ON CHESIL BEACH

Saoirse Ronan     Billy Howle     Emily Watson     Samuel West     Anne-Marie Duff     Adrian Scarborough

     It’s the 1960’s in England, and Florence (Ronan) and Edward (Howle) have just met in a love-at-first-sight moment.  They joke with each other, have fun, and talk about things that are important to them.  She’s a classical musician and he is a history expert, but has a wealth of knowledge about the world around him.  They seem to have a lot in common despite their different backgrounds—hers upper class, his working class.  His father is headmaster at a school and his mother an artist, so they are educated, but she had a brain injury that has resulted in odd behavior.  Florence’s family is rather snobbish, so it takes a while before they can accept Edward.  But things are coming along; Florence loves Ed’s family and they love her. 

     The day comes for them to be married.  This is a very long day, but director Dominic Cooke breaks it up by interspersing scenes from their childhood and the early days of their courtship, which helps to make sense of what happens on their wedding day.  Their honeymoon is in a fine hotel on Chesil Beach, known for its distinctive rocks, which serves as a metaphor for the rocky time their relationship will have.

     The book on which the film is based is by the acclaimed novelist, Ian McEwan, who wrote the script as well.  Many of his novels have been adapted to film, including Atonement, which won an Oscar.  His characters are well conceived, with psychological depth and a kind of realness that reminds us of people we know or can imagine.  That’s the strength of this film, along with the actors who play the main characters, Ronan and Howle.

     Although the director has done well in many respects, the film sags in its lingering on Florence’s obsessiveness and need to be in control and to be controlled in her every move (thanks to an overly critical father), making the audience squirm and look at their watches.  Another drawback is the loud rock and roll/rhythm and blues blasts that occur during opening scenes and periodically throughout.  It frequently drowns out the dialog, and makes it stand out in a bad way.

     But another strength of the film is its brilliant illustration of how important sex education is.  Although not unusual for the 60’s, these young people have not been taught the basics—either formally or informally—and your heart will go out to them in their pain and inability to express themselves or get any guidance.  A minister and a father offer their help, but the young people have been taught to suppress emotions and concerns, so can't discuss the issue.  

     Cinematographer Sean Bobbitt deserves praise for his camerawork, which captures the landscape contrasted with the emotional turmoil and shots that express so well the agitation and angst of the characters.  There has probably never been a wedding night scene quite like this one in film—although I have no doubt it has occurred too many times in real life.

     Saoirse Ronan is a consummate actress skilled in playing young, cheeky characters; and here she demonstrates her skill in portraying a woman truly afraid. Billy Howle is newer to film, but shows up extremely well here in a complex character who is trying to integrate his aggression, tenderness, and competitive feelings, and develop patience.  He made the picture of humiliation and regret come alive on the screen.

Even today, this film might be relevant for couples considering marriage.

Grade:  B+                                    By Donna R. Copeland

KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE

Taron Egerton     Mark Strong     Julianne Moore     Colin Firth     Halle Berry

Elton John     Michael Gambon     Channing Tatum     Jeff Bridges     Bruce Greenwood     Emily Watson

     Those who really took to the first Kingsman (2014) are likely to be disappointed in the second adaptation of the Mark Millar/David Gibbons comic book (“The Secret Service”), even though the writing/directing team is the same (Matthew Vaughn, director, and co-writer Jane Goldman), as is the cinematographer (George Richmond).  Where the first film went beyond the flashy technological effects to get in social commentary about the environment, social class, compassion, cooperation, and violence, this version seems to be preoccupied with technology, staging one combat scene after another, without much else in between.  And this is two-plus hours of screen time.

     Harry Hart’s (Firth) trainee from the first film, Eggsy (Egerton), is now an agent working with Merlin (Strong) to rein in a mega drug cartel run by the ruthless Poppy (Moore), who has ambitions to addict the whole world to increase her sales, but has ready an antidote against the disastrous effects of her doctored drugs, thereby retaining a continuous client base.  She concocts a plan, essentially putting the President of the United States (Greenwood) into a bind where, no matter what he does after he signs the agreement, Poppy’s plan will go through.

     The action takes Eggsy and Merlin to Kentucky, where they meet with private intelligence operatives and discover Hart—who was thought dead—but is alive in a compromised state.  They join forces to go after Poppy, loyalties switch back and forth, and multiple battles take place.  (It’s a bit ironic that in the first film, private intelligence agencies are shown to be bad; whereas in this film, the Kingsmen have little trouble collaborating with them, although, of course, a number of suspicions are raised and tested.)

     The script seems to be the biggest problem in The Golden Circle.  It has little substance or character development so becomes, to me, like a trade show for special effects, showing unbelievable lassos, hacking capabilities, and other tools that the characters seem to have ready for any situation, and these are inserted into so many combat scenes any interesting or engaging story is submerged.  Eggsy as the fresh-faced new Kingsman agent seems ill-suited to the tasks placed before him; and although Hart is brought “back to life” to back him up, his status seems so compromised in the beginning and through most of the action, his successes veer toward the unbelievable. 

     The filmmakers can boast about the number of A-list actors in the film:  Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Julianne Moore, Halle Berry, Elton John, Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, Bruce Greenwood, and Emily Watson, and they all perform really well; however, many have little screen time or impactful roles.  Tatum, Bridges, Greenwood, and Watson are only in a few scenes.  Julianne Moore, an outstanding actress, is not quite as formidable as the witch Poppy should be.  She should send chills up your spine, but although Poppy does unbelievably heinous things, it’s hard to imagine these actions coming from the character portrayed by Moore, a fault of the script and/or direction rather than her performance per se.  Elton John is a highlight in all this; he is his character and plays it to the hilt.  His persona and what he does hits the mark, about the only time in the film this happens.

This film is a puzzlement.  Although the original show runners are the same and the actors are top-notch, this version of the Kingsman productions falls far short of the original.

Grade:  C-                                                             By Donna R. Copeland

LITTLE BOY

Jakob Salvati     Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa     Emily Watson     David Henrie     Tom Wilkinson     Kevin James

            Little Boy is full of paradoxes, and at first I wasn’t sure what to think of it.  At times, it seemed like a story with a religious point of view (Christian at first, but then Eastern beliefs were mixed in); at times, it seemed to be admiring violence, but at other times, it seemed anti-war; and numerous times it seemed to imply a causal connection between events that were simply correlated in time. 

            Pepper Busbee, aka “Little Boy” (Salvati) is a slight, meek child of around eight who is small for his age and who is bullied by the heavy-set punk in town and his lackeys.  The refreshing part is Pepper’s completely innocent, inquiring mind.  He has an extremely close connection with his father who plays with him and uses fantasy to build up his self-confidence and self-esteem.  Unfortunately, this is during World War II, and the father is called away for military service.  In addition to Little Boy, he leaves behind his wife Emma (Watson) and older son London (Henrie).  London isn’t really old enough to manage his father’s business well, and he seems to have a chip on his shoulder and have a weakness for drink, so things will not go smoothly in the father’s absence.  In addition, the screenwriters (Director Alejandro Monteverde and Pepe Portillo) made Emma, the mother, out to be a “weak Willie”, who seldom gives guidance or comfort or sets limits when she needs to.  To the film’s discredit, the fully talented and skilled Watson is hung out to dry.

            The film deals with discrimination against other nationalities in the form of the local Japanese man, Hashimoto (Tagawa), showing the cruel ways in which a small town un-welcomes such a person in their midst.  London is one of these; however, the priest (Wilkinson) has subtle ways of protecting him, and unwittingly gets him and Little Boy acquainted.  Now, Hashimoto has a friend and Little Boy has two father figures to stand in for his beloved dad, the priest and the Japanese man.

            Much of the story is played out in Little Boy’s magical and religious efforts to bring his father back through mind control and charitable tasks that are similar to those in the Bible (e.g., give shelter to the homeless) that the priest has given him to fulfill so that divine intervention might come into play.  This ploy is challenged a bit by Hashimoto who relies more on a Zen-like philosophy.  A strong point of the film is juxtaposing these two points of view of two friends without taking sides with either. 

            Little Boy is engaging with good direction and skillful acting, and I especially appreciated its exemplifying differing points of view without taking a clear stand.  Yet, there was the irritating experience of feeling like the filmmakers were coming down on the viewer too heavily, as if the audience wouldn’t get the point or like a preacher who is trying to convert the nonbeliever.  It also seemed unnecessary—and a little cheap—to insert a sleazy character like Dr. Fox (James) who makes inappropriate advances on Emma when her husband is away.  Of course there are people like that, but the interchanges do not seem to belong in this type of film.

            Finally, I concluded that the bottom line of Little Boy was that small things and small people could have a huge impact on those around them and that belief in oneself is essential for that to occur.  From that standpoint, it seems like an uplifting story told something like a fairy tale, with “good” and “bad” elements made fuzzy so that the listener has to think.

A sort of modern fairy tale set during WWII.

Grade:  C+                        By Donna R. Copeland