Stonehearst Asylum (4/10): A poor attempt at creating a suspenseful gothic film

“We're all mad Dr. Newgate. Some are simply not mad enough to admit it.”

Set in a mental institution during the end of the 19th century it’s hard not to compare this gothic thriller to Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island. Whereas Scorsese managed to create a film with an eerie atmosphere full of intrigues and thrills, Stonehearst Asylum fails to do so. It seems to have the perfect setting and cast to do so, but director Brad Anderson (known for The Machinist) isn’t able to come up with a compelling script. There is a scene during the opening of the film where a young doctor played by Jim Sturgess arrives at this gothic asylum and the atmosphere seems ideal for a great suspenseful thriller, but the story never seems to catch on with the visuals and the atmosphere is lost. It isn’t enough to make a film with a gothic look if the story isn’t engaging, and this movie is proof yet again that a talented cast doesn’t always make for a good film. Jim Sturgess, Kate Beckinsale, David Thewlis, Brendan Gleeson, Ben Kingsley, and Michael Caine all star in this film which should automatically make it worth giving it a watch, but unfortunately the script doesn’t do anything to make their characters interesting. The film is based on Poe’s short story, The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether, but the adaptation to the big screen doesn’t necessary make for a good watch.   

The plot revolves around Dr. Edward Newgate (Jim Sturgess) who arrives at a remote mental institution to offer his assistant. Despite his young age, he is eager to help these mentally ill patients and Dr. Silas Lamb (Ben Kingsley) greets him with enthusiasm. Edward realizes that Lamb’s methods are a bit unorthodox as he allows his patients to run around freely in the institution helping around with the chores. Mickey Finn (David Thewlis) is Lamb’s right hand man, but he seems a bit unstable and many of the patients seem to fear him. When Edward meets Eliza Graves (Kate Beckinsale), a patient who seems very enlightened and educated, he immediately becomes infatuated with her. She seems to have issues with touch and intimacy, but at the same time she is also a very caring individual who looks after some of the patients in the ward. Early in the movie there is a twist that I won’t give away, but where Edward is introduced to some other characters among which is Benjamin Salt (Michael Caine) who makes a very interesting claim that could change everything he has come to believe about the asylum. 

I think the revelation in the film is made too early on and it takes away from some of the suspense it could’ve benefited from. Once the reveal is made the film seems to lose some of the tension and it becomes a bit predictable along the way. It is a shame because there was an interesting cast to work with here. As stunning as she is in this film, Beckinsale doesn’t get much to do other than simply captivate audiences with her looks. Ben Kingsley and Michael Caine are such wonderful actors that I could’ve used more face off between the two. The film continues to deliver some twists along the way, but they never do anything to build the suspense. It has the right look, but it simply doesn’t transmit the suspense and the gothic atmosphere it so desperately tries to establish.

The Theory of Everything (6/10): A conventional biopic that tries to cover too much

“Your glasses are always dirty.”

I have to admit I was a bit disappointed with James Marsh’s The Theory of Everything as I found the love story a bit bland and the biopic in general very conventional and safe. It is well produced and banks on a strong lead performance from Eddie Redmayne, but there is not really much else to the story. Marsh focuses on Hawking’s relationship with his wife and the battle they faced together with his illness, but there is not much more to it and by the end I didn’t feel I had learned anything new about this brilliant man. Marsh has made some interesting documentaries in the past (Project Nim and the far superior Man on Wire), and in a way this film seemed liked one covering one fact after another, but it lacked personality. I never believed the romance at the beginning of the movie; it was all rushed. The film’s greatest flaw is that it tries to cover too long a period in Hawking’s life. It goes from one memorable event in his life to the next without digging under the surface of who this brilliant man really was. I never felt connected with these characters despite their inspirational story. I wasn’t moved by scenes or events in Hawking’s life that should’ve moved me and I think it’s because Marsh was focused on trying to cover all the important moments in his life. The greatest thing about this film is Redmayne’s strong performance who deserves the recognition he has received, but I don’t think there is anything else to it.

I’m still surprised that Anthony McCarten’s adapted screenplay was nominated for the Academy Awards, because I found everything about it very conventional. The screenplay was adapted from Jane Hawking’s autobiographical book, so the film focuses more on their relationship than on Stephen’s accomplishments (although we still get a scene where he receives a standing ovation from his scholars). We are told the story through Jane’s point of view and despite loving this man very much she gets weary of him through the years since he doesn’t accept help from anyone else. Some of my personal conclusions from this film are that his family isn’t portrayed too well (they don’t seem to do anything to help Stephen through his illness) and Stephen himself never seems to be grateful for what Jane is doing for him. Perhaps two reasons why the marriage didn’t work out in the end.

