At a home for retired opera singers, the annual concert to celebrate Verdi's birthday is disrupted by the arrival of Jean, an eternal diva and the former wife of one of the residents. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Dustin Hoffman

Starring: Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, Billy Connolly and others

Current release date: December 28, 2012

Cecily, Reggie and Wilfred are in a home for retired opera singers. Every year, on October 10, there is a concert to celebrate Verdi's birthday and they take part. Jean, who used to be married to Reggie, arrives at the home and disrupts their equilibrium. She still acts like a diva, but she refuses to sing. Still, the show must go on... and it does. From: IMDb.com

Directed by: Dustin Hoffman

Starring: Billy Connolly, Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon and others

Current release date: 2012

(Review originally written at 21 April 2008)

This is a movie that is made in complete comedy style and is also being directed by comedy-man Mel Smith. Yet this is a movie that just has no laughs in it and it's as if they even did tried hard enough.

It's of course a movie with a very simple thin story, that also on top of that is an highly unlikely one, even for comedy standards. The way the entire movie progresses is also rather predictable, which makes this a very little uninteresting and unoriginal movie to watch. It's of course not a movie to take serious in the first place but in that case the movie should had had some more comedy and entertainment in it, which it just simply hadn't. Instead it also tries to be more moralistic, which often is an annoying approach for any comedy. Mel Smith obviously has some comical talent but he yet still needs to proof himself as a good comedy movie director.

Problem is also its two main characters. They are being presented in this movie as strong, smart, independent women but yet they do all these stupid things. So something is wrong here with the approach. And no offense but lets be honest here for a moment, can you at least name 5 good movies that has 2 female characters as the movie's main leads? It's just something that rarely ever works out successfully. especially when you have a movie with a non-serious approach. Females in comical roles also always tend to overact more than males in the same type of roles. This often works as sort of annoying, even though this movie is still bearable with its acting, thanks to the professional acting by Minnie Driver and Mary McCormack, who unfortunately just weren't given a better script to work with.

Also the supporting cast is a good one with actors such as Kevin McNally, Mark Williams and Michael Gambon in it. They still also give the movie some extra flair but you can debate about it if most of their roles were actually really necessary for the movie at all.

It's a movie that has the right style, uses the right actors but yet just doesn't work out as a good and successful enough comedy. The movie seriously lacks laughs, which is especially disappointing for a British comedy and could had used a more clever and originally written script and possibly a different director at the helm.

4/10

(Review originally written at 9 April 2008)

I'll confess that this is not entirely my favorite genre. I like some British costume drama's, as long as they have some quirkiness added to it, such as for instance is the case in such movies as "Barry Lyndon", "The Draughtsman's Contract" and "Dangerous Liaisons". This movie is more in the style and mind of a Jane Austen novel, which is just not the type of movie for which I sit down and enjoy watching.

But nevertheless that doesn't mean I'm totally blind for the quality this movie got made in. Its Oscar nominations; Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, are all certainly ones I can agree with. Add to that the costume design and you have the 5 elements that make this a good and certainly perfectly watchable movie.

What I like about the story is that it features an original love-triangle. It's not the type of love-triangle you would just expect and it also makes the movie as a whole original not entirely predictable to watch. It's well layered and executed in the movie. It however perhaps too long for the movie to take shape. Basically the first halve of the movie totally couldn't interest me and it was standard, slow and just not that interesting. However the second halve, from the moment on the movie gets set in Venice, really made up a lot for me.

The movie is set at the early 20th century, which is not the most usual time period for this type of movie. However, if you would had told me the movie was set in the late 19th century I would had also believed it. Basically it are only the cars and phones that give away that this movie is set in the 20th century. The rest of the movie just feels and looks the same as any other costume drama set during a more common earlier time period. The sets and costumes for this time period are just fantastic. Not just for the Venice sequences but also really for the sequences set in London.

The movie is also not as heavy handed as it might sound and as you perhaps would expect. The movie mostly remains on the shallow safe side, until heads toward its very ending. It often makes this a bland and rather formulaic movie to watch, despite its hospitality. I think you can blame director Iain Softley, who directed his movie rather static and standard. Or perhaps blame the '90's, which just wasn't the most style-full period for movie making.

A good and certainly watchable movie, that perhaps should had been a bit more bold and edgier in its execution.

7/10

(Review originally written at 25 November 2007)

Lots of people at the time praised "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" for its dark approach and atmosphere. Well, if "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" was a dark movie, than this is an ultra-dark movie. "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" was a semi-dark children/fantasy movie that never really dared to cross the line. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is not afraid to this though. I must say that this movie is actually closer to horror than fantasy in my opinion. It had an incredible atmosphere, with also some classic build up horror moments. There is little room left for fun in this movie and it's all very serious. Yes, perhaps a bit too serious though. I felt that the movie could had used some relieving humor at times, something all of the other Harry Potter movies were still loaded with.

No, I'm not a great Harry Potter fan and never will be probably, but I have to give it credit for some thing. The series perfectly adapt to the maturing of the main characters as well as the viewers/readers. In other children book series the readers/viewers of course mature over the years, but the stories don't mature with them and everything remains just the same as the first book/movie. I praise the Harry Potter series for not doing so.

So the movie is quite different from any of the previous other Harry Potter movies. It has a new style, which provides the movie with a different atmosphere. This is being empathized all the more by the different musical score from the still unknown Nicholas Hooper. I liked this idea. A new approach calls for a new style, also in the music. None of the themes sound familiar or reminds us of any of the other previous Harry Potter movies.

