TV Review: Downton Abbey Season 6 [Spoilers]

© ITV | Source: The Seattle Times

UK; 9 episodes; drama, romance, soap opera, period

Channel: ITV

Creators: Julian Fellowes

Cast: Hugh Bonneville, Laura Carmichael, Jim Carter, Brendan Coyle, Michelle Dockery, Joanne Froggatt, Rob James-Collier, Phyllis Logan, Elizabeth McGovern, Sophie McShera, Lesley Nicol, Maggie Smith, Penelope Wilton, Kevin Doyle, Allen Leech, David Robb, Raquel Cassidy, Samantha Bond, Jeremy Swift, Douglas Reid, Paul Copley, Sue Johnston, Matthew Goode

"Sometimes it's good to rule by fear." -- Dowager Countess

It's time to get out your handkerchiefs and wave goodbye to Downton Abbey. The British TV show that charmed audiences around the world finally found its conclusion in the finale of its sixth season, and certainly had devoted fans shed some tears over the fact that, come autumn, there won't be any new stories to be told, no new Christmas specials to be had.

Centred on the aristocratic Crawley family and their servants living and working on the grand estate of Downton Abbey at the beginning of the twentieth century, the show has always served as a prominent means of escapism for those of us who like to dwell upon nostalgia and revel in the idea of a time gone by. The ridiculously romanticised glance at noble quirks and domestic toils allowed us to leave behind our own everyday troubles and, at least once a week, dive right into a life that seemed so much easier and more ordered on screen. In Downton, the blue bloods had us live vicariously through their fairytale-like experiences of grandeur and splendour, and the servants conveyed a sense of humbleness and bliss that, apparently, can be found in manual labour.

Realism, it became obvious, never played an integral part within the show. Downton was pretty much an expensive soap opera, boasting a spectacular, detailed set and costume design, a dedicated ensemble cast ready to make the most of their roles - even if the script wouldn't always let them -, and an invaluable amount of fun one-liners and precious witticisms certain to make your day. Especially when delivered by the impeccable Dame Maggie Smith. The show never took itself too seriously and embraced its melodramatic nature. Additionally, it always was what its die-hard fans needed it to be: a place of beauty and happily-ever-after endings, a place in which obstacles would always lead to something joyful and good. Bad luck, bitterness and intrigues, so it seemed, were temporarily invited in, only to be thrown out by the deus-ex-machina mechanisms of the Downton universe.

As sweet and lovely as such a setup may be, it is hardly enough to keep a show running for six entire seasons. Having lost most of its steam midway, Downton's season four and five already relied too heavily on repetitive plot patterns, an airy-fairy treatment of the rise of the working class and an aura of lovey-dovey feel-good moments. And while some kitsch and cheese are always enjoyable as a side order, they're bound to eventually bore your brains out when served as the main course.

This has never been more obvious than in the sixth and last season of the series in which any attempt at innovation, subtlety or suspenseful excitement is thrown overboard for uninspired, same-old-same-old storytelling. While, for example, Lady Sybil's sudden death in season three endowed the show with a well-needed sense of ill-fated consequence and heartfelt tragedy, season six is in desperate need of truly bone-shaking, sincerely felt moments of interpersonal drama. Every conflict arising from the individual storylines is solved within no time. Anna's (Joanne Froggatt) and Mr. Bates' (Brendan Coyle) struggle to have children, Lord Grantham's (Hugh Bonneville) health issues, Thomas' (Rob James-Collier) depression over the fact that nobody really cares about him - everything is rushed through, allowing no room to actually feel for the respective characters and their inner turmoil.

Add to this a whole bunch of redundant plot elements and your interest in the series is bound to fall below zero. Anna's conceiving issue is reminiscent of Lady Mary's (Michelle Dockery) same problem in season three. Baxter (Raquel Cassidy) and Molesley (Kevin Doyle) find themselves in a very poor man's version of the already sufficiently exhausted criminal plot surrounding the Bates family. Lady Edith (Laura Carmichael) still struggles with the farmers who functioned as foster parents to her daughter born out of wedlock and, in another plot, tries to FINALLY get married. Meanwhile, Lady Mary, as usual, finds herself chasing and abandoning the man of her dreams, and Daisy (Sophie McShera) exercises her talent in pushing away a boy who has an interest in her, only to run after him once he's lost all hope of winning her heart. Oh, and then there's also cousin Isobel (Penelope Wilton) running after Lord Merten (Douglas Reith), and the Dowager Countess trying to have her way. But it's Maggie Smith, so I'll leave her be.

