Corinna Turner's Blog, page 3
April 17, 2016
REVIEW: EYE IN THE SKY (2016)
UK Rating: 15
Release Date: 15th April 2016
Running Time: 102 minutes
Director: Gavin Hood
Genre: Thriller
Starring: Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, Barkhad Abdi, Jeremy Northam, Iain Glen
This was an excellent film. It created edge-of-your-seat tension and portrayed realistically the attitudes and outcome of the moral dilemma on which the film is based. Which is, in short, the following: three of the five most wanted terrorists are inside a house in Kenya, along with two suicide bombers who are just arming up with enough explosives to kill an estimated 80 innocent people. A Hellfire missile is (for a reason I won’t go into here) the military’s only chance to prevent the attack. But a young teenage girl is too close to the house.
If you’re interested in seeing the film, I would certainly urge you to do so—and it might be best if you did so without reading the rest of the review, since it will be very difficult to discuss the film without giving away hints about the ending, which will very much undermine the impact of the film.
It was unsurprising, but still nice, to see the British High Command not buying into the US military’s language of only ‘one collateral damage issue’ and facing up to the fact that it was actually ‘one young girl’. Not that all of the UK characters are stalling from moral values, some are stalling from cowardice, not wanting to be the one responsible for the decision, and others from genuine moral confusion. There’s a great deal of buck-passing, leading to the Americans even placing pressure on them to make the strike—despite the fact their own pilot is stalling as well.
Of course, I doubt there’s any moral theologian who wouldn’t consider this to be an open and shut case. It is, morally. If you kill an innocent girl, you are responsible for that. The sin is yours. If terrorists kill 80 people, they are responsible for that. The sin is theirs. Morally, you cannot knowingly kill or seriously injure one innocent girl in order to prevent someone else from committing a future sin which they might, for all you know, choose at the last moment not to commit. (There’s a whole other ‘innocent until proven guilty’ issue that doesn’t even get a look in, as well.) Annoyingly, no one ever states the moral case, straight out. The film almost gets there at one point, only to swerve onto a propaganda analysis instead: if the terrorists kill 80 people, we win the propaganda war—if we kill one girl, they do. It’s to the character’s credit that they don’t stop with this cold-blooded argument, and remained focused on saving lives, regardless of the public relations risks. But good intentions do not justify sin: the end never justifies the means.
This film makes me feel like applying the premise of my new novella SOMEDAY to it: how would everyone feel if a Kenyan drone was flying over a suburb of Birmingham, with the people controlling it debating whether to launch a missile that would, after all, kill only one Brummie girl and perhaps save 80 people. Would the US Secretary of State still consider it a total no-brainer? And if not, why?
One hopes desperately for a happy ending to this film, yet in a sense, a happy ending is a cop out. To find out whether or not that’s what the filmmakers choose, you’ll have to watch the film!
Incidentally, it’s Alan Rickman’s last film, and it’s dedicated to him. R.I.P. Alan Rickman.
Overall: Excellent film. One of those where the cinema is completely silent throughout. It builds to a nail-biting climax with an unexpected twist. Highly recommended.
Sex/Violence/Profanity/etc: No sex or nudity. Infrequent bloody moments and distressing scenes. Infrequent strong language.
Have you seen this film? What did you think?
March 17, 2016
RISEN: Out Now in the UK
This is not actually a review since I haven’t seen RISEN yet, but I wanted to make people in the UK aware that this new film about the Resurrection is coming out tomorrow. It looks quite promising, as far as one can judge from a trailer!
It is only showing once a day at my local cinema which means it will probably only be on for one single week–so everyone who wants to see it needs to go at once!
The US have loads of Christian films but most of them never come out here due to lack of market, so it would be great if everyone supported this one. Hopefully it would encourage future releases.
Fun fact: The cast met Pope Francis during a General Audience at the Vatican.
More information below. Do share this to your friends.
Risen
Release date: 18/03/2016
Rating: 12A
Running time: 107 mins
Synopsis: Peter Firth stars as Pontius Pilate in this unofficial follow-up to The Passion of the Christ.
In 33AD, Christ has already resurrected from his death on the crucifix. Now, in order to quell an imminent uprising, a member of the Roman army, Clavius, is charged by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate to locate the missing body of Jesus. It is Pilate’s job to not only locate the corpse of Christ but to arrest those disciples who snatched his body. The mission becomes a learning experience for Pilate as his discovers who Jesus really was… Kevin Reynolds (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Waterworld) returns to the director’s chair after an absence of ten years with this unique take on the Greatest Story Ever Told.
Spooks star Peter Firth takes on the role of Pontius Pilate, with Tom Felton (Harry Potter) as Lucius and Joseph Fiennes as Clavius.
January 25, 2016
REVIEW: The Revenant (2016)
UK Rating: 15
Release Date: 15th January 2016
Running Time: 156 minutes
Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Genre: Thriller, drama, action
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy
So this one was a big disappointment, I’m afraid. Of the most frustrating kind: the ‘could have been so good’ kind. When I first saw the trailer I thought it looked so utterly miserable I had no intention to see it, but I kept hearing good reviews and always the reviews seemed to hint that actually there was redemption at the end, rather than it being about straight up revenge, the way the trailer suggested. Well, I’m a sucker for a redemption plotline, and so is my friend, so we decided to give it a chance.
Most of the film is excellent, with a great soundtrack. It’s a gritty survival tale with great performances. Probably a little too graphic for some people’s taste, but realistic rather than gratuitous in its portrayal of wounds and violence. It is also a hugely more realistic portrayal of the ‘wild west’ than most westerns. There was a time when the Native Americans were always the villains in westerns, now for a long time, they’ve almost always been portrayed as the good guys, or at least the oppressed. Which is fair enough and an improvement on the former representation, but still rather incomplete. ‘Revenant’ tells it much more true to life. Some Native American tribes are peaceful, others are busy slaughtering every other tribe or white person they can lay their hands on. Some of the white people are peaceful, some are quite happy to kill a Native American simply for being a Native American. It all makes for grim viewing, but it’s definitely more accurate than most westerns.
The film falls apart at the end, at least for the Christian viewer who’s been promised redemption. (I can’t completely avoid spoilers, so stop reading if you definitely plan to see it, regardless of what I say.)
There is, at the end, a tiny shred of redemption. But it’s just that. A tiny, feeble shred. In practical terms, it comes too late to make any difference whatsoever to the physical outcome. It’s probably fractionally better for one character’s soul than the alternative, but just barely. It’s a huge damp squib, and makes one feel like reporting the film to the Office of Fair Trading for false advertising (that’s a joke, but you get the idea!).
If this isn’t bad enough, the very, very final moments are hugely unsatisfactory as an ending. My friend and I both felt while watching the film (despite what the trailer implied) that we were really watching a film about the strength of the human spirit, and the human will to survive. It felt more like this was driving the main character than the need for revenge. This is perhaps a failure on the film’s part, though I’d be interested to know how it came across other people. At the close of the film, however, it takes great delight in making it abundantly clear that despite what it felt like throughout, the protagonist’s struggle really was just about revenge, not about the triumph of the human spirit. And so it ends. I can’t be more specific without huge spoilers.
There is also an ambiguity raised during the final encounter between the two main characters relating to a pivotal moment earlier in the film, and the lack of clarity one is left with is an additional annoying niggle.
Overall: So close: but no cigar. It could have been a great film, but the ending ruins it, ironically, beyond all redemption.
Sex/Violence/Profanity/etc: A sexual assault followed by an implied castration. Brief nudity. Frequent strong violence. Violence realistic rather than gratuitous, but graphic at times. Some disturbing images. Frequent rough, crude and profane language.
Have you seen this film? What did you think?
January 15, 2016
November 15, 2015
BOOK REVIEW: Jennifer the Damned
Author: Karen Ullo
Publisher: Wiseblood Books
Publication Date: 31st October
This is a really difficult review to write. I finished the book several days ago and I’m still not quite sure what to say about it. It was a book I really wanted to like, for two reasons. Firstly, the author gave me the ebook in return for an honest review, and she seems nice so obviously I wanted to be able to be positive about it. Secondly, I have several sets of notes for ‘Vampire Redemption’ type novels waiting to perhaps one day make it to the top of the list and be written, so I was excited to read something similar—Ullo described the book as a ‘Catholic Vampire Novel’.
Unfortunately I just plain did not like it. Okay, so it’s possible in a vampire novel that some innocent people will die—because the pesky bloodsuckers can’t always control themselves, especially at first. That’s often what a ‘redemption’ type novel is about, after all: the vampire finding some way to control his/herself/be redeemed/reach heaven. Though to be honest, I always much prefer the ones where the vampire manages not to kill anyone. But no such luck in JENNIFER THE DAMNED. People begin to be killed quite soon and they go on being killed for practically the whole book. On the first couple of occasions it is clear that the young vampire truly cannot help it—but by the third murder it is wholly premeditated. Even worse, the descriptions of the murders would be more appropriate as descriptions of the mystical union of a saint with God. I understand that what Ullo is really trying to show is the awesomeness of the immortal soul and the human being’s heavenly potential, but it’s still very unpleasant to read a murder written in such terms.
Murder after murder takes place, each a bit worse than the last, until just after half way through, the protagonist commits a murder that is so horrible, so not ‘necessary’, so wholly committed simply because she was jealous and she felt like it, that there is no doubt whatsoever that if I hadn’t promised a review I would have put the book aside and never opened it again. As it was, I had actually resolved to do so and to review just the first half when I decided, no, I really did have to finish the thing, it wasn’t fair otherwise. So I read on. And shortly afterwards the protagonist commits another, double act of pure evil! But I made it to the end.
You’ll be glad to hear, there is some redemption eventually, and redemption that doesn’t shrink from just punishment (though it’s all left a bit vague exactly what will transpire), but it was too little too late as far as I’m concerned. It didn’t make it worth ploughing through the rest. The first half was blighted by the horribly described murders; the second half dragged a bit, partly because I didn’t find the love interest a wholly appealing or convincing character.
There was also a moment in the climax when I thought blood was coming from a crucifix, miracle-style, and once I’d finished I thought back and wondered if, and then became fairly sure that, it was supposed to be the protagonist’s blood. A relatively small point, but the wrong time to have any confusion.
A large part of what made it so unappealing to me was the lack of any true remorse. Yes, Jennifer is often sorry about what she’s done, and yes, she is supposed to be conflicted about things, but for most of the book, even after the very first killing, she never once resolves not to do it again (not even while knowing that she’s unlikely to manage to hold to it). Genuine sorrow for one’s sin requires a firm purpose of amendment, i.e. the resolution not only not to do it again, but to try to avoid things that will lead us to do it. I’m sure we’ve all made such a resolution knowing we’re likely to fail to keep it, but we’ve still made it because we want to keep to it. Not Jennifer. She just wrings her hands briefly and starts planning her next kill.
In a way, this problem, along with the vicious killings in the middle of the book, really move the genre of the book from redemption of a vampire (who really can’t help it or at least not very easily) to bog standard redemption of a serial killer (who chooses to kill). I’m not a fan of serial killer books, so that’s probably why I disliked this so much. I don’t for a moment dispute that a serial killer can repent and be forgiven, nor that it may be a long time coming. In fact I absolutely love books or films with a bad character who is redeemed (hence why I had such high hopes for this). But something about this totally failed to do it for me. I just don’t like to read all about crimes in detail. It’s not necessary. The writer can convey plenty about what they did in ways that move us without making us endure murders in loving detail, let alone murders described as raptures.
So although the redemption at the end is quite satisfying, I’m afraid my overall reaction was overwhelmingly negative. But that’s only my opinion, so if you’ve got a higher tolerance for serial killer stuff, do give it a try, don’t let me put you off. According to Ullo, Wiseblood is a Catholic publisher, although it doesn’t state this explicitly on the website. So maybe other people will read this and explain to me that there were deep meanings and amazing metaphors all the way through that I totally missed. In all seriousness, I do feel like there actually is quite a lot there and that if I read it again I might be able to write about the themes and the meanings of this and that in the book. But seeing that I finished reading it only under the deepest compulsion to give it a fair review, a second read just isn’t going to happen.
November 7, 2015
MINI REVIEW: He Named Me Malala
A very inspiring story. Don’t miss it!
Synopsis from IMDB:
A look at the events leading up to the Taliban’s attack on Pakistani schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai, for speaking out on girls’ education followed by the aftermath, including her speech to the United Nations.
November 5, 2015
Carnegie Medal Award nomination for LIBERATION!
October 1, 2015
‘Meet the Author’ interview on Radio Maria
This isn’t a film review, I know: more reviews coming soon!
Follow this link to listen to Ken Huck from Radio Maria’s ‘Meet the Author’ interviewing Regina Doman, Andrew Schmiedicke and myself about the ‘I Am Margaret’ series.
June 21, 2015
REVIEW: Jurassic World
UK Rating: 12A
Release Date: 11th June 2015
Running Time: 124 minutes
Director: Colin Trevorrow
Genre: Action, Sci-fi
Starring: Irrfan Khan, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins, Chris Pratt, Vincent D’Onofrio, Omar Sy, Nick Robinson
Well, after being traumatised by ‘Jurassic Park’ and ‘The Lost World’ as a child (I didn’t even go to see ‘Jurassic Park III’, although I was well into my teens by the time it came out) my first inclination was to give this a miss as well. But the whole ‘raptor whisperer’ thing in the trailer was just too intriguing. I borrowed my Mum’s ‘Jurassic Park’ boxset to see whether watching ‘Jurassic World’ in the cinema was going to be a good idea, and was pleasantly surprised to find that whilst still excellent films (1 & 2 at any rate), they were no longer off-the-charts terrifying. I suppose after almost 20 years of CGI, we would be far more shocked if the dinosaurs didn’t look real.
For this reason, they would probably never have been able to make a film as scary as the original two, and (wisely, in my opinion) they don’t seem to have been trying. What they have made is a thoroughly enjoyable family film that has very much the ‘feel’ of the first film, with a bit more romance and action, and rather less terror. Although the scenario is pretty similar – nasty carnivorous dinosaurs get loose on the island – the way things play out is fresh and imaginative enough that it never feels like a pale imitation of ‘Jurassic Park’.
I’d caught the odd headline about sexism in the film, but came out scratching my head. The heroine, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard), is a high heel and suit-wearing, hard-nosed business woman, and clearly no Lara Croft. But most women aren’t, so I can’t see what’s sexist about that. She’s out of her element, but does extremely well, saving the life of Owen (Chris Pratt), the hero, on at least one occasion. When her nephews, Zach and Gray, say, ‘We’re staying with you!’ and Clare says, ‘Don’t worry I’m never going to leave you!’ only for them to say, ‘Not you, him!’ pointing at Owen, one knows exactly where the boys are coming from. But it’s ultimately Clare who orchestrates the final victory while Owen’s hiding in a souvenir shop with the kids. So what’s so sexist about the film, I can’t make out. The high heels were an odd decision by the filmmakers, I will agree. Yes, they would have broken, and no, she couldn’t have outrun anything in them. But if you start looking for weak spots in the plot, there are worse ones than impractical shoes – it’s not, after all, a watertight-plot type of film.
It’s the first film that has a military-trained – rather than pure scientist – hero. Owen is a former Navy man turned dinosaur behavioural specialist. With his dual spheres of experience, he’s is definitely a good guy to have around when a super-dinosaur runs amuck. He has his own little pack of velociraptors – Blue, Charlie, Delta and Echo. They’ve all imprinted on him at birth and think he’s their alpha. He has a strong bond with them and has them well trained – but he still prefers to keep his deadly friends on the other side of a good strong fence if he can. Which shows he understands them much better than Hoskins (Vincent D’Onofrio), the closest thing to a human ‘bad guy’ the film has. Hoskins is convinced the raptors would serve the US army better than drones (yes, you did read that correctly). Needless to say, he’s criminally stupid rather than outright evil – although the idea of loosing a velociraptor on anyone is pretty unpleasant, it isn’t really any worse than any other means of killing.
Unfortunately this is yet another family film where the film makers choose to add a little more angst by having the parents of Zac and Gray in the middle of a divorce, once again contributing to the ‘normalising’ of divorce for younger (and older) viewers. However, this is the only significant moral quibble with the film. Though I did find Clare’s decision to charge off and look for her nephews in person slightly dubious, seeing that she seemed to be in charge of the park, and thus the safety of the other 20,000 people who were also in danger.
As with the other films in the series, there is a clear warning about humans playing God mixed in with all the mayhem. Although it is tremendous fun seeing all the different attractions at the park, there is never any doubt that it is all a Very Bad Idea.
My only other niggle was that Irrfan Khan’s very likeable character was rather under-utilised, as, to a less glaring extent, was Omar Sy’s character – twice the shame, since they were the two main non-white actors. But…
Overall: I enjoyed the film tyrannosaurously and would like to see it again. I suspect it may be the first Jurassic Park film to make it onto my shelf!
A few rules learned from the Jurassic Park films:
Rule 1: Don’t bring back dinosaurs.
Rule 2: If you break rule 1, don’t genetically engineer a new super-dinosaur.
Rule 3: If someone breaks rule 1 or 2, do not go to the island where the dinosaurs are. Ever. For any reason.
Rule 4: If you break rule 3, and there is an announcement – ‘Due to an unusual Asset containment situation, take cover’ – drop your coke and take cover immediately!
I’m tempted to add, Rule 5: Never, ever, ever let out the velociraptors – but that wouldn’t quite be fair, would it?
