cherold
Joined Jan 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings3.2K
cherold's rating
Reviews2.3K
cherold's rating
Having heard vaguely about these pope-selection moments my entire life, it's interesting to finally get a sense of what goes on. Honestly, I always thought it was 6 or 7 people chatting around a conference table.
Turns out it's more than 7 and there's a lot of politicking by people desperate to appear to not be politicking. The conclave is run by Ralph Fiennes, someone who is genuinely trying to do the right thing while not putting his thumb on the scale. Fiennes is, of course, terrific, as is Stanley Tucci, but everyone is really good.
The cinematography should have won the oscar. I love those scenes with the bright pops of the cardinal robes against the almost monochromatic exteriors.
A lot of people love Isabella Rossellini in this, but to me it seems such a tiny part that it's hardly worth a big star. Still, she is quite good.
While I never thought this movie rose to the heights of a really great movie (my girlfriend disagrees with me), it is a very good, enjoyable one that keeps you engrossed throughout. Well worth seeing.
Turns out it's more than 7 and there's a lot of politicking by people desperate to appear to not be politicking. The conclave is run by Ralph Fiennes, someone who is genuinely trying to do the right thing while not putting his thumb on the scale. Fiennes is, of course, terrific, as is Stanley Tucci, but everyone is really good.
The cinematography should have won the oscar. I love those scenes with the bright pops of the cardinal robes against the almost monochromatic exteriors.
A lot of people love Isabella Rossellini in this, but to me it seems such a tiny part that it's hardly worth a big star. Still, she is quite good.
While I never thought this movie rose to the heights of a really great movie (my girlfriend disagrees with me), it is a very good, enjoyable one that keeps you engrossed throughout. Well worth seeing.
Murder is Easy kicks off when Luke, who has come to England for some government position, meets little old lady Miss Pinkerton (an excellent Penelope Wilton), who is headed to Scotland Yard to persuade them that a series of accidents in her little town are actually murders. She doesn't make it to the Yard, so Luke decides to take up the cause.
The town has a nice sense of underlying hostility - half the residents seem like they might be murders, half seem like they might be scared, and most look askance at Luke, who is both a stranger and a black man in a small English village.
Luke soon find himself romancing a sharp-witted local and making himself a bother to a number of people. Meanwhile, the "accidents" continue.
I found David Jonsson's Luke a little bland, but Morfydd Clark is terrific as his world-weary, complicated love interest, and Tom Riley is excellent as a rich jerk. And Jonsson's has good chemistry with Morfydd and is fun when he is needling suspects in his low-key way.
Overall this was an intriguing mystery, but the 2nd of the two parts felt a little less compelling than part 1, and It felt particularly draggy when I figured out the murderer and how to watch the detective catch up. (He's no Hercule Poirot, but I think that's the point - most people aren't equipped to solve a murder.)
I see a number of reviewers object to the lead being black, (because there were no black men in England in the 50s?), and because racism and colonialism come up a few times, but I thought it was an interesting approach. On the other hand, Luke's recurrent dream is a silly addition that, even when its psychology is explained, seems pointless both in terms of the mystery and Luke's personal journey. I don't know why the writer thought it was a good thing to add.
The ending wasn't quite as emotionally satisfying as I would have liked, but it does make sense in the context of the story.
Don't pay attention to the low rating here - I think that's mainly from Brits angry that colonialism comes up and people who saw the Marple adaption and are now convinced that Marple is the original detective of the book (she's not) and this adaptation has tossed her out.
This isn't one of the *best* BBC Christie adaptations, it's as good or better than most of them. If you like Christie mysteries, you should definitely take a look.
The town has a nice sense of underlying hostility - half the residents seem like they might be murders, half seem like they might be scared, and most look askance at Luke, who is both a stranger and a black man in a small English village.
Luke soon find himself romancing a sharp-witted local and making himself a bother to a number of people. Meanwhile, the "accidents" continue.
I found David Jonsson's Luke a little bland, but Morfydd Clark is terrific as his world-weary, complicated love interest, and Tom Riley is excellent as a rich jerk. And Jonsson's has good chemistry with Morfydd and is fun when he is needling suspects in his low-key way.
Overall this was an intriguing mystery, but the 2nd of the two parts felt a little less compelling than part 1, and It felt particularly draggy when I figured out the murderer and how to watch the detective catch up. (He's no Hercule Poirot, but I think that's the point - most people aren't equipped to solve a murder.)
I see a number of reviewers object to the lead being black, (because there were no black men in England in the 50s?), and because racism and colonialism come up a few times, but I thought it was an interesting approach. On the other hand, Luke's recurrent dream is a silly addition that, even when its psychology is explained, seems pointless both in terms of the mystery and Luke's personal journey. I don't know why the writer thought it was a good thing to add.
The ending wasn't quite as emotionally satisfying as I would have liked, but it does make sense in the context of the story.
Don't pay attention to the low rating here - I think that's mainly from Brits angry that colonialism comes up and people who saw the Marple adaption and are now convinced that Marple is the original detective of the book (she's not) and this adaptation has tossed her out.
This isn't one of the *best* BBC Christie adaptations, it's as good or better than most of them. If you like Christie mysteries, you should definitely take a look.
Based on the title, the premise, and the presence of Aubrey Plaza, it would be reasonable to expect this to be a broad comedy, but it's actually something quite different - a coming of age fantasy centered around the two poles of hope and regret.
While Aubrey gets half the poster, she actually only has a couple of scenes in the movie, which is primarily about Maisy Stella's character dealing with her life and how it is effected by a weird meeting with her future self, who comes with jokes and cryptic warnings.
Maisy is a very appealing protagonist, and the movie easily wanders between humor and touching moments. At times it can be breezily dark, as when Plaza offers glimpses into the earth's future, and other times it is just the most heartfelt thing you'll ever see.
Everyone else in the cast is quite good as well, particularly Percy Hynes White as a charming goofball.
It's funny, it's sweet, the ending is pretty amazing, and you should watch it.
While Aubrey gets half the poster, she actually only has a couple of scenes in the movie, which is primarily about Maisy Stella's character dealing with her life and how it is effected by a weird meeting with her future self, who comes with jokes and cryptic warnings.
Maisy is a very appealing protagonist, and the movie easily wanders between humor and touching moments. At times it can be breezily dark, as when Plaza offers glimpses into the earth's future, and other times it is just the most heartfelt thing you'll ever see.
Everyone else in the cast is quite good as well, particularly Percy Hynes White as a charming goofball.
It's funny, it's sweet, the ending is pretty amazing, and you should watch it.