Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Philomena
-
19-10-2013 12:02am#1Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 30,019 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 28726
This is one of those films that remains relatively, harmlessly engaging for the duration, but also takes so many shortcuts and cheap-outs it's rather frustrating. On the plus side, it quietly works against expectations: it balances its darker depths (the Magdalene Laundries are a major focus, and the latter half of the film contains some subtle, even-handed reflections on issues of faith) with warm humour and character work, and the script - co-written by Coogan - doesn't force artificial growth on its characters.
At the same time, its scattershot tone is frustrating, never wholly settling. Its heart-string tugging cheap tricks are cloying and repetitive (oh, look, yet another Super 8 montage scored to over-emotive music). Its a film that sometimes feels genuine, other times naive and artificial: you can see both conflicting elements in its portrayal of Ireland, for example, although it mostly sidesteps Oirishness apart from a few lazy second unit cutaways. Despite the film avoiding certain road trip cliches, the actual narrative details seem to be explicitly explained a good ten minutes after most audience members have realised them, creating a strange dramatic delay.
Neither Dench nor Coogan deliver truly 'great' performances, they're too perilously close to caricatures for that. But they create an interesting dynamic, and each has some powerful scenes.
Mostly, it's proof that Stephen Frears remains one of the least interesting directors working today: most of the film seeing him do little other than command his cinematographer to point the camera haphazardly in the general direction of the actors reading the script. Literally any random 'for hire' director could have made this to a similar if not superior quality if granted the same resources, and further proof that Frears' input is often the least interesting thing about his films. There's just no extra flair here whatsoever, an absolute bare minimum of thought put into the presentation.
Still, as persistently middling as it all is, it at least moves along at a solid pace, and there are moments of humour and emotional warmth that are difficult to resist despite an overall artificiality. It's a 'crowdpleaser': and literally from moment to moment that can either be in the best or worst sense of the word.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DBPqcp6Hc4Comments
-
-
-
-
Went to see this the other night. Thought it was good. Said I'd come on boards see what the overall thoughts about it were.
Jesus johnny_ultimate your review is far far too cyincal and smarter than thou. I think what makes this movie wholly genuine is the fact that it's a TRUE STORY. There wasn't a plot created cheap tricks(
)to "fish for tears" or "pull on the heartstrings". I saw this mostly as a heartfelt drama about one woman's trials and tribulations.
Although it's easy to see how you could see the main duos efforts as almost caricature but as hammy as the "cynical journalist" and "nieve Irish mammy" are at times, deep down I think it gets the balance just right as to where you believe in these characters, their relationship and grow a serious empathy for them and there cause. Can't see where Dench and Coogan put a foot wrong.
When rolling your eyes at Oirish cut aways you have to remember the tone at which this movie is pitched. Yeah, we could have had a dark bleak brooding masterpiece of misery porn but that's not what is offered (Plus it has been done with the Magdelene Launderies).
Could be swiped off as Hallmark-esque for the mothers but I think it has much more substance. A fitting tribute to the woman herself.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 30,019 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28726
ShagNastii wrote: »Jesus johnny_ultimate your review is far far too cyincal and smarter than thou. I think what makes this movie wholly genuine is the fact that it's a TRUE STORY. There wasn't a plot created cheap tricks()to "fish for tears" or "pull on the heartstrings". I saw this mostly as a heartfelt drama about one woman's trials and tribulations.
No 'smarther than thou' tone at all intended, was just trying to explain some of the reasons the film didn't quite work for me, and your response is well argued. Just to clarify when I refer to cheap tricks, I'm mostly referring to the execution: the aforementioned Super 8 montages, forceful musical score etc...
The core plot I agree is generally engaging and smart - and I will happily acknowledge again the film resists many clichés that come with the territory, and the film's engagement with some of the deeper resonances of the tale is impressive. As I said, it's a surprisingly intelligent reflections on issues of faith, and I admired the fact that the two characters consistently stay firm in their belief systems: the character's arcs are a touch more interesting than usual. In fact, I'd have few major complaints about the script itself (bar maybe some brief shifts towards overly broad comedy - especially in some of Philomena's reactions to American culture - but that's just me), and more with the direction. To me, Stephen Frears is a director with disappointingly little trust in the audience, and will always opt to overemphasise when subtlety would play better. That the film still works is testament to robust writing and performances that do indeed pull away just as they're about to veer too far into caricature, although I found Coogan a bit bland generally, even allowing for Sixsmith's initial boredom and apathy.
I am also by no means calling for gritty, happiness-free misery porn, I should stress. As Coogan has rightly pointed out, The Magdalene Sisters has that particular spectrum of the subject matter covered nicely. In this case, I found the intentions absolutely pure but the delivery slightly lacking. For example, I think some of the character work was undermined by some of the more overtly comedic moments, resulting in a tone that sometimes worked very well, other times not so much. Some scenes were very powerful indeed (like Sixsmith making that fateful online discovery), others flat.
I am not for a second suggesting this is a bad film, it's a very watchable one. But it's precisely because there's a lot of good things in there that my initial response was a slightly frustrated one: that it advances beyond mere 'middle-of-the-road' drama on occasion is why it's disappointing that it has a director unable to push it any further. As is, it's a diverting, sometimes smart and generally well acted drama that lacks the imagination to go one step beyond. I've heard a few reviews praising Frears' direction as 'unobtrusive'. IMO that's just a synonym for 'mediocre'.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
totally agree with you on most of that ,wasent impressed at all havin read the book some years ago ,movie totally bland, made too light of the real thing going on in the ugly irish hierarchy known as the catholic way of life . i thought they were solid left off the hook by the filmmaker ,he made the film into a watered down convent comedy.. I was reared in a convent for 11 yearsjohnny_ultimate wrote: »
This is one of those films that remains relatively, harmlessly engaging for the duration, but also takes so many shortcuts and cheap-outs it's rather frustrating. On the plus side, it quietly works against expectations: it balances its darker depths (the Magdalene Laundries are a major focus, and the latter half of the film contains some subtle, even-handed reflections on issues of faith) with warm humour and character work, and the script - co-written by Coogan - doesn't force artificial growth on its characters.
At the same time, its scattershot tone is frustrating, never wholly settling. Its heart-string tugging cheap tricks are cloying and repetitive (oh, look, yet another Super 8 montage scored to over-emotive music). Its a film that sometimes feels genuine, other times naive and artificial: you can see both conflicting elements in its portrayal of Ireland, for example, although it mostly sidesteps Oirishness apart from a few lazy second unit cutaways. Despite the film avoiding certain road trip cliches, the actual narrative details seem to be explicitly explained a good ten minutes after most audience members have realised them, creating a strange dramatic delay.
Neither Dench nor Coogan deliver truly 'great' performances, they're too perilously close to caricatures for that. But they create an interesting dynamic, and each has some powerful scenes.
Mostly, it's proof that Stephen Frears remains one of the least interesting directors working today: most of the film seeing him do little other than command his cinematographer to point the camera haphazardly in the general direction of the actors reading the script. Literally any random 'for hire' director could have made this to a similar if not superior quality if granted the same resources, and further proof that Frears' input is often the least interesting thing about his films. There's just no extra flair here whatsoever, an absolute bare minimum of thought put into the presentation.
Still, as persistently middling as it all is, it at least moves along at a solid pace, and there are moments of humour and emotional warmth that are difficult to resist despite an overall artificiality. It's a 'crowdpleaser': and literally from moment to moment that can either be in the best or worst sense of the word.
till i was 16 then turfed out with only the clothes on my back ,not surprisingly got pregnant ,went into good shepherd home ,baby gone for adoption ,that was 30 yrs ago and despite hundreds of letters and attemts still not met my daughter,got **** all info from convent i had baby in,only one piece of paper gleefully declaring adoption YES. SO DELIGHTED THAT THEY GOT ANOTHER ONE.my name is also philomena ,but i did marry and have 2 more daughters and a son ,whom are all grown up and left home,happy healthy and looking forward to meeting their eldest sister whom they know everything about because i kept a scrapbook of everything relating to her over the years, ie all my requests 4 fotos which were denied ,letters to know if she was alive and well ,which were denied and so on and so forth ,so you can understand why i felt the film was weak .....0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Saw this in a fairly busy screening in Dundrum tonight, thought it was fantastic to be honest.Only criticisms I would have would be the over-use of Super 8 footage, like come on, you can let the character stand in the same places in the convent as when her son got taken away without the old-time footage, especially when Dench was doing a fine job.
The showdown scene did feel a bit contrived alright, didn't know it was actually made-up at the time of watching either. Coogan's kid-like delivery of "I'm angry!" didn't help either
Surprised there wasn't more info on the father of Anthony/Michael or on Philomena's family.
But generally, delighted I saw it.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement