JayDee's Movie Musings

That explains a lot.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Glad to've been of help.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Plot – Detailing the true story of the notorious Christie killings which took place in London in the 1940s and 50s. John Christie (Attenborough) is an unassuming, seemingly innocuous man living at 10 Rillington Place with his wife. While he may not look it, Christie happens to be one of Britain's most infamous serial killers, with a body count totalling at least eight women. In particular this film details events that occurred in 1949. Timothy (Hurt) and Beryl Evans (Geeson) are a young couple with an infant daughter looking for a new home. Sadly for them, they wind up taking the top flat in the same tenement where Christie resides. When he learns that Beryl has an unwanted pregnancy, he offers his apparent expertise at being able to terminate the baby for the couple. What he really does is rape and kill her, passing her death off as an accident as a result of the operation. He is able to manipulate Tim into leaving town and allowing him to take care of everything. This tragically includes the well-being of the young child, Geraldine, who Christie also kills. As a result of his manipulative ways and false confessions on Tim's half, it's Tim who ends up being tried and executed for the crime. Christie would go on for a further three years, killing his wife and three prostitutes in the process, before finally being detected.

HO.....LEE.....SH*T!!! This film, and one performance in particular, absolutely chilled me to the bone! That performance came from Richard Attenborough. I grew up associating Richard Attenborough with films like Jurassic Park and Miracle on 34th Street. As a result I considered him to be quite a kind and gentle presence. Maybe even cuddly! I mean to me he was Santa Claus for goodness sake! Why did no-one warn me when I was growing up that the man was pure evil?!

It's become almost cliché these days that following a notorious killing, the media will track down neighbours who will talk about how 'shocked they are', how they 'could never have imagined they would do something like that', how they were 'one of the nicest people I've ever met', how 'they were really quiet and just kept to themselves.' Well Attenborough's John Christie is one of those guys. Mild of manner and soft of speech, there is just nothing about him that would immediately warn you off. He's not a raving lunatic or a James Bond style villain, he appears to be an ordinary guy. A tremendously ordinary guy in fact! Quiet, actually rather meek and apparently harmless. Attenborough does however hide something in his eyes that just hints at the darkness which lies within him. Part of what makes his actions so disturbing is the fact that we aren't given any background for the murders, no motivation. A truly chilling performance

As chilling and impressive as Attenborough is however, it would be a disservice to the film and in particular John Hurt if that was the only performance I talked about. As the rather simple-minded Timothy Evans he strongly portrays quite a complex character who is not actually a likeable personality whatsoever, so the sympathy we feel for him is not cheaply earned. It's only when the horror of the situation begins to close in on him, and that he attempts to mount a defence which comes too late that we begin to feel so terribly for him. He has just been manipulated and twisted so much that his fate is set in concrete. The character is not romanticised as the greatly wronged man of the piece as he likely would in a fictional film. And in the same fashion the film doesn't really seek to add extra condemnation on Christie. There's no dramatic score reserved for him to let you know that 'oh he's evil.' The film just presents events in a very matter of fact way, with our natural sense of morals guiding our emotions.

Film trivia – Rather creepily the film was actually shot on location on the actual Rillington Place, though following the killings its name had been changed to Ruston Close. The interior scenes were not filmed in the actual house however as the three families who lived there refused to move out for filming. As a result it was filmed in the empty no. 6 block. The street was demolished the following year.

With the action taking place predominantly in tight, confined quarters the film has an uncomfortably claustrophobic feel to it. It almost makes you feel like you're actually there, perhaps sitting across the room from these characters as they interact. You almost feel like you should do something to try and stop these horrible deeds that are taking place, as if you've somehow become complicit if you don't do anything. This very voyeuristic fashion gives it a real Hitchcock vibe in line with films like Rear Window and Psycho. In fact the predicament the viewer finds themselves in seems quite similar to that of L.B. Jeffries in Rear Window. We can see what is going on but are powerless to stop it. Though the film it most strongly evoked for me was another Hitchcock effort, Frenzy. Aside from the obvious sharing of London as its location, both films detail the uncomfortable exploits of a monster with psycho-sexual inclinations and presents it in a very seedy manner. Particularly the moments in both films where we are actually witnesses, up-close and personal to their acts of rape and murder are immensely disturbing and tough to stomach.

It really has the feel of a docudrama. And this is just heightened by the removal of several typically cinematic touches, for example there is barely any examples of score music throughout the whole film. This means that the frequent crying of the Evans' young daughter has great prominence and creates such a feeling of dread. And while it may remind me of Hitchcock's work in some ways, it is certainly lacking in the types of flourishes he would normally include. The whole film shies away from anything stylised or dynamic when it comes to appearance, leaving a very drab and grim palette which certainly fits the atmosphere perfectly. It also gives the film the feel of a kitchen-sink drama, just with a much darker than normal current running through it.

As noted in the plot summary this is based on a true case. As a result the film also works as a fascinating and troubling historically significant artefact. The case of the Christie murders, and that such a tragic miscarriage of justice could occur, played a huge part in the UK abolishing the death penalty in 1965. I also imagine that it acts as an accurate portrait of post-war London, and Britain in general, and the grim economic situation it was in. The film may begin just a few short years after the war had ended, but any sense of jubilation has already seeped far away from this place. We find ourselves in a grim, dingy atmosphere of despair.

Conclusion - While I perhaps admired this film I'm not sure it's one I'd go around recommending to people. I don't imagine too many people 'loving' this film, more than likely most people may find it a tough watch instead. And I don't see it being a film I would revisit all that often. However there is no doubt that it is an effective and chilling film featuring a quite astonishing turn from Attenborough.

__________________

I like your reviews,well-written and accurate.

Great review I really like this movie saw it in the theatre when it came out

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I'm not reading your review, because I haven't seen it, but it's a movie I have had on my to watch list for a long time.

Great review, JD. As you know, I think quite highly of this film and, for me at least, it's far more disturbing, chilling and terrifying than anything a certain Mr. Hitchcock ever managed to construct... Not that that's saying much. But this really is a creepy piece of cinema and I can only imagine what it must've been like seeing this as an adult on its release.

Wow. Kinda surprised at how popular my review of 10 Rillington Place (and the film itself) has proved. I had never even heard of it until I spotted it on TV earlier this week. But I guess that what happens on such a great forum with so many knowledgeable people.

Thanks Gabrielle.

Thank you nebbit. I should just let you guide me as to which films to watch. Just about any film you like, I like; especially if you saw it at the cinema.

I was initially shocked that you saw it at the cinema until I remembered you had already admitted to being ancient!

Hmmm...well I suppose I can let you off just this once! However I'll hold you to your word that that's the only reason. So when you do watch out I'll drag you back to my review!

Thanks HK. Oh is this one you've recommended at some point? As I said earlier I didn't think I'd ever heard of it. Wow so you'd even have it above Psycho in those regards?

I, actually, loved this film!

Absolutely. However, whilst I love Psycho, I don't think it's scary in the slightest and the closest it gets to chilling is that final shot, just before it does the double dissolve.

This is one of those performances that I'd point people to who think Hopkins is scary or chilling (rather than the obvious ham-fest it is) in Silence Of The Lambs.

Oh well there you are! Just goes to show how much I know! I just felt that while it was a film I admired it was such a tough, unflinching watch that it would be tough to really love. Who knows though, maybe over time I would.

Ok this I agree with 100%.


EDIT - Oh and CA thanks for quoting my whole review. Helped me spot that I had slightly underscored 10 Rillington Place, missing out a + for the rating. Must have slipped through the cracks when I was copying and pasting the review.

Plot – Telling the true case of the fate the befell Sonny Von Bulow (Close), and exploring the notion of how exactly it happened. When she is inexplicably left brain-dead in a coma, her husband Claus (Irons) is arrested for her murder. After being found guilty he recruits the talents of law professor Alan Dershowitz (Silver) for his appeal. Like just about everyone else, Dershowitz initially seems quite convinced of Claus' guilt. Taking the case to fund other causes, Dershowitz employs a group of his law students to assist him. As Dershowitz gets to know Claus, and learns more about the case, he becomes less and less certain that he is guilty.

The film I watched just previous to this was 10 Rillington Place: a film which took an uncompromising and straight-laced approach to its subject. While Reversal of Fortune also tackles a real life story of crime (or possible crime) it does so in a vastly different method. The film takes quite a curious and quirky approach, actually presenting a rather flippant view of the whole case. From the opening moments the film is graced with occasional narration from the comatose Glenn Close in an echo of Sunset Boulevard where the deceased Joe Gillis describes the fate that befell him. And from that moment on it also shares Boulevard's dark and satirical bite with a strong vein of black humour running throughout it. It has absolutely no sympathy for its characters and as a result it's tough to really care for any of them. Despite her plight we really have no sympathy for Sonny. Claus is so dispassionate and smug that you constantly feel he needs a good slap. And the fact that we don't know the truth makes it tough to root for any outcome. While this approach made for an entertaining spectacle it perhaps robs the film of any emotion, and takes it into slightly hollow territory.

Along with presenting the facts of the case, the film seems just as interested in painting a satirical picture of the idle rich, taking the picture very much into the territory of a commentary on class. From the film's opening helicopter shot of the mansions that populate Newport, Rhode Island it's clear that we are in the world of the super-rich. And through his sharp and witty script Kazan has a great time sending up the lives of these nugatory wasters. This becomes particularly evident when examining the marriage of Sunny and Claus. We see the absolute waste of a life that is Sunny and the sham of a marriage she shares with Claus. While they may have once cared for each other, now there is absolutely nothing between them. While sleeping next to each other in bed they wear blinders and earplugs as if they are trying to put as much distance as possible between each other. They are part of a society were image and perception is everything, and where extra-marital affairs are accepted and damn near encouraged as long as their image is held up. We can't help but judge these two for choosing to remain in such a loveless marriage; and combined with Sunny's image as a miserable, abusive alcoholic and drug abuser we are led worryingly close to the feeling that what happened to her was no great loss, perhaps that she even got what she deserved.

The film breaks from the tradition of most courtroom dramas I've seen in that it barely ventures into the actual courtroom itself. Indeed all added up we probably don't spend more than a couple of minutes inside the court. What this film details is this incredible amount of work that goes into prepping for a trial; and then just when you think we're building up to the big trial, full of bellows of “objection” and other dramatic outcries, the film ends; only telling you the outcome through captions on the screen. The scenes where Dershowitz and his students are gathering clues and strategizing about the case bring a lot of energy and are highly entertaining. It's fascinating to see the immense level of work that goes into such a case, highlighting all the little nuances of the process.

Reversal of Fortune is however hampered by the frustrating fact that it cannot reveal what truly happened to Sonny Von Bulow. The reason for this being that the only person in the whole world who knows the truth about his guilt or lack thereof is Claus Von Bulow himself. Or Sonny Von Bulow; and she certainly wasn't going to be talking! So what the film does is explore all the possible answers while remaining ambiguous, allowing us to make up our own minds. It presents a very convincing argument as to why Claus would want to get rid of his abusive addict of a wife, but balances this by showing how it could have been just as plausible that Sonny herself was at fault; either as a deliberate suicide attempt or an accidental overdose as a result of her deteriorating mental state.

While the whole ensemble is filled out by a series of strong performers, the film is spear-headed by a couple of truly excellent central showings from Jeremy Irons and the late Ron Silver. And it's to these two that the film truly owes its success to. I have no idea what kind of person Jeremy Irons actually is, but as an actor I think he could probably play the role of a smug, arrogant sleeze in his sleep by now; making him the perfect choice for the role. In fact in some ways it feels like Irons merely dusted off his performance from Dead Ringers just two years previous. Ice cold and insanely reserved when it comes to emotion, he makes for a real eccentric who on occasion seems rather pitiful, and even approaching something close to sympathetic. His unadulterated arrogance and tongue in cheek delivery make his performance quite the joy to behold. Opposite Irons is Ron Silver as Alan Dershowitz, delivering a passionate and driven performance. While I perhaps struggled to get a complete grasp on his character, Silver himself was great and I think he could hve considered himself unfortunate not to show Irons in receiving an Oscar nomination at the time. Glenn Close also does an admirable job considering her role requires just two things from her really - to lie around in a coma or to be drunk. She is able to really shine in a few key scenes however, and one thing she does get across in the rare instances were the character is not completely spaced out is the beauty of the character, helping us to understand how Claus could have been attracted to her once and how her husband and kids could still care about her despite everything she does.

Conclusion – A captivating drama, a fascinating mystery and a deliciously dark comedy all in one package; this film has a real air of class about it. With a strong cast working from Kazan's Oscar nominated script, this is a very entertaining tragicomedy about the idle rich, though it does perhaps lack in emotional weight.

Was this one I recommended to you? I love Reversal Of Fortune and it's always great fun to watch it. As you said, this films rests with the lead performances and, with Ron Silver in perticular, you were always guaranteed a good one.

I really enjoyed this movie nice review

Eh, not sure. Had a quick search of posts and you approved when I bought the DVD but not actual recommendation there, perhaps in one of your PMs, kind of lose track. Also came across a post where you talk about how it almost made your top 100.

Oh yeah I actually meant to go back in and write a bit more about Silver's performance. I don't imagine I've seen a great deal of stuff featuring him but always enjoy him when I do - Ali, his villainous turn in Timecop as wel as some TV work. Any other films with him worth checking out?

Oh so this was just a 'nice review' after my 'great' 10 Rillington Place review? Are my standards slipping?

Ah. That's probably what it was.

I'll watch him in anything. He's a bit like Brian Dennehy, in that I just like to see him onscreen. Even in a bad film, you know it'll be more interesting when he's onscreen.

As for films, I'd recommend the these: Billionaire's Boys Club, Silkwood, The Entity, Garbo Talks! Mr. Saturday Night and Blue Steel are worth a look, too.

Plot – 2003. Convicted criminal Marcus Wright (Worthington) is on death row. Moments before his death he is convinced to donate his body to Cyberdyne for medical research. 2018. A disastrous excursion into a Skynet facility leaves every member of the resistance group dead except for John Connor (Bale). After Connor has been picked up another individual emerges, a naked and amnesia-stricken Marcus. Wandering through an abandoned Los Angeles, Marcus befriends a young Kyle Reese (Yelchin). When they come into contact with each other, John Connor believes that Marcus has been sent to kill him. But after Reese is taken prisoner by the machines the two must join together to try and rescue him, and deal a large blow to Skynet.

It's taken me a good while to get round to this film, despite the fact that I'm a big fan of the franchise. I absolutely love the first two films, and even enjoy Rise of the Machines for what it is. I just wasn't feeling this one however; I wasn't getting a great vibe from the trailers and assorted promotional material at the time of its release. As a result I've only just decided to give it a shot now. And I've got to say that while it may be a bit rough around the edges it's actually a pretty good entry in the series; certainly a good deal above my expectations, such as they were.

First things first though; There's no doubt that the film certainly misses the considerable presence that is Arnold Schwarzenegger. After all he is the most recognised element of the whole franchise. It's like a Rocky movie without Stallone, a Die Hard film without Willis, a Predator film without...well, the Predator! Indeed without the pop culture icon that the character became I think it's fairly safe to say that the odds of the franchise still churning out films 25 years after the original would be fairly slim. In his place somewhat, Sam Worthington proves to be a solid addition, bringing a strength and intensity both physically and emotionally to the character. He is at least given a bit to work with as he embarks on a journey to discover who, or indeed what, he really is and then how he attempts to find redemption with this second chance that he has been given. Though the fact that we never really know what he did in his original life, and what he's trying to make up for, is certainly a flaw. But all in all he does a good job, though it can't be avoided that when compared with Arnie he is lacking in terms of charisma and screen presence.

Film trivia – The film's director, McG, actually went to visit James Cameron in New Zealand when he was working on Avatar. McG went with respect to the mythology of the first two films, and to gain any insights Cameron may have. It was during this time that Cameron actually recommended Sam Worthington for the role of Marcus.

The rest of the cast I felt were a bit of a mixed bag. I found Christian Bale to be quite a bland and dour John Connor. In fact for a long time I had my suspicions that Bale didn't truly star in this film. I got the distinct vibe that some computer whiz had merely taken Bale's performances from the Batman series and photoshopped it into Salvation. It feels startlingly similar to his Bruce Wayne! It's the same glum, woe is me scowl on his face, and the same gruff, gravelly voice which I personally can't take all that seriously. I know he's going for serious and intense, but I tend to find it more laughable. I just feel that for the supposed leader of the resistance, the man who is apparently going to save mankind, the character needs a lot more personality. Along with being a brave, kick ass warrior I think you would need to be a really charismatic presence to get people to follow you and risk their lives for yours. In fact between Edward Furlong's whiny emo kid, and Bale's perennial downer, is it just me or is John Connor a little bit of a douche?

Anyway the real find amongst the cast proves to be Anton Yelchin as a young, puckish Kyle Reese. As well as proving to be a very likeable character he also does an impressive job convincing as a young Michael Biehn, gamely attempting to capture and replicate his mannerisms and characteristics. He also deserves extra credit for being so impressive despite having some awful dialogue to spout on a few occasions. So it's a real shame then that the plot contrives to remove him from proceedings for a large portion of its running time. If we continue to get more instalments of the series I certainly hope he returns, and is given a more substantial role. The same could also be said of Bryce Dallas Howard, who given her pedigree, I felt was immensely under-used as John Connor's wife. Oh but any film that includes Michael Ironside, even in a minor role, is going to earn itself some bonus points. Now he shows Bale how you do gruff and aggressive with style and personality.

I don't feel the plot is as focused or strong as in the past, and perhaps it was just me but I struggled to really feel the same level of threat and danger as in the previous films. It just feels a bit more small scale and lacking in ambition. Though I do give the film credit for trying to introduce some new elements and twists to the Terminator mythology, even if they prove to be a bit hit and miss. The film expands the range of machines at Skynet's disposal, though not all that successfully in my eyes. They are able to contribute to a couple of cool moments, but for the most part I found them to be rather goofy and not an entirely comfortable fit for the franchise. In fact I almost felt like they had accidentally wandered over from the Transformers set.

Film trivia - As I'm pretty sure everyone on here will know, Salvation marks the fourth entry in the Terminator franchise. And quite amazingly each film was produced by a different studio. The Terminator was produced by Hemdale and went through Orion. Terminator 2: Judgement Day was produced by Carolco and Tri-Star. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was produced by C-2 Pictures and distributed by Warner Bros. and Columbia Pictures. And finally Salvation was produced by The Halcyon Company. As such Salvation qualified as an independent film; with its $200m budget making it the most expensive indie film of all time.

I've got to say I wasn't all that enamoured with the look of the film. The drab, washed-out colour palette that the film employs seems to be the current go-to aesthetic for apocalyptic scenarios in films and TV shows, and it feels rather played out. And just generally it's not something I'm particularly fond off, particularly for big budget movies. I feel it gave it quite a cheap, tinny appearance and as a result it struggled to put much distance between itself and the dystopias we've seen on the small screen of late in shows like Falling Skies. And when you consider its near $200m budget I'd say that's a problem. I struggled to see all that money on the screen I have to say. It also doesn't really allow the film to match the vivid, nightmarish vision of the future we've been shown in tantalising glimpses in the other Terminator films; particularly in the epic opening to Terminator 2: Judgement Day. It was something I had always wanted to see, but now that I have I think it was more fun when we were just getting brief glimpses and letting our imagination fill in the rest.

While I probably wouldn't say that any of the action sequences earn their place alongside some of the great set-pieces the series has offered up to this point, they are able to deliver some thrills along the way. Stand-out moments of action include a Mad Max-esque road battle and Marcus' escape from the resistance's camp which is shot with a war movie vibe. And then the film closes with the classic mainstay of the series, a brutal smackdown between the hero and the seemingly unstoppable Terminator. This moment also delivers a brief cameo of sorts from Arnie. While it's a piece of CGI, as opposed to the real thing, and doesn't last long it's still pretty cool and put a silly grin on my face.

Conclusion - While this is still a million miles away from the first two entries in the franchise, I did find this to be a more enjoyable film than I was expecting, and indeed fearing it would be. And it also proves that there is perhaps still a little life left in the series, especially if Arnie was to be reintroduced in the role that made him one of the biggest stars in the world.

Agree... Salvation is a mile away from the first two but beats the comedic tone of T3...

Though, I reviewed Terminator Salvation nearly a year ago, so it's old news now

__________________

Oh, and the look of the film was a let down for me too. I wanted to see what was shown in T2... blue lasers and Terminators walking across a floor of skeletons with humans hiding underground in what looks like old prison cells...

... instead we got a grey ruined city scape, tons and tons of desert, and a Terminator Factory that looked like the molten steel factory at the end of T2.

As I mentioned in the review I actually enjoyed Rise of the Machines for what it was. The first two were sci-fi thrillers and purely great films. The third was a dumb, popcorn action flick but quite fun and with a great ending.

Touche! Though without even looking I can confidently predict that in quality terms I kicked yo ass!