The Audition follows Anna Bronsky, a violin teacher who takes on a young man named Alexander who she sees great talent in. Going against the advice of her colleagues she prepares Alexander for the year end exam. She puts a lot of time and effort into training Alexander, so much so that she starts to neglect her own son Jonas. Jonas also plays the violin but starts to resent Anna when she starts devoting so much time to another boy.
Anna’s husband Philippe also starts to feel neglected once Anna starts spending the rest of her time joining a music group. Does Anna continue pushing Alexander and practicing for her own music concert or does she realize just how much she is affecting Jonas and her husband?
Director Ina Weisse does a great job here moving the story along quite nicely and getting some good performances out of her actors. Despite being somewhat slow moving the pacing here actually works to the movies benefit. We get a lot of time with Anna and get to see all her flaws. There is a lot of depth to her character, and we really get to see how conflicted she becomes over the course of the movie. It helps that Nina Hoss, who plays Anna, gives a really great performance that lets you see all the ins and out of this character.
There isn’t much here to pick apart. While not everything is pitch perfect this hits all the right notes to make everything competent enough to call it a success. Aside from Nina Hoss everyone else in the cast all give good performances. All the scenes feel very genuine as the writing is put together very well. The only thing missing here is just a little bit of a wow factor.
Everything is well done but there’s nothing that puts this completely over the edge as something great. That’s not to downplay anything about The Audition as it is a solid movie overall.
In the end, The Audition works about as well as it should. Ina Weisse puts together a very well-made movie with good performances and some beautiful music that is played throughout. While I wouldn’t say it reaches greatness status it isn’t far off from getting there and is worth seeking out.
Batman has always been a character who would be high on many actors’ bucket lists as far as comic book characters go. The duality of the character makes the character too much of an opportunity to pass up despite the baggage it comes with. How the directors choose to portray him has also led to the general acceptance of the character. With Bale and his intense portrayal getting wide acclaim and Clooney and his bat nipples, not so much. So after the mixed response to beast mode batman from the DCEU, credit goes to Matt Reeves and Robert Pattison, and their Kurt Cobain-tinted depiction of the character. The Batman, it is safe to say, is a worthy successor to the Nolan movies, that deserves a trilogy on its own.
Batman is freed here from the constraints of having to go toe to toe with the other heroes of the DC Universe. This helps them bring back the character to his lone-wolf roots. At its heart, Batman has always been a brilliant detective, a fact that was never exploited to his full potential well before. By playing the movie as a detective noir, he tips the hat to the halcyon days of the genre in the 40s. Reeves plays well by the noir rules while adding plenty of nuances of his own. The parallels are pretty obvious. With the lead detective going down a rabbit hole with the men that help him (Gordon and Alfred), leading to the mysterious femme fatale (Catwoman), powerful crime bosses with weird fetishes (Falcone), and the odd men that surround them (Penguin and the Riddler). All tied together by a larger conspiracy afoot and dollops of daddy issues.
It also avoids the origin story route, a move that worked wonders for Spider-Man. This is a Batman who no longer has to be in the shadows and the cops now have an open though a tense relationship with him. Knowing aware that he is the necessary “freak”.
He also gets a voiceover a la Rorschach from Watchmen, and the parallels to that character do not just stop at that. You can almost feel the glee with which Pattison dispatches the thugs who have the misfortune of getting in his crosshairs. Fear is a tool, he says at one point, and he uses it to tremendous effect here. Pattison does not take a long while to make the role his own, and he is the bleeding heart of the movie as it should be instead of letting the rogues usurp his thunder. Jeffrey Wright and Andy Serkis also provide the well-needed moral support that keeps Bruce Wayne sane, although Alfred appears a retread of what came before.
Credit also needs to be given for the choice of the villain. As a character, the manic energy of Jim Carrey as the Riddler is hard to forget, which was showboating at its extreme. Paul Dano, having been pigeonholed into often playing weaklings, has used that slight physicality to great use and creates a brutal monster. His big reveal moment is as creepy as you expect and makes you squirm. I am not a huge fan of the new riddler costume, though, but Dano keeps the focus on the man behind the mask.
The blazing chemistry between Zoë Kravitz and Pattison is also a highlight. This is a broken woman, but Kravitz gives her the dignity the character deserves. The way she keeps calling Batman “Vengeance” is endearing and you hope to see more of the character in the sequels. But the one person who is having the most fun here is Colin Farrell. The last time he went method in a comic book movie, we got (shudders) Daredevil. He is still going the method route here, but without being shackled by the constraints of being a leading man anymore. He is a far mature actor, and the character gets some genuine fun moments in the movie.
Greig Fraser and Michael Giacchino, handling cinematography and score, also deserve all the accolades that will come their way. Gotham here looks like a city running on fumes and the lack of hope that Batman promises shows on the screen in all its glory. The orangish and black hues add to the strange nourish glow that Gotham needed.
The action, though a lot less than you hope for, is still effective. Matt Reeves built a reputation for staging action well in his Planet of the Apes movies and he builds on that here. Especially the interval chase scene and the climactic battle. One of the major drawbacks of the Nolan trilogy was the clunky hand-to-hand combat. There is nothing clunky here, as the punches are visceral and brutal.
While it was an exhilarating movie, there are some issues here. Despite not being bogged down with telling a labored origin story, Matt reeves still could not avoid the temptation to pad up the movie to a near 3 hours. It also has some of the major issues in many of the best noirs. Some subplots often get redundant and sometimes serve as pointless red herrings. It also doesn’t help that The Riddler goes missing for long periods of time, which is a little jarring.
It doesn’t quite reach the dizzying heights of the Dark Knight, though it is the best first movie among all the series that came before it. Despite the weight of its long-running time and some unwanted subplots, The Batman offers plenty to celebrate as one of the best versions of the character.
When you think of movies about delinquents, there are some classic movies of the heartbreaking variety to choose from. The recent re-release of the Outsiders proved how well it still holds up. We also have movies like Shoeshine and Pixote, which are set both on the streets and in a cruel reformatory they sent the main characters to. But then you realize they are about male delinquents and rarely do we get a good female-centric movie about delinquents. The makers of La Mif have their hearts in the right place while making this movie. It may not hold up well when compared to other classics in the genre, but the fact is it does not need to. It certainly is a riveting movie with a lot to offer, even though it had the potential for far more.
Set in a teenage care home, the movie focuses on the resident girls and the caretakers in charge of them. To their exceptional credit, the makers depict the day-to-day activities at the care center in a matter-of-fact organic way. It is engrossing to see their train of thoughts, their perspectives, and what makes them tick.
A lot of research has gone into the movie and comes across as a lived-in world, where these characters are based on real people. Some of these stories could have happened and are not a figment of somebody’s imagination. The conversations between the girls peppered throughout the movie and how they hold on to each other are so beautiful and a huge credit for that goes to its pitch-perfect cast.
La Mif also gets the point of view of the caretakers across. The haggard nature with which the caretakers go about their business stuck in a thankless job gets a real spotlight. The main care manager Lora (an excellent Claudia Grob) seems to be the only person who cares about the kids rather than following the rules of a committee or has signed up for a paycheck or bragging rights for an internship. I found it amusing that some of them just show up so that they can say that they are helping people at dinner conversations rather than doing any real help. Ironically, that Lora cares too much also causes her to crumble in the end.
Though they are supposed to protect the girls, deep down, the staff knows this is a cruel place where the young girls are pretty much on their own. The caretakers know that there is not much they can do and have to show up day in and day out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY4eWnVj0g0
The one thing that felt a little forced though while the Rashomon effect where they go back multiple times to the same incidents. This usually gets used for a thriller, which this movie is not, and it gets jarring after a while when the movie keeps going to the past. I was slightly disappointed at the outcome of the multiple switches as there was no payoff in the end. It takes a while to get used to, but considering that the movie is trying to depict multiple girls’ perspectives; we get used to it after a point.
The gold standard of French movies about delinquents would still be The Class, and comparisons are unavoidable. It also reminded me multiple times of the movies of the Dardenne brothers in their portrayal of youth and the system that often fails them.
La Mif does not need to match up to them, but I’m guessing that this movie would eventually come up in many lists about female delinquents in the future (though the pickings are pretty slim at present). There is enough in La Mif to hold your attention and make you think about what you watched.
Kenneth Branagh’s version of Hercule Poirot is back in Death on the Nile, a modern adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1937 novel. The actor and director has made the role his own, and this iteration of the character is a far cry from versions we’ve seen in the past. The 61-year-old clearly relishes the part, and it has brought out his most flamboyant side.
Five actors have played the great Belgian detective over the years, including David Suchet on television, and Peter Ustinov, Tony Randall, and Austin Trevor in film. There is hot dispute over who did the best job at bringing him to life on the screen. Some viewers love Branagh’s version, while others have a different actor in mind.
Poirot is One of Fiction’s Most Prevalent Characters
It’s hard to think of characters who have been in as many works of fiction as Poirot. He appeared in more than 80 novels and short stories and is easily Christie’s most celebrated creation. He’s also been represented in film, television, games, radio, and on the stage. Indeed, in all these various formats he’s been played by more than 20 actors.
The only character who could beat Poirot in terms of prevalence is Sherlock Holmes. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective appeared in fewer novels and short stories than Poirot, but he has had a more mainstream and enduring legacy. This is highlighted by the way he is still at the forefront of the entertainment. There have been plenty of twists on the character’s world as well. Recent offerings like Enola Holmes and The Irregulars on Netflix explore other sides to the Baker Street legend. Then there are titles like Sherlock and Moriarty Wowpot at Betway Online Casino that delve into the relationship between Holmes and his most famous nemesis. For Poirot to challenge Holmes for notoriety, he would need to be represented on all these modern platforms as well.
Audiences Split Over Branagh’s Version
Poirot is a character bursting with pretentiousness, which is why Branagh is so well suited to the role. He is able to bring his stage experience and training from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art to the part. In addition to acting as Poirot in Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile, Branagh directed the contemporary versions of these films, so he had a huge influence on the construction of this version of the character.
Branagh’s pictures are lavish and use modern-day filming methods to create an authentic and immersive experience. The wardrobe and set designs are perfect and take viewers back to the early 20th century. Some fans have claimed that Branagh’s version is not true to the character, though, as he is sometimes a tad too foolish. He also engages in a couple of action sequences, something that you couldn’t really imagine the unassuming Poirot of Christie’s novels doing. Other fans believe this rendition to be the best, as it is more rounded than previous Poirot performances from the past. Check out 50 free spins.
Many Believe Suchet to Give the Best Rendition
One of the reasons why Branagh may have struggled to win some Poirot fans over is because Suchet’s portrayal of the detective was so perfect. He starred in Agatha Christie’s Poirot from ITV Studios from 1989 to 2013, appearing in 70 episodes across 13 seasons. According to The New York Times, many people believed he embodied the character flawlessly and, when you think of Poirot, his face is likely to be the first that springs to mind. The ITV series adapted the whole of Christie’s Poirot catalogue and enabled Suchet to become the world-renowned deductive thinker.
Perhaps for Branagh to ever challenge Suchet as the best Poirot ever, he will need to appear in a vast number of films. This will allow viewers to begin associating the actor with the role, in the same way that Suchet became synonymous with it during his days as the character. There are already plans in place for another instalment of Branagh’s Poirot adaptations and, if it is as successful as the others, it stands to reason that he would want to make more. As noted in BRWC, Death on the Nile was a fine achievement.
Branagh may have brought an interesting twist to Poirot and created some more visually appealing versions of the classic tales, but the Belfast director hasn’t yet become the character in the same way that Suchet did. Suchet will be hard for other actors to beat in their renditions of this legendary detective.
Sam H. Freeman and Ng Choon Ping’s queer short film “Femme” begins with a tearful childhood memory. Our protagonist, a gay black man named Jordan, is crying his father about some implied homophobic abuse. His father, though supportive and comforting, reminds him that “There’s always gonna be boys who wanna hurt ya.” The next scene flashforwards to adult Jordan going to a gay nightclub with some friends.
The night eventually crumbles due to the appearance of his ex but the arrival of a drug dealer gives the night another turn. The dealer has to return home to retrieve his dope but tonight is no ordinary pickup. Intrigued with some hints of attraction, the dealer invites Jordan back to his flat to receive the drugs, to which Jordan accepts. The ensuing events at the dealer’s house overflow with piercing fear, aggressive homophobia, and both predictable and unexpected violence.
Summarizing “Femme” comes with many difficulties. Every setting before the dealer’s flat and their scenes paints Jordan as a naive, foolish man trying to erase a heartbreak. And his recklessness becomes retroactively eyerolling when he later encounters unsurprising homophobic beatings from the dealer and his friends. However, the ensuing events reveal interesting reflections on violence.
“Femme” shows how no matter if one is a victim or a perpetuator, violence is something anyone is capable of. Although homophobic violence is obviously the monster in “Femme,” Freeman and Ping slowly uncover fear as a catalyst for an equally terrifying violence from Jordan.
The homophobic violence Jordan experiences is by no means light, yet it is forumulaic and the film restrains it before it can go to extreme lengths. Jordan, on the other hand, has unexpected reactions. While he fortunately finds opportunities to escape the homophobes, his actions after finding an exit go beyond mere self-defense. Specific details of this violence will ruin one’s cinematic experience of “Femme” but unpacking its viciousness is not unreasonable.
The homophobes’ violence obviously come from toxic masculinity and aggression and, in read life, can lead up to horrible actions, such as a hate crime murder. However, fear pushed Jordan and completely transformed him. He never wanted to inflict pain on people but when ““There’s always gonna be boys who wanna hurt” him, a terrifying desperation to avoid hurt arises. This fear is perhapsthe true terror of homophobia for “Femme.” Homophobia may harm victims but its scars can push victims to be just as violent as pertuators.