Anyway, there really is nothing new this season, and maybe this wouldn't be such a big problem if the characters weren't so annoying while performing their well-established routines. Daisy, in an attempt to save the livelihood of her father-in-law (Paul Copley), certainly climbs to new heights when it comes to performing silly actions and babbling on when really her mouth should be shut. The married life between Mrs. Hughes (Phyllis Logan) and Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) is another sore sight. The fact that it only focuses on breaking established gender perceptions, doesn't do the two characters any justice and makes them appear rather flat. Thomas' journey from mean-spirited villain to perfect Mr. Nice Guy really comes out of nowhere and lacks proper character development. Mary's to and fro with her sweetheart Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode) is downright unbearable and their chemistry really non-existent. Goode definitely knows how to play charming, but there's hardly a moment in which I actually believe that Mary and his character are destined to be together. The drama surrounding their relationship only exists to prolong the road to happiness for a little while longer.

Yet, happiness it is that awaits all the characters in the finale. The happily-ever-after ending really is the only redeeming feature of the season, in which all the characters find what they were looking for all along. No realism, no subtlety, no bitterness - just pure kitsch and cheese on the side. But if the entire main course is already made of kitsch and cheese, a kitschy and cheesy finish is less likely to stand out.

Sadly, the last season of Downton Abbey was everything I came to dislike about the show: predictable, endlessly repetitive, allowing precious characters to go to waste. In the end, what's left is grand costumes and beautiful sets. And Maggie Smith. Always Dame Maggie Smith. 

Rating:

Philosophers Corner: Deadpool (2016) [Spoilers]

© 20th Century Fox | Source: Fox Movies

USA, Canada; 108 min.; action, adventure, superhero, comedy, romance

Director: Tim Miller

Writing: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick; based on characters by Fabian Nicieza and Rob Liefeld

Cinematography: Ken Seng

Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, Stefan Kapicic, Brianna Hildebrand, T.J. Miller, Gina Carano, Karan Soni, Leslie Uggams

Welcome to an R-rated episode of our Philosophers Corner. Today, it's all about Ryan Reynold's career reinvigorator Deadpool. So join us while we discuss meta levels, private body parts, dirty language and what it takes for Marvel ladies to break the glass ceiling. Get cosy, BSPeeps, and press play!  

Philosophers Corner: Deadpool (2016) by Big Screen Philosophers on hearthis.at

 

Nata Lie:    

Rina:           

Squuls:        

Copyright information

Audio clips from Deadpool

20th Century Fox YouTube channel

Intro/Outro: 

"Level Up" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

In case you have any further questions or concerns regarding your material on here, 

please have a look at our Disclaimer.

Film Review: Brooklyn (2015)

© Fox Searchlight Pictures | Source: FilmSchoolRejects

Ireland, UK, Canada; 111 min.; drama, romance, coming-of-age

Director: John Crowley

Writing: Nick Hornby; based on the novel of the same name by Colm Tóibín

Cinematography: Yves Bélanger

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Emory Cohen, Domhnall Gleeson,  Fiona Glascott, Jane Brennan, Brid Brennan, Eileen O'Higgins, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters

“I wish that I could stop feeling that I want to be an Irish girl in Ireland.” – Eilis Lacey

Financial crises, Cold War politics, a Mars expedition gone wrong, child molestation, sex slaves and the animalistic side of human nature – this year’s Oscars Best Picture contenders deal with a rather grim subject matter. Amidst all this dark and heavy fare (oh, I forgot, The Martian is actually a comedy...), one film might appear like the odd one out. But don’t get me wrong. John Crowley’s filmic adaptation of the critically acclaimed novel Brooklyn by Irish author Colm Tóibín may come across as a more light-hearted, small-scale entry, but it’s every bit as engaging and important as the ‘big’ pictures crowding last year’s Top 10 lists.

In 1952, Eilis (Saoirse Ronan), a young girl from a small town in Ireland, migrates to Brooklyn, New York, to find a better job and better educational opportunities. She leaves behind her mother (Jane Brennan) and her beloved sister Rose (Fiona Glascott), feeling terribly homesick for the first weeks of her new life abroad. When she meets young Italian plumber Tony (Emory Cohen) and the two fall in love, Eilis finally begins to feel as if she has arrived in the USA. However, a sad stroke of fate requires her to travel back to Ireland where she finds that her prospects have changed. Will a promising job opportunity and the attentions of handsome fellow Irishman Jim (Domhnall Gleeson) draw Eilis back into her old life, or will she follow the call of the American dream?

In Brooklyn, there aren’t any big explosions à la Mad Max: Fury Road, no CGI fests like in The Revenant, no grand political themes or crimes to uncover. Brooklyn is the tale of a young woman trying to find her way in the world. While doing so, she’s facing all kinds of relatable struggles and emotions: there’s grief for home and the ones she holds dear, love, temptation and the striving for self-reliance and empowerment. What makes it so easy to follow this journey is, firstly, that Eilis is an instantly likeable character. She’s decent and reserved, yet incredibly witty and, once she knows what she wants, determined to follow her goals. Secondly, actress Saoirse Ronan plays her with tremendous dedication, embracing all the complex aspects of the character, from sadness to humour, vulnerability to inner strength and foolishness to smartness.

As a period piece, Brooklyn shines with its beautiful set and costume design. Not only do the locations and clothes bring to life an era gone by, they also help to characterise the difference between urban New York and rural small-town Ireland. Additionally, they bring out Eilis’ different ways of life in either of those spots. While, in the beginning, her wardrobe features mostly muted colours and simple cuts, her life in the US has her embrace the latest fashion, with her sporting playful blouses and sunglasses.

What is also refreshing to see is that, despite the 1950s setting, for once, gender isn’t too much of a focus. There are occasional allusions to how pre-marital sex should be prevented and how marrying rich would be a spiffy thing to do, but, despite these things, Eilis’ journey isn’t a mere fight against gender bias. Her independence feels natural. Men and women alike respect her for her efforts and intelligence, and find her to be a talented book keeper. While many period dramas with a female lead tend to focus on the women’s struggle against patriarchal structures, in Brooklyn, Eilis’ status is a given. The film endows her with more complex layers regarding fears and motivations than the usual aim to break the glass ceiling.

One of the most appealing aspects of the film is to watch the relationship between Eilis and Tony form and deepen. Actor Emory Cohen brings a wonderfully Brando-esque quality with a good squeeze of James Dean to his Tony. There’s a classic charm to him, a dreaminess and innocence that’s rare in today’s romantic genre. His character could have easily been a mere plot device, but his performance and chemistry with Ronan contribute to establishing one of the sweetest on-screen romances of the past year. It’s also nice to have their romantic dynamics evade stereotypes, with him being the head-over-heels, in looooove guy and her the reasonable, reserved other half.

The second part of the film, Eilis’ return to Ireland, is not as engaging as the first in which she has to deal with homesickness and her newfound love. If I should find a fault in Brooklyn, even if it’s just a minor one, it’s that Eilis’ coming-of-age moment near the end appears rather suddenly. Her stay in Ireland is meant to show how her home attachment could eventually overthrow her life in Brooklyn after all, but, from a narrative perspective, I find her experiences in the US to be much more vibrant and engaging. While Domhnall Gleeson gives a lovely performance as Eilis’ shy and quiet Irish love interest, I never really believed that going back to Ireland could actually have been a plausible option for Eilis. I guess a bit more time and effort could have gone into fleshing out her affection for Ireland in order to make her conflict of choosing between Brooklyn and Ireland more apparent.

In Brooklyn, we find beautifully drawn out characters and especially a strong and likeable female lead. Then there’s also a motivated young cast (with memorable supporting stints by Jim Broadbent and especially Julie Walters, no less) and a gripping tale of finding one’s own way in life. The film evokes old-school Hollywood charm with ease, and allows for 111 minutes of delightful escapism. In a Best Picture race that is dominated by movies handling universal conflicts and grand themes, it’s good to know that there’s still room for smaller, more intimate stories to be told.

Rating: 

Film Review: Crimson Peak (2015)

© Universal Pictures International  |  Source: A Tale of Two Dans

USA; 119 min.; drama, romance, mystery, horror, gothic

Director: Guillermo del Toro

Writing: Guillermo del Toro, Matthew Robbins

Cinematography: Dan Laustsen

Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Jessica Chastain, Tom Hiddleston, Charlie Hunnam, Jim Beaver, Burn Gorman, Leslie Hope

“Love makes monsters of us all.” – Lady Lucille Sharpe 

In an interview with The Guardian, director Guillermo del Toro stated that it wasn’t his intention to “reinvent” the gothic romance. He rather planned on bringing modern audiences closer to those stories abundant with supernatural occurrences, repressed eroticism and/or shocking psychological revelations. His Crimson Peak is indeed a very much by-the-book effort, presenting everything I’ve come to expect from the genre. And while Del Toro provides us with intriguing images and a thrilling final act, he mostly fails to establish strong lead characters and truly frightening sensations.

Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) falls head-over-heels for young Sir Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston). After a rushed marriage, the handsome baronet moves his new wife to live in his run-down family estate somewhere in the middle of nowhere. But Edith does not feel quite at home. For one, there’s Thomas’s controlling and grim sister Lady Lucille (Jessica Chastain), and then Edith is also haunted by a bunch of ghostly creatures who warn her of her new, apparently murderous, accommodation.

The Sharpe mansion is indeed the star of Del Toro’s film. Gloomy hallways, strange noises, old-fashioned furniture, a 19th-century elevator, dying flies on cupboards and moths flying out of every dark corner, blood-red clay seeping through the floorboards like the earth is ready to swallow the place whole – this house stands out as an ominous character on its own. The set design, in addition to the lush costumes and moody lighting choices, creates an atmosphere of spine-chilling opulence and a sense of unhealthy nostalgia, of lingering in a past that is rooted in rotten deeds.

I immediately get this The Fall of the House of Usher (1960) vibe. There’s a fair bit of Hitchcock’s Rebecca (1940) in there as well, and an abandoned wheelchair alludes to some Jane Eyre-ish madness in the attic. The film opens up another Poe-esque dimension with its abrupt outbursts of relentless, graphic violence. For me personally, these moments harbour much more shock than any of the ghost appearances throughout the film. Mostly computer-generated, these abstract and out-of-this-world looking beings never quite manifest themselves as a tangible threat to my peace of mind, and, most often, they pop up and vanish in a rather predictable fashion. While this particular look and the tame, old-school scare tactics probably were exactly what the Mexican director aimed to achieve, I had a difficult time being spooked by these swirling CGI spectres.

What also puts a damper on my overall enjoyment of the film is that most of the main characters suffer from a lack of depth and intrigue. Edith, especially. She starts off as an independent spirit (no pun intended) and shrivels into a meek, helpless creature whose sole purpose seems to be to uncover the manor mystery for us. I find this unfortunate since Mia Wasikowska is one of those actresses with beautiful understatement and emotional strength, and a bit more substance for her to work with would have been nice. Same goes for Tom Hiddleston. He succeeds in portraying the charming, tall and handsome stranger, but has to present a rather unconvincing development of his character towards the end of the film. Charlie Hunnam, as Edith’s secret admirer Dr. Alan McMichael, is the knight in shining armour, and that’s all there is to him.

It is Jessica Chastain as Lady Lucille who really steals the show. When the narrative focus shifts to her character in the final act, the film picks up pace and reaches a dynamic, captivating conclusion, in which even Edith’s self-esteem is ready to return. Chastain’s portrayal is calm and repressed, yet freaked and discomforting. She makes the most of a plot twist that I saw coming from miles away, and is ready to be fully wrapped up in lunacy. Fortunately, she doesn’t feel the need to resort to exaggerated fits of laughter or gaping eyes. Lucille’s craziness is dry, wonderfully wicked and even self-empowering.

Del Toro’s homage to gothic horror succeeds in evoking immersive visuals and paying tribute to genre classics of old. Unfortunately, a bunch of not-too-interesting core characters and a mostly too conventional approach to the material can occasionally result in a rather tedious viewing experience. And while the ghosts fail to stir my blood, Crimson Peak shines most in its finale in which it’s the human characters that leap down their respective spiritual abysses. 

Rating:

Film Review: The Princess Bride (1987)

© 20th Century Fox | Source: getfreshminds

 USA; 98 min.; adventure, romance, fantasy, comedy

Director: Rob Reiner

Writing: William Goldman

Cinematography: Adrian Biddle

Cast: Peter Falk, Fred Savage, Cary Elwes, Robin Wright, Chris Sarandon, Mandy Patinkin, Christopher Guest, André the Giant, Wallace Shawn, Billy Crystal, Mel Smith

 Vizzini: He didn’t fall?! Inconceivable!                                                                                   Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I lately read William Goldman’s fabulous, witty, satirical, fairly-tale-like novel The Princess Bride and as you can already guess, I whole-heartedly loved it from start to finish. However, the book doesn’t really take itself seriously and proves oftentimes unreliable in its claims at historical accuracy or even the author’s writing process itself (there’s neither a Florin, nor a Morgenstern and accordingly no book written by him that Goldman could have read as a kid and so on.) That’s why I ended up doing a lot of doublechecking on Google and was thrilled to realise that the novel has been made into a movie, and according to the online critics a good one at that. So the moment I finished the novel, I turned to the film (you can watch the whole thing on YouTube, even in HD.) 

The novel raised my expectations for the movie, to an almost unfair degree. I hoped for action, adventure, swordfights, witty dialogues, the most beautiful woman in the world, the strongest man in the world, the “inconceivable,” pirates, sharks, the Zoo of Death, the ROUSes (rodents of unusual size) and the kiss that is described as such: “Since the invention of the kiss, there have only been five kisses that were rated the most passionate, the most pure. This one left them all behind.”

Oh, and not to forget:

© 20th Century Fox | Source: memegenerator

As you can see I was really looking forward towards this one. The list above is fairly long. Easy-peasy for a book that can have as many pages as the author so desires, but a movie with only a limited amount of screen time (in this case precisely 98 minutes) will find it hard to include so many things without seeming jam-packed and rushed. So, unfortunately I must inform you that the Zoo of Death didn’t make it onto the screen and the sharks have been replaced by shrieking eels, but apart from that it’s all there.

But let’s start at the beginning. In the style of Goldman’s story of how he first came across the novel, the movie starts with an ill, bedridden boy (Fred Savage) who is read a story by his grandfather. Note that the grandfather is played by no other than Lieutenant Columbo, Peter Falk, who leads the narration and does not shy away from interrupting every now and then. Mostly when there is kissing involved. Yuck!

The story he tells his grandson is about a girl called Buttercup (Robin Wright), who lives on a farm and meanly orders around the farm boy who only ever replies “As you wish.” What he really means though is “I love you,” and one day, all of a sudden Buttercup realises that she loves him too. They kiss (a kiss interruptus though - thanks Frank and Peter) and then the farm boy, whose name is Westley (Cary Elwes), departs for America to earn the means he needs to provide his love with the kind of life he feels she deserves. Shortly after he left, Buttercup receives news that his ship has been attacked by the Dread Pirate Roberts, who never leaves anyone alive. So Westley is apparently dead and Buttercup vows never to love again and we are only just five minutes into the movie.

Five years later Prince Humperdinck of Florin (Chris Sarandon) decides to take Buttercup as his wife and she, assuring him that she does not and will never love him, agrees. Before the marriage takes place, Buttercup is kidnapped by a most curious trio. The head of the group is the clever Sicilian Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), then there is the Spanish master fencer Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) and the strongest man in the world, the giant Fezzik (André the Giant.) They bring Buttercup into the bordering country Guilder and make no secret of their intention to kill her there and incite a war between Florin and Guilder. However, before they cross the border, a mysterious man in black catches up with them and tries to abduct their abductee. For that he has to challenge each of the three in their master discipline, resulting in a battle of swords, a battle of strength and a battle of wits.

© 20th Century Fox | Source: funnyand

I think that is enough to make you rightfully curious to watch the movie and you really should. The Princess Bride is the kind of classic movie that is suitable for everyone regardless of age. Children will love the fairy tale-like story of the beautiful princess in distress and the exciting plot as such, whereas adults will also cherish the humour and the parodic elements that ridicule the conventions of sword and sorcery movies. 

Plus, seeing as the movie is fairly old (it was filmed in 1987!) it provides us with a somewhat different viewing experience from what we are used to nowadays. For example, I found the obtrusiveness with which the music underlined the action scenes utterly comical. Every clash of swords or even the battle of Fezzik’s sheer mass against a locked door is accentuated with tuba and trombone. Or just look at the often overdone acting by Miracle Max (Billy Crystal – a chocolate-coated pill to revive the dead, anyone?) or the Albino (Mel Smith), which reminds a little of a Monty Python movie. But then this silliness is deliberate and although it’s sometimes a little too much for my taste, it fits into the self-ironic tone of the movie. 

On a whole, the cast is doing a brilliant job, Cary Elwes and Mandy Patinkin especially so. They really manage to fill out their roles and there is a kind of chemistry between them that makes their exchanges hilarious to watch. And the movie version of Buttercup is far more likeable than her book pendant, who is more of a nuisance on two legs with peas for brains.

Lastly, note that The Princess Bride goes way back to a time before CGI and when there was still a limit to what could be done with special effects, so I think the performance of the ROUSes, who were played by actual people in costumes (duh!) and dubbed by director Rob Reiner himself, deserve some extra credit, which they now get from me. Well done.

© 20th Century Fox | Source: buzzfeed

So you see The Princess Bride is a charming, forthright, witty, storybook-like classic that can be enjoyed on various levels and is accordingly suitable for all age groups. It mixes an adult kind of humour with a childlike sense of wonder and if that’s still not enough for you, try making a drinking game out of every time Inigo says his catch phrase. 

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepeare to die."

Drunken stupor guaranteed. You’re welcome.

Rating: