitch-black darkness interspersed with deep colors, where you expect heart crippling shock effects anytime. And just like this haunted house at the fancy fair, the conclusion afterwards is that it wasn't so bad as expected. It wasn't boring, but it wasn't very scary either. The biggest mistake they made was having people believe "Crimson Peak" is a sort of horror. Ultimately, it's just a sentimental costume drama with a paranormal aspect. But believe me, it's masterfully portrayed!

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB

Burnt (2015)

Summary
Chef Adam Jones had it all - and lost it. A two-star Michelin rockstar with the bad habits to match, the former enfant terrible of the Paris restaurant scene did everything different every time out, and only ever cared about the thrill of creating explosions of taste. To land his own kitchen and that third elusive Michelin star though, he'll need the best of the best on his side.

Genre : Drama/Comedy
Country : USA

Cast :
Bradley Cooper : Adam Jones
Sienna Miller : Helene
Daniel Brühl : Tony

Director : John Wells

My opinion 
 

“To get even one Michelin star, you have to be like Luke Skywalker.
To get two, you have to be... whoever Alec Guinness was.
But if you manage to get three... You're Yoda.
Well, what if he's Darth Vader?”

Adam Jones (Bradley "American Sniper" Cooper) once burned his fingers by living a fairly dissolute life, filled with alcohol, women and drugs. As a top chef his primary concern is to create a perfectly cooked and not burnt exquisite dish. And once more he has that burning desire to get a third Michelin star with his new restaurant in London. Three propositions that perfectly fit with the movie title.

Perhaps you start to sigh in a frustrated way after reading the synopsis. At least I did after I found out it was again about a renowned chef. But then I was thinking about the movie "Chef". It wasn't so bad. So I gave "Burnt" the benefit of the doubt. My opinion about cooking programs generally hasn't changed a bit. As I already explained in my review of "Chef" : "I'm sick and tired of hearing the terminology like baking, flaming, roasting, steaming, filleting, Bain-Marie, stewing, poaching, ragout, caramelize, gratinate and the hype-word in recent years "cuisson". I'm not sick of seeing those plates with tasty food, but the oversupply of television programs with people cooking enthusiastically". Just explore your television channels on an average night and before you know it some would-be Jamie Oliver pops up while waving dangerously with a spoon.

   

Cooking has become an art and world-renowned master chefs are being adored in a similar way as famous rock stars. They are showered with praises, have tons of salivating fans who marvel at the delicacies created by their idol and became mega-rich with their published cookbooks and television programs. And of course a breakthrough with movies was inevitable. So now it's just waiting for the first dance hit sung by such an important cuisinier while shaking his cholesterol-rich body on the dancefloor. As in "Chef" we are treated with delicious dishes that look like real works of art. The occasions that wonderful dinners are prepped, we see all kind of colorful dishes as a set of photos. One looking tastier than the other. And this at a pace that can compete with the pace of some dialogues. At those times, I thought this film was very amusing and interesting to follow. The witty and sometimes pretty funny dialogues, interspersed with magnificent dishes. But honestly I must admit (the accusation "cultural barbarian" will be used against me) that my taste buds were very enthusiastic at the sight of that juicy hamburger at a fast food restaurant.

For the female viewers, there's also the advantage in the form of Bradley Cooper, who looks as appetizing as his own dishes. I'm 100% straight (believe me), but I can understand that women (even lesbian) could succumb to his charms. His lovely smile, those bright deep blue eyes and his uninhibited behavior. A smooth talker with a tough look. And he's also great in the kitchen. It's obvious that many women would like to offer themselves as dessert. And preferably with a bit of whipped cream. Fair is fair, Cooper played a decent role. As calm and laid-back as he was in "American Sniper", so hot-tempered and arrogant he's in "Burnt". Sienna Miller wasn't overwhelmed and managed to keep herself standing next to Cooper. But especially Daniel Brühl was brilliant as Adam's old friend. There was also a tiny part played by Emma Thompson and Uma Thurman.

 

A dazzling film filled with talented actors and actresses. That sounds promising and guarantees an energetic film. Only this film can't escape the phenomenon of superficiality. It's all a bit too predictable and clichéd. You automatically feel which direction it will go. As intense as it was in to the kitchen early in the film, so cozy and homey it ends. They could have ended this film with a large campfire while they were singing "With a little help from my friends" and meanwhile embracing each other amicably. And what did happen in Paris? You can only guess because they stay rather vague about that. I feel it went from a high culinary, inventive dish to a dull, everyday dish. And yet I found it a brilliant film in an inexplicable way. But still a caution: make sure you have eaten before you watch this film, because otherwise you are plundering your fridge afterwards.

My rating 7/10
Links : IMDB

June (2014)

Summary :  
A coming-of-rage story about discovering your true self and overcoming your inner demons to find love in a chaotic world. 

Genre : Horror
Country : USA

Cast :
Kennedy Brice : June
Casper Van Dien : Dave Anderson
Victoria Pratt : Lily Anderson

Director : L. Gustavo Cooper

My opinion 
 
"Stop it, Aery. Why are you doing this?
You are a vessel.
Before people, before machines, there is only us.”

Mix the ingredients from several successful films and you get as end result something like "June". It's not terribly bad, but it isn't very original and exciting either. Even the biggest coward can effortlessly watch this film with all the lights off. "June" is the least creepy horror I've ever seen.
Do you remember Drew Barrymore as Charlie in "Firestarter", the sweet girl who could cause a fire just by thinking of it? Or Carrie in the eponymous film who sow the seeds of death and destruction when she was pissed off? June (Kennedy Brice) has similar, telekinetic powers when she gets angry. Or is there a demonic force at work making her as possessed as Regan in "The Exorcist"? Eventually, it all has to do with a primal force called "Aer", which took possession of June during an occult rite. A rite that wasn't finalized perfectly. During that ceremony June was taken away by one of the participants at the last minute. 

Lets start with the positive remarks. Although it clearly is a low-budget film, there are still some successful fragments. First there's the changing appearance of June. In particular her eyes. Not that it's innovative, but it reinforced her demonic character. As well as the limited number of scenes where we can witness June's strength. Like for example at the barbecue. But above all, I had great admiration for the young actress Brice. There wasn't much dialogue for her. Probably because of her rather timid and introverted personality. But in general she looked really natural as a young, fragile girl who has to deal with her inner demon. An everyday struggle, attempting to maintain control.

What remains is simply doom and gloom. The shown ritual at the beginning looks really kitschy and when the cult members call upon Aer to take possession of June and this power descends, it just looks as if the wisps of smoke are pasted on the image. Terrible special effects in other words. And there were a few situations that really annoyed me. Firstly, apparently the conditions to be suitable as adoptive family, are abominably bad when you look at the first family. An asocial family with a fat guy resembling Onslow (from Keeping Up Appearances) and a cigarette smoking bimbo who probably works as a prostitute. Compared to them, Lily Anderson (Victoria Pratt) and Dave Anderson (Casper van Dien) are outright saints who radiate comprehensive affection. They're impatient to take on the task of caring father and mother. Perhaps a little overdone because already the first night they start asking June the pertinent question whether or not she wants to call Lily her "Mommy". With disappointed looks as a result of course. This was totally implausible and totally stupid.

But especially the storyline is a huge disappointment. Nothing spectacular happens so to speak. The end of the film is so trivial, I can't even remember what it was anyway (perhaps I fell asleep). So if you never saw "Carrie", "Firestarter", "The Exorcist" or any other film whatsoever with a possessed, demonic character who has control over psychic powers, then you should definitely give this one a chance. 

My rating 3/10
Links : IMDB

In the heart of the sea (2015)

Summary :
In the winter of 1820, the New England whaling ship Essex was assaulted by something no one could believe: a whale of mammoth size and will, and an almost human sense of vengeance. The real-life maritime disaster would inspire Herman Melville's Moby-Dick. But that told only half the story. "In the Heart of the Sea" reveals the encounter's harrowing aftermath, as the ship's surviving crew is pushed to their limits and forced to do the unthinkable to stay alive.

Genre : Adventure/Biography
Country : USA/UK/Canada

Cast :
Chris Hemsworth : Owen Chase
Benjamin Walker : George Pollard
Cillian Murphy : Matthew Joy

Director : Ken Kwapis

My opinion  

“The tragedy of the Essex is the story of men. And a Demon.”

When I was young, I had a huge reading book about Moby Dick. I gazed at the rich illustrations for hours and eagerly I read about the adventures of Ishmael aboard the Pequod. And I can still see the final drawing before my eyes, with Captain Ahab hanging in the ropes of his harpoon against Moby Dick diving into the ocean. Maybe my expectations were too high for "In the Heart of the Sea" and I hoped to see a similar scene. Unfortunately, it wasn't really a movie about a battle between man and whale. It was more something like "Stranded". But taking place on sea. The rivalry between Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) and Captain Pollard (Benjamin Walker) was more interesting than the whaling itself. And did you watch the trailer? Well that means you have already seen the most impressive images of the psychopathic white sperm whale.

I'm sure it was more exciting and terrifying for sailors in those days as it is for film fans watching this movie. Imagine them sitting in a wobbly little wooden rowing boat, throwing that gigantic harpoon at a huge sperm whale which swims under their boat. And after that, they needed to get that colossus on board to collect that precious whale oil. A raw material which was necessary in the 19th century to keep those lamps burning. The film begins at the port of Nantucket around 1819. Chase tells his pregnant wife he's signing in on the Essex to go hunting for whales and that he probably won't be in time to witness her giving birth. Beautiful computer-generated images show how daily life looked like in those days. Only Chase's dream to be captain of the Essex is harpooned (how appropriate) immediately. The job goes to one certain George Pollard. Not because of his extensive knowledge and experience in terms of floating around on such a large boat, but because of the fact that he's a descendant of an aristocratic, wealthy family.

The film includes three successive storylines. First, there's the competition between Pollard and Chase. After that the two fighting cocks bury the hatchet when the crazy white sperm starts attacking them. And then the defeated survivors reconcile while drifting hopelessly around on the ocean, a few thousand miles from South America in rowboats, after the Essex sank. And there's a witness of this story namely Thomas Nickerson (Tom Holland) who's a shipmate. He's (Brendan Gleeson) now the last witness of this shipwreck. He tells the complete story, after much encouragement, to Herman Melville (Ben Whishaw), who uses these notes afterwards, after subjecting it to a thorough censorship and keeping the rough lines, for his successful novel "Moby Dick". And so the circle is complete.

In terms of decor and images, this film is quite magnificent. The raging sea with his pounding, foaming, giant waves. The stately ship that cleaves through the ocean. The views of the medieval harbor town and the decoration of Tom's house. And finally the stunning images of a school of whales and the whale hunt itself. Unfortunately the scarred white whale came into the picture far too little. You can compare it a bit with the last Godzilla movie. The monster is there, but there's hardly anything to see of it. The sense of menace and being hunted, was truly there at times. But the insertion of the rounds of conversation between Tom and Herman reduced the pace of this movie drastically. The result is a slow historical drama, instead of a thrilling spectacle at sea with a pseudo Moby Dick in the lead.

My rating 5/10
Links : IMDB

A walk in the woods (2015)

Summary :
After spending two decades in England, Bill Bryson returns to the U.S., where he decides the best way to connect with his homeland is to hike the Appalachian Trail with one of his oldest friends.

Genre : Biography/Comedy
Country : USA

Cast :
Robert Redford : Bill Bryson
Nick Nolte : Stephen Katz
Emma Thompson : Catherine Bryson

Director : Ken Kwapis

My opinion

“No, writers don't retire.
We either drink ourselves to death
or blow our brains out.
And which will it be for you?
After this interview, maybe both.”

A road movie, but then on foot. With two oldtimers puffing like a steam locomotive while walking the Appalachian trail. A trip of approximately 3500 km in the USA. A trip even young people fail to finish. But these two stubborn 70-year-olds won't give in easily and are motivated to reach the finish. And for what reason? On the one hand, there's Bill Bryson (Robert Redford), a writer who mostly writes about travelling. Is this some sort of item of his bucket list? Or is it because a moderator of a television show came with the fact that he never wrote a book about traveling in the US? Or is this his last chance? And then there's Stephen Katz (Nick Nolte), a grumpy old friend with an artificial knee, an ex-alcoholic and someone who needs to eat every hour so he won't get a sudden seizure. All in all, this seems like an almost impossible task. But despite protests by Bill's wife Catherine (Emma Thompson), both seniors embark on this venture.

Films about people hiking through rugged landscapes to experience meditation moments, are quite popular nowadays. Reese Witherspoon demonstrated this already in "Wild". And Robert Redford already tried something similar as a solo sailor in "All is lost". Only there was no dialogue at all in this last film. And its largely present in "A walk in the woods". And to be honest, these dialogues were highly entertaining and at times quite humorous. The whole didn't feel as forced humor and they succeeded (to one point) in not letting it evolve into a sort of slapstick.Two old men, full of life experiences and wisdom, which are trying to push their own limits. Perhaps the obvious lessons of life were a bit cheesy. But this was amply compensated by the witty, amusing conversations and the delightful, ravishing landscapes they walked through.

 

Perhaps some situations were a little predictable. Like the encounter with local wildlife and the incident with the panties in the laundry with an angry husband as a result. But there were also spontaneously hilarious moments like their meeting with the headstrong Mary Ellen (Kristen Schaal) they would rather not have in their company. Maybe I'm getting old but these two elderly made me laugh more than most recent comedies. Until towards the end the two of them got themselves into an uncomfortable situation. Then it felt a bit tragicomic. A kind of philosophical moment. Luckily I could forgive the makers this misstep because of all the foregoing, comic one-liners and dialogues.

Whether they succeed in finishing the route or not, is actually irrelevant. Redford and Nolte are a perfect duo. You could compare them with Lemmon and Matthau with hiking boots. They look both very old, but mentally they still seem brisk enough. Would those two call me and ask me to accompany them on an inhuman trek, I would take the bait immediately. A fantastic movie.

My rating 8/10
Links : IMDB

Pan (2015)

Summary :
12-year-old orphan Peter is spirited away to the magical world of Neverland, where he finds both fun and danger, and ultimately discovers his destiny -- to become the hero who will be forever known as Peter Pan.

Genre : Adventure/Fantasy
Country : UK/USA/Australia

Cast :
Levi Miller : Peter
Hugh Jackman : Blackbeard
Garrett Hedlund : Hook

Director : Joe Wright

My opinion 

"Have you come to kill me, Peter?
I don't believe in bedtime stories.”

Occasionally I don't mind watching a film adaptation of a fairy tale. I liked the movie "Hook" with Robin Williams in the role of an adult Peter Pan who forgot what it was like in his childhood, a lot. An original alternative to the classic tale of Peter Pan, the boy who never wants to grow up and has exciting adventures on the island of Neverland. "Pan" approaches the story of Peter in a different perspective. It's more about the pre-Peter Pan era where we see him at first as a newborn little baby, abandoned at an orphanage, guided by a gang of nuns who clearly skipped the chapters about charity and compassion in the Bible. The orphanage looks more like a concentration camp where all those little fellows have to live by strict rules and are treated like slaves. The comparison with "Oliver Twist" is inevitable. And to be honest this was the most magical part of the whole movie for me. What follows is a rather bombastic and chaotic story.

As soon as Peter (Levi Miller) is lifted out of his bed, by some pirates hanging on elastics, and he's being hoisted aboard a pirate ship sailing through the air, the film turns into a higher gear. Admittedly, the scene with that ship floating through the air and being chased by fighter planes, looked absolutely stunning. And the unrecognizable Hugh Jackman as Captain Blackbeard is magnificent. A magisterial role and probably the most eccentric character that Jackman has ever played. But unfortunately, the special effects and computer-animated images are so dominant during the film.The magic of the original story gradually disappears and is being replaced by what the current magicians in the special effects department can make up nowadays.

At one point, I looked totally flabbergasted at the screen. Not because of the stunning images and swirling action scenes, but because a crowd of pirates and kidnapped children loudly sang "Smells Like Teen Spirit" from Nirvana. I didn't recognize it immediately. But then I couldn't believe my ears. I never thought that this masterpiece would be used in a fairy tale. And why the hell this song? Was it because"Nevermind" sounds like "Neverland"? Or because Cobain is seen as someone who never wanted to grow up either? I thought and still think it's a bizarre choice of music and I'm sure Cobain will turn over in his grave after hearing the news that one of his songs was used in a fairytale movie. In my view inappropriate and irrelevant.

