Movie Review Juniper

Juniper (2023) 

Directed by Matthew J. Saville 

Written by Matthew J. Saville 

Starring Charlotte Rampling, George Ferrier, Martin Csokas, Edith Poor

Release Date February 24th, 2023 

Published February 24th, 2023 

There is a lovely true story behind the movie Juniper. It's based on the real life experience of writer-director Matthew J. Saville. His grandmother broke her leg and because she was limited in her ability to get around, she moved from Europe to New Zealand to live with family. She was a difficult woman, a hard drinker, not easy to get along with. Over time, Saville and his grandmother forged a bond and that bond is at the heart of the movie, Juniper. It's quite a lovely story and if it were an anecdote related by a friend over dinner, it'd be terrific. As a movie, it's lacking in incident. 

Charlotte Rampling stars in Juniper as the cantankerous, Ruth, grandmother to Sam, played by George Ferrier. Ruth is moving to New Zealand to live with Sam and his father after she broke her leg and became unable to care for herself. Ruth is none too pleased about this arrangement and neither is Sam who is also reeling from the death of his mother. In fact, the room that Ruth is set to occupy is the same room Sam's mother spent her last days before passing away, adding another layer of sadness to the situation. 

When Sam gets himself suspended from his private school, following a fight during a rugby game, he's sent back home where his father, Robert (Martin Csokas), enlists him to help Ruth's nurse, Sarah (Edith Poor), care for Ruth. Things get off to a contentious start to say the least. Ruth is slowly drinking herself to death. She has a pitcher of Gin, cut with a little water and lemon, next to her at all times. When Sam attempts to limit the amount of Gin in this mixture, he ends up getting a glass tossed at his which leaves a little scar. 

Naturally, over the period of this story, several weeks by the evidence of the movie, the relationship between Sam and Ruth will improve. She won't stop drinking, of course, but she becomes less openly verbally abusive. In return, Sam is slightly less hostile until finally, they become genuinely close. This closeness is fostered by Ruth allowing Sam to throw a party for all of his private school friends where she provides the liquor and becomes the star of the show as everyone thanks her for the libations and gathers around to hear stories about her youth. 

Find my full length review at Geeks.Media 

Movie Review The Duchess

The Duchess (2008) 

Directed by Saul Dibb

Written by Jeffrey Hatcher, Saul Dibb, Anders Thomas Jensen 

Starring Keira Knightley, Ralph Fiennes Charlotte Rampling, Dominic Cooper, Hayley Atwell

Release Date September 5th, 2008 

Published October 25th, 2008

Georgiana Spencer is a long time relative of Lady Diana Spencer who went on to become Princess Diana. They were destined to be related. The Duchess of Devonshire was the Diana of her time, a celebrity diva with the eyes of a nation following her every move and copying her every dress and hairstyle. They had even more in common in private where the Duchess and the Princess lived with cold hearted husbands whose dalliances were humiliating blows especially as any challenge to that behavior were so hypocritically decried.

Keira Knightley stars in The Duchess as the legendary Georgiana. At 16 she was married off to the Duke of Devonshire (Ralph Fiennes). They had only met twice but when assured by her mother that she would produce a make heir, the Duke snapped her up. The wedding was elaborate and celebrated across London. Georgiana was blown away by the opulence suddenly thrust upon her but her wonderment didn't last. Soon she finds her husband taking the help to his bed. When he finally takes Georgiana the moment is awkward and workmanlike.

Her role in his life is nothing more than broodmare and when she doesn't immediately offer a male heir, the duke becomes cruel and reviled. With a maid he fathered a daughter, Charlotte who then becomes Georgiana's responsibility. Her first two children are girls and the tension in the house is ever worsening. Then Georgiana is blessed with a friend named Bess. She has just been abandoned by her husband who has taken her two sons. Georgiana offers to let Bess stay with her while she fights for her boys, in the meantime Bess is convinced to sleep with William in exchange for his help, the humiliation drives a wedge between the women that is nearly irresolvable.

Soon the Duchess herself has found someone else. His name is Charles Gray and he happens to be a candidate for Prime Minister and a childhood friend of Georgiana. She offers to help his political career, with her awesome ability to draw a crowd but his interest goes far beyond her useful celebrity. He has loved her since before she was married and hopes that he can run away with her one day. The love story is a little rushed and forced but it's not bad. 

