Tag: Simon Russell Beale

I do love me some double meaning titles in movies. They literally carry me through life. Without them, I would be a lost little shell of a man, who has no friends, no family, no love, and of course, no double meaning titles.

Last year we got CODA, which was brilliant, and already this year we now have The Outfit. The Outfit is a nickname given to the Chicago mafia specifically, and it is pretty well known. And this movie is also going to involve a tailor? A suit maker? Someone who literally designs outfits?

Sign me up. But only if the movie includes actual tailoring and suit crafting knowledge and teaching. I don’t want it to be about someone who looks like they are faking it, or the movie doesn’t know the subject matter. Teach me, or else I riot.

No, get out of here with your guns. I want to learn about tailoring and suit making!

Leonard (Mark Rylance) is an older gentleman, who runs his own suit shop. By appointment only, he will design all of the way a fresh suit for whoever will buy one, and it will be of the highest quality. But he is NOT a tailor. That is just a bitch who can sew. He is a cutter. He is a trained cutter. He demands that title respect too. He also has a receptionist (Zoey Deutch) who dreams of traveling the world some day, and collects snow globes to put in their shop window.

And sometimes, when he is working, with or without customers, men in suits come in to put envelopes in a lock box in the back room. Very suspicious. Leonard ignores them. And apparently at the end of the day, two mobsters (Dylan O’Brien, Johnny Flynn) go to the lockbox to retrieve the envelopes, and go back off into the night.

Looks like Leonard is a safe house for the mob, but he tries to not get involved in their antics. Does he do it for protection? For survival? Is he a former mobster? Who knows!

But once a note gets out that there is a rat in the organization, it turns out his closed shop is going to be almost ground zero for betrayal, backstabbing, and just regular amounts of death.

Also starring Simon Russell Beale, Nikki Amuka-Bird, and Alan Mehdizadeh.

Yessss, this is the content I have come here for.

Did I learn how to be a tailor cutter? No, not really. But I did learn a little bit about it, which is more than I have ever assumed I would in my life, so that is a plus. Rylance’s narration reminded me a bit about Michael Caine‘s narration in The Prestige. No, I won’t go into specifics, for potential spoiler reasons, but they seemed to have the same overall goal. Also, Caine’s name in The Prestige was actually Cutter. Is that a coincidence? Yes, probably.

I loved The Outfit for sure. The entire thing takes place inside of the shop, which is wonderful. I love it when movies get Bottle Episode-y.

There were twists and turns in the film, some expected, some not. I certainly wasn’t sure the entirety of who the rat was by the end. I wasn’t sure who would live or die either. It was very slow moving at points, but the sitting and waiting really helped make me feel more uncomfortable, which is a good thing. I don’t want a mystery to feel pointless. You don’t want a mystery to feel pointless.

I think all of the actors involved did a swell job, but extra shoutout to Johnny Flynn. First, he is the actor with the most mobster like name in real life. But I was really impressed with his attitude, and accent, for being the fourth biggest name on the main cast list. I don’t know anything about him, but his character was magnificent.

The Outfit won’t likely do well in the box office, but from this critics mouth, it was a great movie, and one I can imagine watching even more than once.

As a history major, I tend to love a good historical biopic film, that goes for realism, truth, and has amazing set pieces.

At the same time, my focus was on Ancient History, and I tried to avoid any of that medieval nonsense, mostly because I do not care about British history. I got enough of that growing up. I want old stuff or other cultures. I just don’t want to get bogged down in the King and Queen dramas. It is why I still haven’t seen The Crown.

But Mary Queen of Scots is a famous story, one that I know next to nothing about. It has to be famous, it rings true, but honestly, never looked into who or what it was. Did she behead a lot of people? Did she inspire Braveheart? I don’t know!

I do know that with the leads being several ladies, we still might get some dope gossip though.

On first glance, this does not answer the Braveheart question.

First of all, this film takes place like 250-300 years after William Wallace, so they are unrelated.

We are going to talk about Mary (Saoirse Ronan) who became Queen of France at 16! Nice. Two years later her husband died, and instead of remarrying and living back in France, she went back home and decided to rule there again. Now, due to some legal loopholes, she has more of a right to the throne of England than her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie).

But Mary cannot just go and waltz in, demand the crown, and everyone is cool with that. So instead, she goes to Scotland, to work with the people there to set up a rule, to be peaceful with their neighbors, and basically bide her time. If Elizabeth cannot get an heir, or dies, it will be Mary’s turn (or her own children), so let’s be civil and wait it out.

It is not civil. There is some warring, some backstabbing, some dead loved ones and imprisoned things. There is a lot of betrayal and a whole lot of politicking that will get you lost.

Hey. As long as you still look noble by the end, right?

Also starring David Tennant, Gemma Chan, Guy Pearce, Jack Lowden, Joe Alwyn, Adrian Lester, Ismael Cruz Cordova, and Simon Russell Beale.

Royalty is the epitome of being a strong independent woman who don’t need no man, unless you need an heir to keep it strong forever, in which case you are vastly dependent and sad.

When I say get lost in the politicking, I really mean it. This is a dense cast with a lot of characters who have lines and I guess are real people in history. And it is not like the movie pops up with subtitle cards to fully explain everyone’s role and their motives. You have to pay attention, try to gather what matters and what doesn’t and by the end, I still didn’t fully grasp who/why everyone was, why things happened, and the real ramifications.

This might just be a historical movie for those already down with the history. And there is nothing wrong with that, technically, but it does mean it will have issues finding a larger audience. Movies should be made for all sorts of people and a certain level of intelligence can be a requirement. It just means I am left talking about how pretty the movie was and well acted, without being able to comment a lot on the plot.

Needless to say, the movie was very pretty and well acted from our leads. I was especially surprised by the makeup department and their ability to make Robbie look a whole lot less attractive.

For my money though, I could never imagine wanting to watch this movie again. It is 2 hours that feel like 3, no matter how pretty it looks.

Josef Stalin was a dude who a lot of people respected, a lot of people feared, and lot of people hated. But at least he got the trains running on time in Italy, right?

Wait, that was Mussolini? And Mussolini was in Italy?

Stalin was in goddamn Russia? Oh, well, fuck, close enough. Communists are communists, am I right?

Either way, The Death of Stalin is a satirical look at his death, and the power vacuum that existed in the Soviet Union after the fact. A topic you (like me) probably know next to nothing about, and after you see a film like this, will assume you know a lot that is probably not true.

He peed his pants. That is smelly.

In 1953, in the Soviet Union, everything was nice and grand. People are alive, until they are not. People are living their lives normally, until their not. Josef Stalin (Adrian McLoughlin) is a generous man who rules with an iron fist, sure, but hey, its a hard job being in the top. He has a big cabinet of faithful advisers, from Georgy Malenkov (Jeffrey Tambor), Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi), Vyacheslav Molotov (Michael Palin), and Lavrenti Beria (Simon Russell Beale).

He also has death/torture lists, that are frequently updated. You know, traitors and such. The army runs out, grabs them, imprisons them or kills them just because Stalin heard a whiff of untrustworthy behavior. Not too fun to be caught up in that.

And then? Well, then Stalin just had to go and die. And now, we have a group of men who all want to be leaders, while also want to be sure Stalin is dead before they take over the power vacuum. This cabinet of individuals has to try and work together to make sure their country doesn’t fall apart, and that they don’t backstab each other before the best man actually gets the job.

Also, while dealing with the religious fanatics, the normal people, the army, the special army, the prisons, and lists, and ugh, the family of Stalin.

Also starring Andrea Riseborough, Jason Isaacs, Olga Kurylenko, Paddy Considine, Paul Chahidi, Paul Whitehouse, and Rupert Friend.

If they all stand around the casket, then the only one that can backstab them is Zombie Stalin.

The Death of Stalin is a strange movie to come out, one that is really hard to describe. Because it is weird. It is sort of Monty Python-esque, sort of silly, while still maintaining a very strong and serious vibe. I am laughing out loud in the theater due to how absurd the whole thing feels and how awkward the characters are.

It is quite obvious that there is no way the events are accurate as shown in this movie. It is very wonky and similar to maybe the Three Stooges, with a bit less slapstick. At the same time, it still felt realistic and natural for these men to be freaking out and being awkward, given the situation they are in. They know everyone of them is ruthless. They have been living in a ruthless time. They are used to a period where people would die for saying the wrong thing, and when you want to be on top, you might end up saying the wrong thing.

Overall, this is not the sort of film that everyone would love. A bit bizarre, a bit funny, while also maintaining a lot of deadpanning and dry humor. And somehow, still, piss humor.

This film has definitely intrigued me about this moment in history and it has wanted me to learn more!

Stop getting excited this instant. The Deep Blue Sea is a different movie than Deep Blue Sea. Note the The. This movie is not about sharks or shark attacks or smart sharks or Samuel L. Jackson.

No, but it does have something else you might enjoy. The potential for Loki jokes.

Some would argue that Loki in a bar is a type of shark…

Turns out this movie is actual a remake of a movie that came out in 1955, and when that came out, it was actually topical. Based on a play only a few years earlier.

The story takes place in the 1950s in England. Hester Collyer (Rachel Weisz) has found herself stuck between a rock and a hard place, (or, I guess, the British expression being the Devil and the deep blue sea. That expression is dumb). She is the younger wife of Sir William Collyer (Simon Russell Beale), a judge of the British High Courts. Very stable lifestyle, decently wealthy, but dreadfully boring.

Which is why she becomes infatuated with Freddie Page (Tom Hiddleston), formerly a member of the Royal Air Force during World War II. He is young, and impulsive, and full of sexual energy. That makes sense, of course Hester falls for him, and eventually gets discovered by her husband.

But after leaving her husband, it isn’t just puppies and rainbows. She may regret her choice to follow lust. What is better: stability or affection?

Or even reflection, if you are looking into a mirror.

Drama drama drama. This film comes at you with its hardcore stance about drama. There are no amusing moments in it, only dramatic. Of course overall it is a sort of Romance as well. Just don’t come in expecting a lighthearted tale.

The acting from the main two lovers is much better than I expected, only knowing Tom as Loki and a smaller role in War Horse. Who knew he could be such a hopeless romantic and also messed up individual? (Clearly it is all just a ruse, his trickster persona).

The only thing that really bothers me about the movie is that I do find it quite hard to really get in to. The story is a powerful one, probably more powerful though in the 1950s when it wasn’t as popular of a story subject as it is now. Because really, my biggest issue with this remake is that it doesn’t offer anything new. The entire plot line of the story I can kind of see coming a mile a way, I know how it will end, and I know what bad decisions the characters will make.

Knowing a train is going to wreck doesn’t mean you can stop it.But eh, the experience is I guess what matters for movies. The acting is good. The story is tragic. But to me there isn’t enough else going on for me to really enjoy it all.