Philomena Review

Philomena is based on the story of a ‘shamed mother’ by the name of Philomena Lee who sets out on a journey to find her lost son with the help of a journalist by the name of Martin Sixsmith. So, in Ireland, the shamed mothers were the ones who had a child out of wedlock. The parents of these women used to abandon them with churches where the nuns carried out the delivery of the children with their exiguous medical knowledge, in which most of the mothers and children died during childbirth. Philomena wasn’t one of them. She gave birth to a boy, who was later adopted under the church’s policy that these children are up for adoption if the couple pays 1000 euros.

I expected Philomena to be a thrilling movie of-sorts walking in to it, with the protagonists undertaking a needle-in-a-haystack task and finally succeeding and to my surprise, it wasn’t. It is more about a mother trying to reconnect with her son and his memories and trailing a path to find out whether her existence was of any value to his. Looking at Philomena, it is hard not to notice the religious and faith-based undertones of this movie. I feel it is structured to be a questioning of faith under the most adverse of circumstances.

In a way, it feels like a work of creative difference, for the screenplay writers seem to be telling a different tale and the director another. Philomena wants to succeed as both a dramatic and religious piece, which seems to create a rift of understanding for the viewer as well as a lot of unruly editing. It stretches out for so long that the narrative seems to assume an unwavering pensive mood, so as to let the viewer meditate on his own stability of mind on the concept of faith. And to be honest, I have no interest. I prefer identifying myself as an agnostic because it gives me the peace of mind to indulge my brain cells in more productive work than brooding over questions without definite or rational answers.

However, the only factor that lets us stay in our seats in the midst of all this creative mess, with our eyes plastered on the screen is the brilliant performances of Judi Dench and Steve Coogan. Both shine, especially Judy with her adorable act. She moulds a character of her own and her pretty nuances are entertaining to the hilt. Coogan is fabulous as Martin, even overshadowing Dench in an indisputably powerful climax.

Philomena didn’t resonate with me in the way I expected it to, but there is no shame in admitting that it is well because of my personal opinion on religion and faith. It is not an anti- Christian movie as some have asserted, and I am pretty sure it will relate to most of the audiences. Well, unfortunately, just not me.

RATING :- 6.8 / 10

P.S. Although I abstain from my religious beliefs to conflict with my point of thinking when it comes to film criticism, this movie demands that I bring them into the picture, for they hold paramount importance in regards to the narrative of the movie.

THANKS FOR READING. IF YOU HAVE LIKED/HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS / HAVE ANY  DOUBTS, PLEASE SHARE. I WILL RESPOND TO IT AS SOON AS I CAN. AND PLEASE SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011549616628 YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.

Advertisements

The F-Word Review

Thanks to all those wonderful (IRRITATING!) people on Facebook, many you you may also have got numerous reposts of a photo with a cute girl and a boy(depressing) stating ‘Can A Boy And A Girl Be Best Friends Without Falling In Love ?’ What If examines the same question. It is about Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) who falls in love with Chantry (Zoe Kazan), his best friend and has to choose one of these options – Tell her and potentially cause collateral damage to their friendship or shut up and regret not telling her rest of her life.

Often touted as Toronto’s (500) Days Of Summer, What If is an adorable romantic comedy. Is it relatable ? Well, to some portions (unless you have gone skimpy-dipping with your best friend who is a girl) Is it cheesy ? Well, not in most the portions (except for the fact that anyone can predict the ending) But, to be really honest, Kazan and Radcliffe make up for all that and more.

The chemistry is undoubtedly the movie’s MVP because there is a certain breeziness to it. For a fact, all the actors seem to be enjoying themselves. The dialogue presentation is fabulous. Best example may be a conversation between Wallace and Chantry where they discuss the amount of feces in the intestines of celebrities when they died. Every dialogue of that scene looks improvised on spot and the way the actors carry themselves is commendable.

I like movies which think out-of-box. Isn’t that what art is all about ? A mirror to our own personal lives. And that is where this movie errs. As much as I hate to admit it, I have faced the same dilemma Wallace faced a long time ago and to be honest, it isn’t this much fun. I love that the director gives prominence to conversations between Allan (Adam Driver) and Wallace. However, they are sparse in length.

What If struggles with a lot of things. First is the lack of humor. The humor works only because Kazan and Radcliffe are comedic gold here, otherwise the writing isn’t strong at all. What If struggles with its core from inception, of whether it should be a comedy or a drama. And it appears to have become a dramedy, and I do love dramedys, but only when they are meant to be one. The whole plot is structured for a comedy, but the dampening humor result in it being kind of lost.

However, we knew exactly what to expect from this movie. A romance. We get that. I still have many faults I can state but is it necessary to do so ? Not at all. Do I recommend this movie ? Yes, I definitely do. I think too will re-watch it. Being a critic isn’t making a pro and cons list. Being a critic is to determine whether the audience will have a good time at the cinema hall. And from what I saw, I think hell yeah, you will. This is one of the romantic comedies where the characters are not entirely governed by their genitals, they seem to care for each other. That’s pretty much enough, ain’t it ?

P.S. The soundtrack is beautiful

 Rating : 7.9 / 10

IF YOU HAVE WATCHED THIS MOVIE, WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT IT ? DO LET ME KNOW IN COMMENTS BELOW. YOU CAN FOLLOW ME ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE TOO https://www.facebook.com/pages/Demanded-Critical-Reviews/1565666967024477?ref=hl YOU CAN ALSO E-MAIL ME ON castlebang786@gmail.com OR favebook2011@rediffmail.com

Photo Rights : Google Images, Wikipedia

Copyright : All written content on this site, unless otherwise noted, has been created by the website owner. As such, the content is the property of the website owner. This content is protected by Indian and international copyright laws. If you wish to reproduce, re-post, or display any of our content on your own site please only do so if you also provide a link back to the source page on this website and properly attribute authorship. Our preference is that you seek our permission before doing so. If you see anything on this website that has not been properly attributed to its originator please contact me. In response, I will attempt to correct the attribution of the offending material or remove and/or replace it. All material on this website is posted in accordance with the limitations set forward by the Information Technology Act, 2000. If a documented copyright owner so requests, their material will be removed from published display, although the author reserves the right to provide linkage to that material or to a source for that material. As a website devoted to discussing and reviewing movies and television I will at times, for illustrative purposes, present copyrighted material, the use of which might not always be specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available  for purposes such as criticism, comment, and research. The website owner believes that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material because the articles published on this website are distributed for entertainment purposes.