The Duchess was directed by Saul Dibb an heretofore unknown director who also co-wrote the script based on Amanda Foreman's novel. Dibb has a strong sense of the period, the hot house melodrama of the Duke and Duchess's home and an ear for the way these characters may have talked. I thoroughly  enjoyed the presence of Mr. Fox and his obvious lover Mr. Doyle. Together they are the perfect gay best friends for the Duchess though she longs for a real girlfriend. She had found it with Bess but the relationship ended badly, as did most of Georgiana's relationship.

So what of the Oscar buzz for Keira Knightley? Much deserved. Ms. Knightley is feisty and pouty and sexy and glamorous, everything we need in a grand, mid-centuries celebrity. Even as she indulges, the Duchess has a deeper intellect than the men in her life give her credit for. She earns the respect of her friend Mr. Fox by questioning his take on freedom, a line that will become ironic in her own life, "Freedom is an absolute, you either are or you are not".The publicity for The Duchess plays up a reputation for her being a great conversationalist. That example is not in The Duchess. Aside from her thoughts on freedom, the Duchess is not demonstrated as a great thinker.

Quick on her feet? Street smart? Yes, but no Nobel Prize winner.

A strong performance from Keira Knightley is the life blood of The Duchess but beyond her the film relies on the conventions of the period piece. There is nothing in Georgiana Spencer's life that is as compelling as Eliza Bennett of Pride and Prejudice, a demonstrably witty and intelligent character. A better correlative of The Duchess would be Marie Antoinette from Sophia Coppola's biography. The Duchess has a lot more juice than that overwrought melange of pop music and pop history. The juice comes from Knightly and the immaculate period setting. Set your expectations for the movie as a whole low and you will find yourself satisfied with The Duchess.

Movie Review Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go (2010)

Directed by Mark Romanek

Written by Alex Garland 

Starring Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley, Sally Hawkins, Charlotte Rampling 

Release Date September 15th, 2010

Published November 4th, 2010 

The wonderful thing about “Never Let Me” Go is how its languorousness invites the viewer to project a meaning onto it. Yes, that projection requires ignoring a few things about the characters and what is happening on screen but there is something valuable and even entertaining about a movie that gives the viewer so much room to move around. Some have found parallels to the holocaust. The great Roger Ebert finds a modern equivalent in the sad fate of workers at big box stores like Wal-Mart. Other critics acknowledge a philosophical truth in the film that is just out of their grasp but somehow knowing it is there is enough for them.

Strangely, I find myself somewhere within that last group. I too want to believe and have searched for various philosophic or metaphoric meanings in Mark Romanek's gorgeous direction and Alex Garland's teasing screen adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's moving if also vaguely interpreted novel.

Kathy (Carey Mulligan) fell in love with Tommy when both were young students at an out of the way private school somewhere in the English countryside. Kathy was a self conscious introvert with the soul of an artist. Tommy was an outcast prone to violent rages that only served to make him even more of an outcast.

The center of their world is their relationship with Ruth (Keira Knightley) a popular girl who befriended Kathy in search of a worshiper and fell in with Tommy as a way of preventing that worship from being cast elsewhere. It's clear to us and especially clear to Ruth that Tommy and Kathy should be together but her insecure need for their attention supersedes her ability to let her friends be happy.

This is especially tragic because Hailsham is not merely a country boarding school and the students are not really students at all. As explained in excruciating detail by one of the teachers, Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins), Hailsham students will have painfully short lives in which they will donate their organs until they complete, a nicer way of saying they are spare parts until they die.

The brilliance of “Never Let Me Go” is not in setting up a life or death situation but in the real human ways that these characters take in this extraordinary information and assimilate this knowledge as part of who they are rather than the going concern of some sci fi story of survival.

The arc of the average life is played out with a timeline in mind that lasts a lot longer in our minds than in reality. For Kathy, Tommy and Ruth the arc of birth, life and death is compacted into a mere 30 years at most yet they grow and age and live as if a full life were lived.

They cram their short lives with experiences of love and compassion that a longer life no doubt takes for granted. When Kathy finally gets the opportunity to be with Tommy she doesn't spend much time lamenting, they get right to loving and while there is temporary hope for more life, Kathy is not so concerned about prolonging love as she is about enjoying what she has.

Ruth's is the saddest of all of the stories. Her life is marked by pettiness and a greed for attention. She found weaker kids and forced herself on their attention and in her fight to remain at the center of their world she destroyed them and herself, robbing all of them of the little life they could have had.

Carey Mulligan deserved an Oscar for her work in “Never Let Me Go.” The heart, the love and the compassion she portrays is the heartbreaking force of the film. A soul as wide and as deep as Kathy's deserved more than to be an organ bank and yet that is not what the film is about, it's about what life she brings to what little life she has and much of that is played on Mulligan's wonderfully expressive face.

Mark Romanek captures the essence of Ishiguro's novel in ways that most directors likely would not. Like Ishiguro, Romanek is not really interested in the grander political points about breeding humans for their organs. Rather, that is the setting for telling human stories about what real people would do in these circumstances. The fate of these characters lends a certain tragedy to them but that tragedy is compounded by what unique, fascinating and thoughtful beings these characters are.

The political points, the metaphors and meanings are ours to bring to the film. What Carey Mulligan, director Mark Romanek and screenwriter Alex Garland are focused on are the human beings and the lives they live against this unique and tragic background. It's a wonderfully experimental ploy and it works brilliantly as a movie that makes you think for yourself and moves you deeply.

Movie Review Assassin's Creed

Assassin's Creed (2016) 

Directed by Justin Kurzel 

Written by Michael Lesslie, Adam Cooper, Bill Collage

Starring Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, Brendan Gleeson, Charlotte Rampling

Release Date December 21st, 2016 

Published December 20th, 2016

I cannot win with this review. I can, in my mind, already hear the voices of those who say that because I don’t like videogames I cannot appreciate a videogame movie. Then there are those who will recall the number of times I have decried the videogame movie subgenre and will also claim I went into “Assassin’s Creed” with bias. My only response to these spectral voices is believe whatever you want, Assassin’s Creed is simply not a very good movie, videogame adaptation or otherwise.

Michael Fassbender stars in “Assassin’s Creed” as Callum Lynch, the son of a murdered mother and a murderer father who grows up to be a killer himself. We meet the adult Callum on the day he is to be executed for what we can only assume was some sort of murder spree. The execution however, does not take and Callum wakes up in Spain where he’s been kidnapped by the Knights Templar who plan to hook Callum to a machine that can access the memories of his ancestors (just go with it).

Callum’s ancestors were members of an ancient order of Assassins known as the Creed. The Creed were created to battle the Knights Templar and specifically keep the Knights from getting their hands on The Apple, literally the apple taken from the tree knowledge in the Garden of Eden. For the reasons of the plot the Apple has the power to remove free will from the world and grant the Knights Templar the power to enslave humanity.

Through his time in the machine, called the Animus, Callum will learn the story of the Creed and will polish his assassin skills. Will he use those skills to continue his family legacy? Yeah, probably, the Knights Templar are obviously the bad guys here. Nevertheless, I will leave some mystery for you to discover if you choose to subject yourself to “Assassin’s Creed,” though I do not recommend that you do that.

“Assassin’s Creed” is a forgettable bad movie, not one that will leave much of any lasting impression. Michael Fassbender and co-stars Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons and Michael K. Williams are all professionals who give life to the material even if it proves unworthy of the effort. Fassbender is a physical specimen whose glower certainly can petrify an enemy but he’s at a loss to overcome the CGI splattered all around him in messy edits that render every frame of “Assassin’s Creed” a minor eyesore.

“Assassin’s Creed” comes from Director Justin Kurzel whose adaptation of “MacBeth,” yes that “Macbeth,” also starred Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard and was similarly an eyesore. At least his “MacBeth” has ambition, Kurzel’s “Assassin’s Creed,” on the other hand, feels like an attempt to appease a studio eager for a well-known product to churn into a formula franchise that creates new revenue streams and elevates stock prices.

Poor Michael Fassbender; he seems lost in a Hollywood that doesn’t understand his gifts. Despite that chin that could cut glass and eyes that could pierce steel, Fassbender isn’t a classic “movie star.” We, the popcorn chomping blockbuster masses, simply respect him as an actor too much to watch him act below his skill level. Sure, his version of the “X-Men” villain Magneto is well liked but we’d all hoped that was his “one for them” studio picture that would let him get back to being a real actor.

Instead he has stranded himself in “Assassin’s Creed” as another “one for them” movie and we are left to lament the kinds of performances he could be dedicating his time too. Quirky, wonderful indie flicks like “Frank” and “Fish Tank” gave us the Michael Fassbender we truly want while “X-Men” was supposed to be the insurance for the next “Frank” or “Fish Tank.” Now, with “Assassin’s Creed,” who knows where Fassbender may be headed, probably cruddier looking CGI claptrap. What a shame.