 

And you can expect a hodgepodge of mixed rarities. An Indiana Jones kind of inmate called Hook (Garrett Hedlund), who of course in a later stage will be the archenemy of Peter, and some beautiful mermaids. And lets not forget the fearsome crocodile. And a native village with residents turning into colorful clouds as soon as they are killed. Also impressive images of ports floating in the air and pirate boats sailing in the air through water bubbles (made me think of a Dali artwork). There's even a moment with Peter Pan orbiting Saturn. So fairly abstract and bizarre at times. But it wasn't real magic. Peter showing of his flying skills is rather limited. Tinkerbell has only a small part in the complete movie. The only thing remaining is a lot of stunt work full of chases and skirmishes.

It's a bit exaggerated. What remains are the excellent performances of Miller and especially Jackman. Not to mention the rather funny contribution by Sam Smiegel (Adeel Akhtar). But despite the superb acting and the successful decors, the end result is still weak. I'm sure there are already plans for a sequel. Something I'm not enthusiastically waiting for.

Hello, hello, hello, how low. Oh well, whatever, never mind.

My rating 4/10
Links : IMDB

Learning to drive (2014)

Summary :
Wendy, a self-absorbed New York book critic, is shocked to reality by the sudden end of her marriage. Always dependent on her husband for driving, she must now learn to take the wheel on her own. Her instructor Darwan is a Sikh Indian who watches with alarm as his pupil falls apart at the seams. He himself is contemplating an arranged marriage with a woman he has never met. As these two lives intersect, both will change in unpredictable ways.

Genre : Comedy/Drama/Romance
Country : UK/USA

Cast :
Patricia Clarkson : Wendy
Ben Kingsley : Darwan
Grace Gummer : Tasha

Director : Isabel Coixet

My opinion  

I never learned to cook because I thought my mother would always be there to cook for me.
And then there was half the world between us.
So I make my own food.
Your point ?
No point.

Driving lessons as a metaphor for life. An original way to highlight this. But just like the lessons in everyday life, this film is a bit slow and repetitive. Granted, you can actually compare this with life. In the beginning a lot goes wrong and you don't really know how to start and comprehend it all. But with a lot of practice and experience, you can cope with it. And sometimes it can go terribly wrong with misery as a result. So with perseverance, following good advice given and not violating too many rules, you could succeed. And you can come up with more things connected to ordinary life. But as I said, it isn't really exciting. Besides that, I also asked myself where the romance was in this movie. The fact that Wendy (Patricia Clarkson) is going through a divorce and Darwan (Ben Kingsley) is forced into a marriage with someone he doesn't even know properly, is not exactly my idea of romance. And it wasn't a real comedy either despite a few funny moments. I'd rather call it a tragic affair. And yet it was a movie I could watch effortlessly till the end. And that because of the sublime acting. 

So in terms of content, it's not really special. More than once the subject of two strangers, with totally different characters, spontaneously meeting each other and supporting each other so they can handle a difficult period, has already been used before. So here we have Wendy, a book critic and Darwan, a driving instructor. Wendy is an emotionally hurt, dignified lady. Because of her profession she has demarcated a territory around herself where both her husband and daughter aren't allowed in. As a result Ted (Jake Webber) packs his bags and moves in with his mistress (a female writer whose books are also praised by Wendy). Darwan is a Sikh and next to being a driving instructor, he's also a taxi driver at night. A person of traditions who sees it as his life's work, to ensure that Wendy gets her license. Patiently and full of wise advices, he even gets her to drive over a bridge. He's more of a psychiatrist with an instruction car as a relaxant seat.

Clarkson and Kingsley form a colorful duo. A mix of cultures. Clarkson, who also had the leading role in "October Gale", is a charming lady I'd love to see shining next to Helen Mirren in another movie. Her charisma is overwhelming and her emotions felt sincere. In contrast there's the calmness and patience of Kingsley. A distinguished and dignified character. The acting of the two main characters made sure this mainstream film was still enjoyable.

Ultimately "Learning to drive" is a tender and touching film full of symbolism. However, it lacks a bit of energy and progresses with a calm pace. A bit like how Wendy navigates through traffic. But it shouldn't be always just about suspense and frenzy action scenes. Thanks to the brilliant performances of the two main actors, this movie was fun to watch. For me this movie passed the test.

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB