chrisarciszewska Reviews

Ammonite (2020)

A load of lesbian twaddle and a severe case of misogyny

[6/10 · 29 March 2021]

I put this film in the genre of Lesbian Twaddle - I can say that as I am one. I'm not sure who these films are aimed at, but that is beside the point. My main problem with this film is the misogyny and it is a big problem. Very rarely does a film make me cross, but this one did. It also makes me cross that I have only found one review that picks up on this issue. It's on a website called Paste if anyone wants to look it up. Many people question, why make up a lesbian romance for Mary Anning when there is no evidence for one, but no-one questions the misogynistic approach. I personally don't have a problem with the lesbian bit -we have been written out of history.

The initial premise of the film and main focus of the first half hour or so, it to highlight the misogyny of the scientific establishment at the time and Mr Murchison's treatment of his wife. The ultimate irony is that, Francis Lee by his portrayal of Charlotte Murchison and Elizabeth Philpot (Fiona Shaw), does both these women a great dis-service. Charlotte is portrayed as vapid and Elizabeth as some old hippy type making herbal remedies, when they were both accomplished scientists in their own right and had interesting lives. The film is misogynistic because it gives less attribution to their paleontology achievements than did the male-dominated natural history circles at the time!

Unless Francis Lee simply wants to maintain his position as prime director of LGBT films (I thought God's Own Country was excellent), I don't know why he felt the need, when Mary Anning had a very eventful life which would have made a much better film, to create a mythical lesbian romance. He would have done just as well to base a film on her brother Joseph. Rich man from London turns up in Lyme Regis with his errant son, leaves him with Joseph because he thinks a bit of sea air and hard work in the upholstery trade will turn his life around. A bit of drudgery with horsehair and cotton wadding, then sex on a pebbly beach - job done!

I gave the film six stars because it was well acted and the cinematography and costumes were excellent. However two last points that I think were huge gaffs. No-one in 1840 and who kept their own chickens would cook an addled egg or one with a chick in (it happened so fast I couldn't quite see) as eggs would be collected every day and you know if a hen has gone broody is sitting on eggs. Gone off eggs float when put in a bowl of water. Also I'm sure men did not tie their scarves in a Hoxton knot in 19th Century England - maybe on the continent but not here!

Cats (2019)

Personally I blame Judi Dench!

[5 January 2020]

I was this on a Friday evening with only 7 other people in the cinema! Some bits were quite entertaining especially the Mungo Jerry and Rumpleteazer, and Bustopher Jones scenes. I could overlook the continuity and scaling goofs. But whatever possessed Judi Dench to agree to take part in this mess? Maybe she doesn't understand CGI and how it can mess things up. I thought her bits were appalling and she needs to take 50% of the blame for why this film is so bad - as for trying to make out that her character is trans - what nonsense!

Redcon-1 (2018)

A bit of harmless fun

[7/10 · 29 September 2018]

I don't normally go to this type of film, but I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it was actually very well made and well acted for a low budget movie. It's quite long at nearly two hours and could have done with a bit more editing. Some of the scenes were the soldiers are attacked by an endless stream of zombies are a bit overdone and overly long. However there is enough going on with the plot that it held my attention, I didn't get bored nor was I waiting for it to end. I was surprised it was an 18 as apart from all the blood and gore that you would expect from a zombie movie there is no real unpleasantness or psychological trauma or anything truly disturbing in the story line. I liked the random bits of intestine lying on the pavement, but all the exploding blood capsules were a bit silly and contrived. The film does take itself a bit too seriously. It some ways it's neither one thing or another. It is not scary or threatening enough it really carry the storyline about the virus, the quarantine area and the 72 hours until total annihilation. Zombie films by their very nature are ridiculous and the film would have been better if it had played up the comedic element.

Wayland's Song (2013)

Visually stunning

[8/10 · 28 September 2013]

I never thought I'd be the first person to review a film on this website. Wayland's Song is the first feature film to be made in Bedford (UK) and was the first film shown at the first Bedford Film Festival. I didn't see the film in an ideal setting i.e not in a proper cinema so the projector was in the room with us and it was a bit noisy. I couldn't make out whether it was just due to the background noise, but I found the dialogue hard to make out at times and follow the thread of the film. It may also have been due to this that made it seem a bit slow to get going. However I did think it was an excellent film, very well made, good acting and visually stunning. The main storyline is fairly simple, that of a soldier returning from Afghanistan and looking for his missing daughter, but there are a lot of subtexts as explained by Richard Jobson in a Q&A session after, with the references to religion, Norse mythology and Wayland the master blacksmith, and the use of colour in the film. Worth seeing.

The Descendants (2011)

Just dreary

[2/10 · 3 February 2012]

Like all the others who have given this film poor reviews, I am completely mystified as to why anyone would ever think it worth 9 or 10 stars. It is quite simply a very bad film. Wooden acting, poor timing (this may have be the director's fault), very annoying music, hardly any storyline and no feeling of involvement with any of the characters. Was it meant to be a comedy? It was more like a very boring poorly made reality TV programme. I just don't understand how a studio can spend millions of $, produce such rubbish and then have the cheek to put it out on general release. Apparently I have to have 10 lines of text to submit a review, but there really isn't anything else I'd like to say about this film. I quite liked the Sid character. My daughter says it might have worked with Bill Murray in the lead role or it had been directed by Wes Anderson

Winter's Bone (2010)

Can't understand why it has got such good reviews

[14 November 2011]

Why do people like it so much -I just don't see it! It had nothing going for it. It was hardly a gripping story line. I couldn't understand what anyone was saying -poor enunciation probably on the part of the actors, maybe subtitles would have helped. All the grim female characters were just caricatures and the corny sinister music that came on in the background whenever they appeared didn't help. When they brought out the chainsaw it was just laughable - and a body would have rotted more after a couple of weeks in a pond. I did like the soundtrack and bit in the film with Marideth Sisco was great. it was nicely filmed, but overall not worth seeing. Like I said in my review of Wuthering Heights it seems as though people as easily impressed by seeing a bit of grim poverty stricken rural life and think that this is all it takes to make a good film.

Pina (2011)

See it in 2D

[14 November 2011]

I saw this film first in a 2D version and loved it - hence the high score. I saw it a week later in 3D because I thought I ought to see what all the fuss was about. I was hugely disappointed. The 3D detracted rather than added to the experience. Perhaps the technology isn't quite good enough yet or this just wasn't the type of film that would benefit from the 3D effects. I found it a distraction from the beauty of the dance. We all know dance happens on a stage in three dimensions and our brains compensate for this when we see a film. We don't need to have the dancers coming at us out of the screen. If you like modern dance you'll see this film and enjoy it. If you don't know whether or not you like it it might convert you, but definitely seek out a 2D version.

Wuthering Heights (2011)

A dreary film

[14 November 2011]

I wouldn't recommend this film unless you like endless shots of bleak moorland, mud, circling lapwings and the backs of peoples'heads. Funny how the poster show the back of young Heathcliffe's head. I don't mind slow moving films where not much happens, but I didn't feel this particular film had the artistic merit to carry it off. It could have done with much more rigorous editing to bring the running time down to about 90 minutes.

Having Heathcliffe played by black actors was an interesting idea and worked well. I also liked it that a large part of the film concentrated on the early parts of the book -apparently in contrast to other film versions -especially as the younger actors performed quite well. It was as a shame that the acting deteriorated so much with the adult cast to the extent that I could detect no passion or chemistry between Heathcliffe and Cathy.

I thought the film was overall a dreary waste of time. It seems to have been liked more by the professional critics than by the real audience - show people grim raw reality far removed from their comfortable lives (I am referring to London based critics who only spend weekends in the country) and they are easily impressed. I got the same impression with reviews of Winter's Bone -a film I thought equally bad.