sddavis63

I would say first of all that I liked this movie. It's a remake of a 1956 film of the same name - a film I've never seen, so I had no preconceived notions going into this; no real idea of how the story would unfold. I only knew that this was a remake. That's important, because I'm going to start this review off by saying that the "climax" of the movie was, for me, a bit of a letdown - since I saw the twist coming from very early on and it didn't take me at all by surprise. And since I was pretty sure how this was going to turn out, I was more interested in the ride - how were we going to get to the actual twist at the end? And, overall, the ride was a pretty good one.

It's the story of an investigative reporter (played by Jesse Metcalf, who seemed a bit overwhelmed by the role to be honest) who becomes convinced that a high profile DA (played by Michael Douglas) is planting and manipulating evidence in order to secure convictions against people who were wrongly accused as part of his quest to become Governor. CJ (the reporter) comes up with a wild plan to get himself charged for a murder based on circumstantial evidence, along with video that would exonerate him by demonstrating that evidence was planted. There are a lot of turns in this that do lead up to the twist ending, so even if you do have a sense of where it's all leading (as I did) it's still a movie that holds your attention.

Having said that, aside from wondering about the fate of both CJ and Hunter (the DA) the movie is strangely lacking in any sustained tension. The two tensest moments revolve around the secondary character of a corrupt police detective who's in league with Hunter - his car chase of CJ's friend and colleague Corey, and his pursuit through a parking lot of CJ's girlfriend Ella (played by Amber Tamblyn, and who was also the only character in the movie that I found myself truly caring about) - a prosecutor colleague of Hunter who becomes convinced that her boss is up to no good. When a couple of scenes involving car chases are the most suspenseful parts of a movie - well, that says something. And beyond those two scenes I wouldn't call this an overly suspenseful movie at all.

It's OK. Aside from a general lack of tension or suspense the story has its moments and is well enough put together to keep you watching. Neither Metcalf nor Tamblyn struck me as actors with the presence or charisma to fit easily into lead roles in a big screen production and even Douglas came across as a bit bland. There was nothing noteworthy about his portrayal of Hunter. It also grated on me that CJ and Corey kept talking about winning a Pulitzer (they were TV reporters - TV reporters don't get Pulitzers!) Beyond that, it was a decent story but not an especially memorable one. (6/10)

This movie certainly gives you a glimpse (most likely a fictional one, although I'm sure the city does have its bad side) of the seedy underbelly of Portland, Oregon. It's grimy and not glamorous. It's the story of Lynette (played by Vanessa Kirby.) She's desperate. She's trying to buy the house she grew up in and still lives in with her unreliable mom (Jennifer Jason Leigh) - with whom she has a troubled relationship - and her older brother (Zack Gottsagen), who has Down's Syndrome. She works two jobs (in a bakery and as a bartender, and on the side she's an escort) and she needs her mom (along with $25000 in cash as a down payment) to finalize the deal. But mom lets her down, blows the down payment, and Lynette has to scramble to come up with the $25000 in one night, whatever it takes - because she really doesn't seem to have very many choices. Get the money or be out on the streets is the binary here.

Kirby did a great job of making me empathize with the character. She's had a raw deal in life - used and abused by almost everyone she knows, except for her brother Kenny, who she loves and who loves her in return. Perhaps you can criticize that what happens on that one night is desperately over the top - but "desperately" is the key word. She is desperate, and she's willing to do whatever it takes, getting herself (and Kenny) into some pretty risky situations along the way. But it's more than just the story of that one desperate night. It's the slow unfolding of Lynette's backstory that really made this work for me. The more you get to know of her background, the more sympathy you feel for her; the more you're willing to excuse the things she feels driven to do in this desperate situation. Jennifer Jason Leigh's role was a much lower profile role, but I thought she was very effective as the mom who can't be depended on; the mom who perhaps never even really loved or wanted her own daughter.

Is it over the top? Absolutely. Would the average person go to these lengths in the same situation? Probably not. But even so, the movie deals with a very real social situation - the plight of those who have no backup; who are literally one paycheque away from losing everything; who have no way of handling just one emergency that arises. And it raises that question - what would anyone do if faced with the same situation? How far would any of us go? That gives this a sense of connection to the real world even if it is over the top. The ending is a bit of a low key letdown perhaps, but it also allows the movie to end with at least a glimmer of hope as you wonder whether Lynette will pick up the pieces and get her life together.

It's a Netflix movie, and certainly they've had their share of clunkers, but this isn't one of them. I truly enjoyed it and got drawn into Lynette's story. 9/10.

"Papillon" is a grim movie - appropriately so, given its setting. It's based on a memoir written by Henri Charriere (called Papillon), a Frenchman convicted of murder in 1930's Paris and sent to a brutal penal colony in French Guiana for life. The memoir is an account of his life in the prison and his attempts to escape. I confess that I haven't read the book, although I have read some summaries of it, and it seems that the movie takes a few rather important liberties with the story Charriere shared - which, in itself, is not unexpected although it does make one wonder about how truly accurate the movie is, since Charriere himself said that the memoir was only "75% true" (many modern authorities claim it's much less than that) and French penal colony records seem to disprove some of what was written and portrayed in the movie, believing that Charriere essentially "claimed" the experiences of others and mixed them in as his own. The point is not to criticize the movie (most biographical movies take liberties with the real story) - it's a reminder that this is a movie. And it's a decent one.

However accurate (or inaccurate) it may be, I'm quite willing to accept that life in a French penal colony in French Guiana in the 1930's was not easy. The movie, I thought, did a very good job of balancing and switching between hope and hopelessness, as the deplorable conditions are mixed with Papillon's never-ending determination to somehow find a way out of this hell, as he forms alliances and makes plans. The movie relies more on its atmosphere than on dialogue. The setting feels realistic; as a viewer you do wonder how Papillon can pull this off. I did at times think that a bit more clarity about how Papillon formed all his alliances (about the inner workings of what you might call "convict culture) would have been appreciated. That part of his story seemed, at times, a bit unclear to me.) The challenge here is that you also at times find yourself not especially sympathetic to him. He claimed that he had been framed for the murder (and so that's how the movie depicts it) but you're aware that this is his story. (In fairness, I checked later and discovered that French authorities had granted him a pardon, which doesn't necessarily mean that he was innocent but does mean that he's no longer considered guilty.) The point is that it's hard to be truly invested with him or with any of his prisoner allies. The authorities (especially the "commandant" of the camp) are depicted in an unsympathetic light - brutal, cruel, even sadistic. Charlie Hunnam did a good job as Papillon.

This is a remake of a 1973 movie of the same name, in which Steve McQueen played the role of Papillon. I haven't seen that one, so can't compare the two. As for this movie - questions of its accuracy aside - it's a very good movie, and I'd give it an 8/10.