Category: Movie reviews

The Roses

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.20thcenturystudios.com.au/

Rating: 2 stars out of 5
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Olivia Colman, Kate McKinnon, Andy Samberg, Allison Janney
Where to watch: Jio Hotstar
To watch or not to watch: Well, rather watch the original movie, or the trailer for this one multiple times. The movie, not so much

In their youth, while Theo (Benedict Cumberbatch) was a struggling architect feeling creatively stifled, and Ivy (Olivia Colman) was trying to get by as a cook in a restaurant, they meet, have a whirlwind romance, and ten years later, have two kids. The issue is that they are poles apart in their approach towards life – while Ivy is maniacally carefree, Theo is a strict disciplinarian. They are also at different points in their career, with Ivy being a stay-at-home mother and Theo being a successful architect. Theo gifts a piece of land to Ivy to start her own restaurant, which though struggles in the beginning, soon becomes a raging success, while in the parallel, Theo’s career ends and he becomes a stay-at-home dad. This breeds resentment between the two, leading Theo to decide to divorce Ivy. Barry (Andy Samberg) is the couple’s long term friend is now the lawyer representing Theo, while Ivy is represented by Eleanor (Allison Janney) and in the middle is their home which they don’t want the other to have. Then they attempt to sabotage each other, which you have seen in the trailer.

This movie is a disappointment, to be honest, specially after the promise made to the audience in the trailer. It was promised to have its focus on the fights and attempted sabotage, Home Alone style, but that barely forms one-fifth of the movie, whereas the majority of the time spent is on building their relationship and bringing the story to the point where conflict between the characters start. The point where the movie ends, should ideally have been the middle of the movie to build the story to a conclusion. The current end of the movie feels like they ran out of steam, budget, runtime and frankly, the will to continue production. Must have been fun for the editor. Not. It fails to get the audience invested in their relationship. We are like their kids shipped off to boarding school and left their parents to their own devices Then there enters a one-joke character of Amy (Kate McKinnon) who finds Theo uncontrollably attractive and keeps making uncomfortable sexual remarks, which gets tiring in theory itself. This is in part because the leads don’t have any chemistry to begin with, while their are brilliant individually.

The saddest part of this movie is not the whole experience but the unrealised potential of the subject matter and undoubtedly talent comedy actors. It could have been a cult classic and listed as one of the best remakes (similar to Ocean’s series) but the lack of effort in writing the script with the agenda clear, is starkly visible. And if the makers, who have a lot invested in the movie are not interested, an audience which is only looking for entertainment and doesn’t care either way about the movie definitely has no reason to bother with it. Basically, it is an “not angry but disappointed” type of situation. Don’t watch it. There are better things in the world.

Caught Stealing

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.newyorker.com/

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Austin Butler, Regina King, Zoë Kravitz,  Matt Smith, Liev Schreiber, Vincent D’Onofrio, Bad Bunny
Where to watch: Netflix
To watch or not to watch: It is a fun ride, delivers what it promises, which is a non-exceptional chase thriller in New York, filled with quirky eccentric characters

Hank (Austin Butler) is a sweet, borderline alcoholic bartender, who is more than an average ball player and one of the biggest fans of Giants. One night, after closing up the bar, he returns home with his non-committed long term girlfriend Yvonne (Zoë Kravitz), only to find that his neighbour Russ (Matt Smith) is leaving for the airport to take care of his sick dad and has given the responsibility of his bad tempered cat Bud to Hank. Little does Hank know that Russ is running away from Russian mobsters who are out for Russ’ blood. They mistake Hank for Russ, and beat to a pulp so much so that he needs to be admitted to the hospital to remove his ruptured kidney. From there, he is contacted by narcotics detective Elise Roman (Regina King), who tells him that the ring of drugs run deeper than Russians. There is the Puerto Rican Colorado (Bad Bunny) who works with the Russians, who in turn owe Hasidic Drucker brothers (Liev Schreiber, Vincent D’Onofrio), basically making a drug dealer’s Ponzi scheme. Fascinating.

The script is tight and clear, two of the most important and underrated things a script should be. It is fun to watch, doesn’t take itself too seriously (unlike Aronofsky’s Black Swan, The Whale, basically his entire filmography) and thus delivers what it promises, which is also not commonly seen these days. Another winning point in the movie’s favour is the character of Hank, who is unlike the macho, testosterone-filled action movie stars we see in these movies (cue: Jason Statham). Is he an alcoholic? Yes. Is he commitment-phobic? Also yes. But he calls his mother daily, is loyal and faithful to his non-girlfriend, takes care of a foul cat. And that’s adorable, and you don’t want the goons to be after someone so adorable. You are rooting for the guy. Even the bad guys aren’t totally bad; they are in a business and are only working to solve for the stolen merchandise. Some of them will observe the traditions set by their grandmothers and follow the rules of their religion (which added a little sumnin’-sumnin’, NGL). The real bad guys are the real surprise. This is a big shift from the regular grim Aronofsky flick, and it is a pleasant surprise that he is willing to experiment (and he goes with the body anti-dismorphia with Austin Butler).

Having said so many good things about the movie, there are some things which the movie fails to deliver. The individual gangsters are mostly cliched, the chase sequences predictable, the romantic storyline adding nothing much to the whole, etc. Basically, the parts that make it a whole, while flowing into each other seamlessly, are nonetheless not surprising. There are some unbelievable points like Hank being able to run right after getting his kidney removed, being a cliched hero with a traumatic past, a die-hard sports fan making him a stereotypical American, kinda make it a bit boring too. But here’s the thing, these parts also fit together, so you need to take the good with the bad, because altogether it is quite pleasant. Will highly recommend for a Friday night chill movie session. Austin Butler has great things ahead of him for sure.

Heretic

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
A worthy attempt to subvert a genre, but loses its way halfway through
https://www.latimes.com/

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Hugh Grant, Sophie Thatcher, Chloe East
To watch or not to watch: It is a decent first watch, and has a lot of shock value, but take that away, and you have any generic thriller

2 LDS missionaries are trying to spread the word of their lord and saviour from home to home, come over to an isolated house near the end of a road. The house is occupied a Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant) who had previously shown interest in learning about the LDS church. Since Mormon women can’t enter a house without a female present, the sisters Barnes and Paxton (Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East) check with Mr. Reed if he has a girl roommate. It starts raining heavily and after Mr. Reed’s confirmation that his wife, his soulmate is inside, the sisters enter Mr. Reed’s home, away from the torrential rain and a promise of pie. They discuss how religion is not the centre of culture anymore (which we witness in the initial few minutes where some young adults harass the two sisters). The three talk about how important it is to believe in a doctrine and find out through testing what one true religion is. And that is the whole premise of the devilry of Mr. Reed.

This is a clever movie, no denying that. In the typical horror movies we have seen, religion has been used as a weapon to ward off evil, be it The Exorcist, or the more recent Conjuring universe. This movie flips the trope on a tangent and raises the question – which is the correct, true, highest, purest religion? And theoretically, the road to the answer is paved with evil deeds by Mr. Reed (clever, right? *eyebrows wiggling*). And this is also the point where the movie loses its spiel. It begins as a debate on the truth taught by religion, which mostly asserts that that religion is the first religion, the one and the only. But what is first – The Landlord’s Game or Monopoly, Radiohead’s Creep or The Air That I Breathe by The Hollies or Get Free by Lana Del Ray. That is the debate, which gets lost in the rest of the movie. Or if it is present then it is only in words, not in action. Which kinda makes the whole premise lose steam.

The real pull of the movie is seeing Hugh Grant, the rom-com heartthrob who could star opposite Julia Roberts and make people wonder who is prettier of the two, as an old, wrinkled, charming man, with the signature Grant smile and the disarming look of dismay, as a conniving, heartless, sadistic misanthrope. Since this movie is essentially a three-hander chamber piece, it would have been a total dud if it wasn’t for Thatcher and East. They both have given themselves to their characters from beginning to end, and also developing themselves along the way. East being born into the church, but still curious about the world outside it and Thatcher being a convert and dedicating herself to it totally, completely. So strong is her conviction that she has converted 8-9 people through proselytising! It is interesting to see the two young women tackle their belief against a formidable opponent. But it doesn’t mean the story is strong, infallible or that its flaws can be written off as foibles. A worthy attempt in the age old genre, but needs improvement. Watch it with popcorn, but prepare to be disappointed.

Infernal Affairs

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment

Yes, it is as good as you have heard

https://www.netflix.com/

Rating: 5 stars out of 5
Starring: Andy Lau Tak-wah, Tony Leung Chiu-wai, Anthony Wong Chau-sang, Eric Tsang Chi-wai
Where to watch: Netflix
To watch or not to watch: There are only a very small group of people who probably might not like this movie. Probably

Hong Kong has recently been taken over by the Chinese government after the British handed over the territory, and the police have been very strict about illegal activities. A don by the name of Sam (Eric Tsang Chi-wai) has lost a few men to the police raids. He has a clever plan to foil the police though – to place young kids with no criminal record in the police academy so he gets an inside man. The police has a similar plan – they place a smart young cadet right out of the academy in the criminal underworld (well, they make a whole show of throwing that man out of the academy so there is no suspicion. Just semantics). Now the young man is a long-term undercover policeman Chen Wing-yan (Tony Leung Chiu-wai) and the inside man of Sam is Inspector Lau Kin-ming (Andy Lau Tak-wah). Both the opposite parties know there is a rat in their midst, which they are unable to find out, until they do (if you have seen The Departed, you know how this goes). There is a lot collateral damage along the way, which depicts the Chinese influence on Hong Kong very clearly. It is a true delight (Edmund could have chosen this movie instead of those stupid turkish delights. Just saying).

When a movie is this good, it is this exact goodness which makes it difficult to write/review/critique it, because the reaction to it is plain gushing. There are multiple layers to this movie, from the characters to the situation and the story in general. We have Yan, the undercover cop who is tired of this life and is longing to have a normal life on his morals. He is not the top honcho in the criminal group and is struggling morally, very strong in convictions, but living in sub-optimal conditions, only able to sleep on his therapist’s couch. In parallel and in contrast, there is Inspector Lau, who is sure about who he is, what he needs to do to get what he wants, comfortable in the life he is leading and has recently moved into a swanky apartment with a girlfriend (who is writing a novel about a man with multiple personalities. Cheeky, that). All this is super easy to see and conclude and is a prime example of show-don’t-tell policy. Even the casting of the movie is on point. The viewer cannot help but sympathise with Yan who elicits a “poor guy” response at every point, and Lau with the chiselled cheekbones depicts a smooth operator policeman, rising through the ranks, getting what he wants before he even asks for it. And of course, Superintendent Wong is an intelligent, worldly man who is a formidable opponent. All of the players are all about business and there is little to no drama about it.

Drama is what differentiates the American version of this movie from this one, and the potential reason why Infernal Affairs might be rated higher than The Departed. The conversation between Yan and Wong on getting out of the undercover business drips with the desperation of a lonely, conflicted man vs the similar conversation in The Departed, which is more dramatised and had a high-horse moral tone to it. Infernal Affairs doesn’t need to explain the right and wrong of the situation, since that is largely stitched into our society’s DNA. It cuts through all that, gets straight to the story, and even eliminates any action. It is pure intrigue. And for these reasons, Infernal Affairs is a must-watch!

Novocaine

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.cinemablend.com/

Rating: 3 stars out of 5
Starring:  Jack Quaid, Amber Midthunder, Ray Nicholson, Jacob Batalon
Where to watch: Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: It has only one joke, but it plays it well!!! A high dose of entertainment for all action movie lovers

Nathan Caine (Jack Quaid) works as an Assistant Manager at a local bank, leads a simple, quiet life, has an unassuming personality, and has a crush on the teller by the name of Sherry (Amber Midthunder) who has the opposite personality of Nathan, being extroverted, a spitfire and full of spark. One day, some lowlives decide to rob the bank, and kidnap Sherry. Nathan being a one-woman-man, has ro rescue his woman from the thugs, even though they are not a real couple. But unbeknownst to people at large, Nathan has a superpower – he doesn’t feel pain. At all. Not even the bladder sensation to pee, or biting tongue while chewing, for example, which means that he has led most of his life sheltered and limited. Now with the love of his life (even if it was only one date) being kidnapped, the curse he has led most of his life threatening his very existence becomes his power where he can fight the bad guys without restraint (luckily he has some good fighting skills without ever learning them). So, that’s what happens – Nathan Caine, aka Novocaine to his bullies, becomes the knight in a bloody body armour to rescue his princess.

It is a good movie, it is fun, it doesn’t take itself seriously, and neither should you. It is a typical light-hearted movie where the trope is the underdog becoming a hero. That’s it. That’s the review.
Well, the last part can be explained a bit more. There are multiple moments where the plot is only a hole, where the cringe is high and gore is more. But then again, it did not promise to be a high intensity thriller with morals and takeaways. It is a plain and simple action comedy, which is hastily thrown together to make it a quasi-cohesive movie which delivers on entertainment. There is much to be said about self-awareness in the movie making world and it is almost always a positive character trait.

It is fun to see Quaid in a The Boys+Punisher mash-up of a role. He is good at it, and after The Boys, it is easier to see him in movies where things blow up and there is blood and gore. Maybe we are seeing him too much in this genre? He is a decent actor by all accounts, his role in The boys is nothing to sneeze at, and maybe because of the success of the series, he is not getting any other scripts? This is of course, only conjecture, unless Jack Quaid himself comments on the website (wishful thinking). This is only to say that he has potential to be more than one role, one character typecast into this. It will be fun for us, but maybe not so fulfilling for an actor of his calibre. Watch Novocaine on a movie night with a bunch of friends and have fun!

Oddity

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://talesfromthepaulside.com/

Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Starring:  Gwilym Lee, Carolyn Bracken, Tadhg Murphy, Caroline Menton
Where to watch: Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: Absolute must watch for lovers of supernatural horror movies. A simple movie with limited spread of the story which keeps the viewer bound

Dani (Carolyn Bracken) is married to psychiatrist Ted (Gwilym Lee) and they have recently moved to the countryside where she is renovating their home. Ted runs the local mental asylum and works at night. While Dani is alone at home, a patient of Dr Ted comes to warn her of a man who is trying to hurt her. Not entirely disbelieving the clearly disturbed man (with a glass eye) she goes inside and locks the door. Cut to a year later, Dani was brutally murdered that night, Ted has moved on and is now in a new relationship with Yana (Caroline Menton), Ted visits Dani’s blind identical twin sister Darcy in her antique store, to (not) invite her to his house (same as the one he bought with Dani) on the anniversary of his wife’s death. Darcy believes there to be more to the murder of her sister than the police have concluded and goes over to Ted’s house to stay for the night to find out more. To help her with this, she has also brought a wooden gollum, which was passed onto her by her mother.

This movie is goodddd… There are a many things which work in its favour and a few which don’t.
This movie excels in the feels, the creeps, the chills. The gollum placed at the head of the dining table, overlooking the entire living room, is one of those side eye pieces, which let us know there is something weird at all times. There are also some jump scares, which can be termed a cheap ploy, but somehow they work in this movie. There is an expectation of something about to happen, but when that thing happens, it is worth the slow build. And this movie is a slow build overall. There are some long scenes filled with conversations and timed pauses, and they slowly build the premise brick by brick. There are also some conversations which give clues to the whole story, thus conversations become vital.
At the same time, there are some plot holes, which are very small, but they are there. The whole movie is engrossing and a person probably will not notice the holes during the runtime, but they might nag later, after mulling over the movie. Thus this movie is a very good first watch, and delivers on expectations from a horror movie, but might not be worth a second watch.

The atmosphere of the movie is contributed largely by Carolyn Bracken as Darcy. The colourless portrayal of the character is so in contrast to the surrounding that it becomes a subconscious plot point. We know she has a quiet strength, which could have been explored further and could have added to the daunting nature of the supernatural. Gwilym Lee has the same acting skills as the wooden gollum, and the gollum had more screen time than Lee, which is fitting. All in all, a very good watch for all horror movie lovers.

Dept Q

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.imdb.com/

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Matthew Goode, Chloe Pirrie, Jamie Sives, Alexej Manvelov, Leah Byrne, Kelly Macdonald, Kate Dickie, Patrick Kennedy, Mark Bonnar
Where to watch: Netflix (9 episodes, about 1 hour each)
To watch or not to watch: It is an intense and fast paced thriller which keeps the viewer hooked throughout the runtime. But in true Netflix fashion, it has a ton of plotholes.

Carl Morck (Matthew Goode) is a police officer who is returning to work after being involved in a shooting where his partner and best friend was hit in the spine. Morck is understandably disturbed by that experience, so even though he has a good reputation, the powers that be are reluctant to put him on the front line. So, the solution to this is to put him in charge of cold cases in the basement bathroom of the building (to be fair, the bathroom is HUGEEEE). The first case given to him is the disappearance of an ambitious lawyer Merritt Linguard (Chloe Pirrie) who was last seen on a ferry with her specially abled brother 4 years ago. The department christened Dept Q has only one member in Morck, until he is joined by a rag-tag team made of Rose (Leah Bryne) who is a police constable desk-bound after a traumatic experience, Akram Salim (Alexej Manvelov) who was a police office from Syria and is essentially a civilian now and Morck’s bed-bound partner DI James Hardy (Jamie Sives). Not all of them are department-sanctioned, so maybe they are not even being paid??? This point is unclear. Anyway, in the parallel the other detectives are investigating the shooting which put Morck and Hardy out of commission.

The basic way these detective shows work is by making the main guy and his nature the main plot of series, and this show is no exception. These guys are majorly romanticised versions of flawed, where an incident has deeply and adversely affected their psyche (the said incident is usually caused because of their own actions and stubbornness), but they are tough and therapy is for suckers and it is more manly (they are all men) to just make everyone around them (and their significant others) suffer for their pig-headedness. They are somehow revered too?!
Apparently Morck is the only police officer worth his salt in the department who sees clues to the crime against him and his partner, as he drops in on the detectives on his case and pours out his wisdom and helps solves the case better and quicker, because why not. There are multiple facets to the Merritt Linguard case. There is a lot this series tries to tackle, and coupled with a slow pace, it is not able to do justice to any. The pace is also modulated – as soon as the viewer starts feeling tired and bored, it springs a new piece of evidence/suspect to keep the hook in. On an initial watch, anyone would be totally mesmerised by the series and no shade on anyone. It is very atmospheric and there is a lot going on with the characters (less with the case) which appeals to the human nature of curiosity to know how much other people are messed up, that all 9 episodes don’t seem too daunting for a binge watch. But wait a bit after watching it, and you realise that if you remove Morck’s scepticism, there is little left as to substance.

Overall, as a viewer this is a time for introspection where you need to decide if you want to watch a show for an immediate thrill where you need to carve out almost 9 hours of your time, or you want to watch something which requires thinking and leaves you with feels after some time has passed. If it is the former, then this show is the perfect option for you. It is an adrenaline rush and you just need to let it play out with little or no weight on psyche, but if you apply yourself even a little bit, you might not like it as much. And we need all kinds of shows, to be honest, but it is the frequency of these kinds which is borderline alarming, specially coming from the house of Netflix. Quantity is inversely proportional to quantity, too many shows, and most of them not good. That’s the only complaint. Enjoy (or not)!

Elsbeth

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://screenrant.com/

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Carrie Preston, Carra Patterson, Wendell Pierce
Where to watch: JioHotstar (2 seasons, 30 episodes, 45-odd minutes each)
To watch or not to watch: It is a simple series, with not complicated episodes, but Elsbeth is so much fun!!! And so uplifting!!!

Elsbeth is a spin-off from the famous (and, actually very good) series, The Good Wife, and the term spin-off is used in the losest sense. The only similarity between the two series is the character of Elsbeth (Carrie Preston) and her mannerisms. Her character is spun (pun intended) into a pseudo-detective who solves crimes. Ok, let’s backtrack a bit. Elsbeth is a how-catch-em and case-of-the-week format of the police procedural series which is not unlike Columbo, the only difference being that she is a lawyer from Chicago, sent to Major Crimes of NYPD to over-see the police work (as she calls herself, the police police). There she faces backlash for her role (because why wouldn’t she), she makes a few friends, namely Kaya Blanke (Carra Patterson), and she eventually wins over others because of her winsome ways and sunny disposition. All along, she carries at least 3 tote bags, wears bright, loud coloured clothes and solves high-profile crimes.

The general consensus on this series is largely divided – some like it and enjoy it, and some absolutely abhor it. And both parties have very valid points – the cases have little to no depth or complexity, the police detectives are shown to be dumb and incompetent and it is only Elsbeth who can save the day. Oh! What were they even doing without her!? But then, the series doesn’t take itself seriously either. It doesn’t pretend to be humanity’s last hope. It is a fun watch, with some good celebrity cameos, light-hearted and heart-warming relationships. The series has also evolved from season 1 to season 2 – while in season 1, Elsbeth would instinctively know the identity of the perpetrator, in season 2, she actually works through the clues to get to the final solution. Some of the cameos are truly fun to watch, some episodes are better than the others, but overall it delivers.
There is not much to say about the series, it is a simple affair and gives the right feels. The entire show is carried by Carrie Preston and she delivers. According to Rian Johnson, people like crime solving content as it appeals to their sense of justice, and this show delivers justice by the truck load. In addition to that, Carrie Preston is a delight to watch on a day when things do not go your way, and you need some hope, light and positivity in your life to keep going. It delivers the feels. A definite watch for a little pick-me-up.

Juror #2

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.primevideo.com/

Rating: 2 stars out of 5
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, J. K. Simmons, Kiefer Sutherland
Where to watch: Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: This is movie is like a motley teenager who thinks they are the President of the United States. The result is the same. The fact that it is directed by the acclaimed Clint Eastwood can be easily ignored.

In a small town in Georgia USA, a murder trial is going on to determine whether James Michael Sythe, abusive boyfriend of the victim Kendall Cater is the perpetrator or not. On the jury are people from different walks of life, with different life priorities, including Juror #2, Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), whose wife is in a high-risk pregnancy, and he would like nothing better to be excused so he can spend time with her. But as luck would have it, he is a part of the jury nonetheless, and he is a sticky situation, because it turns out he is real perpetrator of the crime, but the police stuck to the theory of the abusive boyfriend being the perp. A fellow juror Harold (JK Simmons) has doubts about the police investigation and he mistakes Justin’s discomfort with the case as doubt into the conviction. The public prosecutor Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette) is standing for elections and is determined to convict Sythe to win the votes basis the fight against domestic violence. The defence attorney Eric Resnick (Chris Messina) is helpless because even though he is convinced of his client’s innocence, there is no way to prove it. It is upto to Justin to sway his fellow jurors away from a guilty verdict all the while walking the tightrope of not implicating himself.

This movie is thankfully not the swan song of the brilliant Clint Eastwood, it would have been a tragedy otherwise. This is a not a good movie. There is no other way to put this.
It might be a spiritual remake of 12 Angry Men, and it does turn into that movie during jury deliberations, it is trying too hard. On the one hand, the importance is on the fact of the situation of Justin Kemp, of course, who could have thought a juror is the very criminal in the case!? Brilliant premise, but somehow the reveal of the fact in the beginning (so early that it is also in the trailors) takes way from the fact. Now Justin is not a slick human like Danny Ocean that he can get away from the scrapes he gets into. He is a recovering alcoholic and a doting husband. And that is another problem – while the fact he is real perp is bang in the beginning, his recovering alcoholism is like a big secret that is hinted at for a long time till it is told (“in case you didn’t get the hints, here is what we were trying to tell you all along”). Weird, confusing, unnecessary and totally unproductive.

A movie with the promises of Eastwood, Collette, Hoult, being disappointing makes one feel hopeless for other releases which are much low on the star power. To be fair, it wasn’t the star power which was a let down, it was the writing. Or rather the confused vision on what the movie wanted to be. Lack of clarity of thought has brought down nations, and this is just a movie. And acting is not a cure, contrary to the movie makers’ belief. They are a tool to bring the vision to life, a face to the written word. There are many instances where a now popular character was earlier planned for a big star, but was given to someone less known and now we cannot imagine that character being played by anyone else. Because actors in a movie can be replaced, thanks to make-up, direction and writing. But there is no cure to bad writing. If anything, a good actor will make bad writing stand out in stark relief.
Not a good movie. Watch 12 Angry Men instead.

Wicked Little Letters

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.primevideo.com/

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Jesse Buckley, Olivia Colman, Timothy Spall, Anjana Vasan
Where to watch: Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: It is a funny movie starring some of the best actors telling a story on a deep subject. Why not to watch!

The movie is based in 1920 England, where a lonely, devout spinster Edith Swan (Olivia Colman) lives with her overbearing father and gentle mother, next door to a single, Irish immigrant mother Rose Gooding (Jesse Buckley). Not only is Rose a single mother, but she is also living in sin with her partner Bill, swears like a sailor, and has a jolly good time at the pub with the other patrons, all actions not approved by the tight laced Edith. But Edith has another problem, she has been receiving poison pen letter, filled with profanity, which disturb her parents to no end, that too 19 in total! And not just Edith, the who’s-who of the village have had something vile said about them! The nerve! Who could have done such an evil trick, and who has such a potty-mouth? Why, Rose of course, with her new age ideas and little regard to propriety, she is the right suspect for this deed which has troubled the good Christians no end. Rose is thus arrested and having no money for bail, has to spend time in jail, more now that Edith’s poor mother died of a heart attack upon reading one such letter. There is also Gladys (Anjana Vasan) who is assigned this case, pays little attention to this claiming there is more serious crime to be investigated – and rightly so, she is very good at her job, but her misogynistic boss doesn’t recognise her talent. That is, until she decides to give this quickly spiralling case her full attention.

The premise of the movie is hilarious and the execution even more so. Anything which has either Colman or Buckley is a treat in itself and this one has them both. Add to this mix Vasan (of We Are Ladyparts fame) and you get a cherry on your cake you did not know you needed. This movie has some fantastic dialogue writing and a bit of on-time slapstick comedy which makes it an ideal viewing pleasure. The movie touches on a topic, or rather, a side to human nature we all know and talk about but has never given the center stage or a de-facto position it deserves. And that is the real feat of this movie. Anyone who has ever had someone out to get them should come back to this movie and understand the underlying reason for such malice. It might help to understand the other person and maybe lessen their burdens a bit.
On the other side, the story and performance can only do so much. They are not the salve for the wounds caused by sloppy screenplay. Things suddenly take a turn and it is revealed who has been actually writing the letters, and while it deserves a slow camera pan-up to the face of the criminal, and its own crescendo in the background, it gets none of that, but rather a reveal which is more matter-of-fact. That take away from the almost 50% of the runtime build-up we have been viewing and waiting for. And the climax, while totally funny (ngl) is make out to be this big curtain drawing moment, which we saw coming a mile away.

It is confounding to realise why people can be so bitter about themselves and their lives that they have to take it out on others who have absolute zero contribution in their misery. Their only sin is that they have something the bitter person covets. And don’t all humans covet something they see others enjoying? So when does this scarcity give rise to such acid in their nature? Is there a trigger or is this something that builds up slowly, was always there and was only looking for an opening to rear its ugly head? On the flip side, what is stopping anyone from changing their lives, little bit at a time, because afterall it is the little things that matter, that one can control? Or is the effort in making that change so daunting, so scary, and turning into a harmful part of humanity so easy and satisfying, that it becomes the immediate choice? Is it a choice? Maybe it is. Comment if you have any answers to these questions?
This movie is a light-hearted, but deep movie which comes rarely on the screen, and has all but one pillar working for it. It can be a family movie too, if the family has members above the minimum age of voting, or driving, at the more adult’s discretion. The dialogues and the letters are so ridiculously out-there, they are laugh-out-loud. Jesse Buckley’s character’s free way of life is so inviting, all of us would want to be there with her, but we would need to build our characters strong enough. It is uplifting. Watch it!