The movie is more political than fun. The whole taking over Hogwarts thing by the ministry was done quite nicely and interesting. Harry and friends need to face some serious grown up difficulties now. Voldermort is back, no doubt, which means that there now needs to be fought in a battle between life and death. So no giant spiders, house elves, games of quidditch, brewing potions behind closed doors or snakes this time, but a real murderous evil villain, with dangerous followers, that needs to be stopped.

I'm sort of fed up though with all of these new characters that constantly get introduced in every new Harry Potter movie. It's of course not that any of those characters are bad, or being portrayed by horrible actors, but it just goes at the expensive of already some fine and established actors, such as Minerva, Dumbledore, Snape and Hagrid, who are now all being pushed more to the background. The movie is now filled with literally dozens of characters, that are not all getting the attention they need and deserve.

This is a very recommendable movie, especially if you thought that all of the Harry Potter movies were still too childish.

8/10

Watch trailer

(Review originally written at 28 September 2007)

This is a rather well made and flashy movie, that in the end is still nothing more than an average British crime movie.

The fact that this movie doesn't really raise above the level of average is due to the story. It's not necessarily a movie with a confusing story but its more a movie that makes things unnecessarily hard on itself, just to let the story seem more complex than it in fact truly is. It's as if the movie tried too hard to be something that it just isn't. On top of that the story also isn't always interesting or original enough to follow. The beginning is good and so is the ending but the middle drags a little and offers little new.

So you can say that the story-telling is worse than the actual story. Sure the movie is made with lots of pace and style but it seemed to me as if the director lost track of things at times. Matthew Vaughn is also still a beginning director, so I'm sure of it he will learn from his mistakes and he'll become a better director one day.

It isn't really a tough gangster flick, though the intentions are definitely there. I feel that the movie would had been a better one of it was even more brutal and straight-forward. Also some more humor and less serious characters would had worked out better for the movie. No, this really unfortunately ain't no Guy Ritchie movie, who still makes the best British gangster movies.

But of course this still obviously is a good movie to watch. The actors carry the movie and in the end the movie also offers some nice and thoughtful twists, like you always could expect from a British gangster movie.

Daniel Craig was a surprising and great leading actor. It's not his best role but still he mostly carries the movie entirely on his own. The movie is still filled with lots of fine supporting actors, such as Colm Meaney, Michael Gambon, Dragan Micanovic, Sienna Miller, Dexter Fletcher and George Harris. Especially nice to see Colm Meaney in a big production again. Sienna Miller's role seemed to be completely redundant on some other characters on the other hand got underused, such as the Dragan Micanovic's one.

A rather good movie to watch but not the must-see everyone makes you believe it is.

7/10

(Review originally written at 16 September 2006)

In this movie director Stephen Frears tries to tell the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from a different view point; that of housemaid Mary Reilly. He does this in a subtle, slow and dark style. That all combined makes "Mary Reilly" an uneasy and unpleasant movie to watch that's all style over substance. The movie lacks scares, tension, mystery and an overall good pace.

It's hard to say what is the biggest problem and failure of the movie, since there are so many little things present in this movie, which all combined makes this movie a failed attempt. One of them is the story itself. It not only is told slow and perhaps even boring, it also features lots of unneeded sequences with uninteresting characters involved. Another major problem I had with this movie was its style. This movie is darker than dark. I don't know, for some reason a movie that is entirely dark just doesn't ever work out as a scary or mysterious one. Its dark style rather makes this movie an uneasy one to watch. Granted that the cinematography is good and so are the sets and costumes but this is mostly ruined and pushed to the back by the overly dark and depressing atmosphere of the movie. Everything also isn't told in the most arousing pace, which causes this movie at times to be a drag and far from interesting one.

Normally Julia Roberts obviously is one fine actress but not in this movie. She feels out of place and basically all she does in this movie is look scared with her big eyes. Not her finest moment. I also expected more from John Malkovich. I mean, he seems like the perfect guy to portray the evil and scary Mr. Hyde but he gets very little interesting to do in this movie. Lots is implied in this movie but very little is actually shown on screen. The movie also features Michael Gambon, Glenn Close, Michael Sheen and Ciarán Hinds in an early role. They are fine but they basically add very little to the story in their little roles, which seems to have been written just for them, so they could be in this movie. I also don't like how they changed the Mr. Poole the Butler character. Poole is a loyal, friendly, hard working man but in this movie he is more portrayed as a villainous tough boss, who you don't want to mess with.

Also perhaps the most laughable and unbelievable element of the movie is that the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character look obviously alike. Both are of course played by John Malkovich but no make-up is applied and he doesn't alter his voice. Some voice, same hands, same face, same eyes but yet nobody recognizes Mr. Hyde as Dr. Jekyll. Basically only difference between the two characters is that Mr. Hyde has long hair and Dr. Jekyll is unshaven. Also their personalities are actually much alike. I really didn't see so much difference between the 'good' Dr. Jekyll and the 'evil' Mr. Hyde.

The ending, although it's good looking and effective, is a letdown that doesn't feel like a fitting ending at all.

This movie is definitely not an easy one to watch. If you're not familiar at all with the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story, written by Robert Louis Stevenson, than this movie is completely unwatchable and not understandable to watch for you, as well as an even bigger bore than it already is at certain moments.

A failure but a beautiful one, that still is not worth seeing.

4/10

Watch trailer