If there is one reason why I would recommend this film to anyone it’s for Eddie Redmayne’s performance alone. It is impressive how well he manages to portray Stephen’s mannerisms, his facial expressions, and his movements. It is a physically demanding performance and Redmayne actually makes you believe he is battling through ALS. It may not be my favorite performance of the year (probably because I wanted to like this character more and get to know who he really was), but it is an incredible one nonetheless. Redmayne will forever be remembered for his role here. Felicity Jones has also received a lot of praise for her performance as Jane. It isn’t nearly as showy as Redmayne’s performance was, but she delivers a strong role. She is a talented actress, but I think she has been better in other films and is being a bit overhyped for her performance here. The rest of the cast only appear as characters in a series of events with very little personality so there wasn’t much Harry Lloyd, David Thewlis, Emily Watson, or Simon McBurney could bring to the film. Redmayne overpowers everyone here and this becomes his movie. He is the only reason why I am recommending this movie which to be honest I found quite boring otherwise. 

My Review: War Horse (6/10)

¨Separated by war. Tested by battle. Bound by friendship. ¨

War Horse might be about a miraculous and beautiful horse, but the movie has nothing miraculous about it. It`s a well filmed movie, but the story and the performances are very melodramatic at times. The scenery is gorgeous, but the pacing is slow for a two and a half hour long movie. The Academy seemed to like this Steven Spielberg film more than I did since it received six Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, but despite the excellent performance from the horse (or should I say horses?) this won`t be among my favorite films of the year. Of course it has the typical Spielberg narrative that has made him such a loveable director, but I felt it was way too melodramatic at times. War Horse is based on the novel written by Michael Morpurgo, while the screenplay was adapted by Lee Hall (Billy Elliot) and Richard Curtis (Notting Hill, Bridget Jones`s Diary, and Love Actually). The main protagonist of the story is this beautiful horse (played in the most part by the same horse from Seabiscuit), but the rest of the cast in this film are far from memorable. The War scenes really didn’t impact me at all in the way that Spielberg did in Saving Private Ryan, but I guess he couldn’t go that far if he wanted to make a family film. It does have some strong scenes however that might be difficult to watch (like when the horse gets caught up in the barb wires). War Horse is a good movie, but far from memorable and one I wouldn’t enjoy watching again.

The story takes place during 1914 in a small English town named Devon where a young teen named Albert (Jeremy Irvine) is seen watching the birth of a foal. That foal grows up to be a beautiful strong horse and is taken to an auction to be sold. Devon`s father, a farmer named Ted (Peter Mullan) is mesmerized by the animal and decides to buy it despite it not being a plough horse, but a thoroughbred. Devon is happy about his father’s decision, although his mother, Rose (Emily Watson) is upset because Ted has spent more money than they can afford on an animal that won`t help them in the far. To make matters worse, their landlord (David Thewlis) wants his rent money and demands after the harvest season or else he will take the land away from them. Devon tells his parents not to worry, that he will train the horse and teach it how to plough. Together Devon and the horse, which he names Joey, accomplish the impossible and plough the land in time for the harvest. However, a heavy rain ruins the harvest and everything is lost for Ted and his family. In order to pay the rent he is forced to sell the horse to a soldier, Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston) since the country is at the brisk of war against Germany. That is how Joey begins his transition from one owner to the next, and from one band to another, after the English are defeated in a battle and the horse is taken by the Germans. Whoever his owner may be they will soon find out that he is no ordinary horse.

The cast is perhaps one of the weakest links about this movie. I didn’t find the performances very memorable and the drama seemed really forced at times. The best actor by far was the horse. Since the horse switches from one owner to another, there are several characters and different stories and some work better than others. The movie begins very slow, but once the war begins the story picks up at times. The final thirty minutes are really intense and do lift the movie, but it`s too bad it takes so long to pick up. The beginning is really slow and melodramatic and I feared the worst for this film, but thankfully it does get much better and the ending saves the movie. Even the performance from Jeremy Irvine seems to pick up in the second half (I really hated it in the first part). Tom Hiddleston`s role wasn’t very attractive either, I didn’t enjoy his performance, it seemed too forced. My favorite character in this movie was Emilie, a young girl that lived alone with her grandfather who finds the horse in a windmill. She was played by Celine Buckens and her role was hilarious. She has some funny lines, but as most characters she isn’t in this movie for too long. The barbwire scene was also pretty memorable and I loved the way the scene was resolved in such a comedic matter. If only War could be avoided in the same way. In conclusion we learn a lot from this miraculous horse and how animals too suffer in middle of men`s wars and differences. Too bad the pacing and the narrative was a little off, but the film is still worth a watch.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com