Reviews

It looks like the negative/neutral reviews are based on the movie's failure to be consistent: farce, horror, comedy, drama or whatever. For me, that's what makes it so intriguing. It is a finely made movie with smart script, perceptive direction and terrific acting all served by lucid photography. The movie is held together by the dominant performance of Ralph Fiennes.

I was constantly thinking "what will happen next...and in the end"? The ending was foretold early on, but, like the restaurant guests, we couldn't be sure. And along the way, there are multiple surprises. The violence is camouflaged by Chef's urbanity and the strange subservience of his staff. The threat of violence creates tension.

Th behaviour of the staff and guests appears unnatural. But because the never change their behaviour, you come to accept it as a likely phenomenon. Other reviews have seen these as a commentary with wider implications. Probably they are, yet they still resonate as drama. Likewise, each guest's character:is a success on the surface, but Chef has selected them for some abject failure in their life...some with universal application (young money-makers, food or any critics, marital infidelity, pretending to be knowledgable, performing in a movie Chef didn't like...what!). These can all be extrapolated to common failings we regularly witness.

Every movie needs a hero/heroine. Step up Anya Taylor-Joy. From an innocuous character who "shouldn't be here" (Chef), she displays the courage and smarts the others can't...because they are restrained by their own self-image.

This film marries fantasy and reality in turn through each event and as threads running throughout. The ending is perfectly fitting: Margot eats the cheeseburger on a boat watching the conflagation. Stupid for some; for me, brilliant!

Joe Wright is a top level director so when I saw he made Hanna, I wanted to see it. Unlike most viewers/reviewers, I'm not an action movie aficionado. I find fight scenes tedious and shootings a facile tool to sort out conflict. That said, I did find the plot, characters and acting for most of the movie to be engaging. Although the Cate Blanchett character was a two-dimensional cipher whose fate you guessed from the outset.

Generally, the action followed an interesting and credible course. Hitching a ride with tourists was realistic. Maybe stowing away unnoticed was not, but in the context of an action movie, you have to give some slack. Tom Hollander gave his standard impervious nasty-man performance - gets away with everything till he doesn't - ok in an action movie.

At the start of the movie, Eric Bana impresses on Hanna the importance of being on alert to attack at all times. So after seeing Cate Blanchett chasing him, he is unaware of her presence after despatching Tom Hollander. Even for an action movie which till then had been careful to balance reality and fantasy, that was downright unbelievable. The last 5 minutes of the movie was like it was rewritten by a Hollywood committee of writers to import a stock standard ending. The trite end was such a let down - minus 2 stars.

The story, the script (mostly), the photography a, stes and costumes are worthy of a movie in the top class. Antonio Banderas is terrific in the lead male role: he imbues his character with total credibility. However, the flaw in this movie lies with the lead female character: Angelina Jolie. While Banderas looks and acts like a man of the of the nineteenth century with myriad desires and characteristics, Jolie acts like she she just wandered in from the set of Baywatch. Her repertoire of acting skills is minimal: she glowers, looks cute, looks happy, looks sensual within a small range of emotions. If she and the director thought the sight of her breasts were enough to give a scene passion, they were seriously misguided. I have enjoyed Jolie in other movies, but this is a stinker of a performance.

I was intrigued to see this movie when I came across it on Amazon (sadly out of print) some years ago. When I recently acquired a DVD copy, I found it is even better than I imagined it would be.

My overriding assessment of a movie depends on the atmosphere it creates. Lolly Madonna has atmosphere in spades. All the ingredients - acting, script, sets, photography, music and direction - contribute to a movie that is greater than its parts. Other reviews refer to its Vietnam association. At this remove (50 years) from that time - which I well remember - that is no longer an issue. To the modern viewer, it is just a staggeringly good film that completely takes you into the lives of these people. It's great to see Steiger at his menacing best and Robert Ryan as the stoic hard man. Young Jeff Bridges almost upstages them. Every character in the movie is fleshed out - even the smallest role is given the spotlight at one time.

Given the story is an old one - family feuds (probably older than the Capulets and the Montagues) - the viewer could easily tire of such a one story movie. But the script has multiple layers as it exposes the characters and their motivations.

The finale is almost operatic in its almost total and mad destruction. The end credits are so imaginative - a perfect representation of the skill and inspiration that make this movie so powerful.

I watched this movie last night. Its production values and story line were sufficiently excellent to make me watch to the end...I often give up on inferior movies. I was attracted to see it after seeing Florence Pugh in Lady Macbeth (Which I have viewed twice). This was an altogether different role and I felt that she was diminished by it: too often, she came across as a a spoilt brat who, when things weren't going her way, looked like someone had stolen her chocolates, i.e. no real fury or force of character.

As I said, the production was really excellent. The cinematography was natural and didn't draw attention to itself, yet was revealing of the unfolding story. The sets, costumes and script drew you in.

But ultimately, your reaction to this movie on your ability to suspend disbelief. SPOILER ALERT: can you believe that sophisticated Swedes can behave like depraved cannibals. If yes, this is an 8+ movie. If no, it's a 2-3. For me, it's the latter.

WARNING: PLOT SPOILERS Agree with other reviews so far as the atmosphere and suspense (both terrific). The acting is excellent and the script first rate most of the time: people speak lucidly and coherently except in a couple of major instances. The trouble I had with this movie is the script/plot. For the first half, the story moves logically and tension is built up nicely. Then the "psychopath" (if you knew he is a psychopath, why would you hire him?) gets upset and murders a crew member. This same psycho was motivated by greed (why should everyone get the same share?); in the second half, he thinks the gold is affecting the captain's judgement and wants to surrender it to the Georgians. You can't have it both ways! Then out of nowhere, there is an electrical fault that disables the sub. End of story. By this stage, you realise you have been well and truly sucked in by the scriptwriter into believing that a happy outcome is possible. To top it all, the captain mysteriously inflates a rescue suit loaded with gold! Credibility is shattered by then so anything goes. I gave this movie 3/10 instead of 4/10 in the hope that it deters the undecideds from watching it.