You may also like
Ørkenens sønner - Varm luft i canal grande torrent reviews
Sam M (mx) wrote: In a quest to face her past and find her lost son, Philomena continues to believe in God. A true story that allows the clash between beliefs, classes and morals. The movie Philomena (2013) directed by Stephan Frears, starring Judi Dench and Steve Coogan, tells us the story of Philomena Lee, an Irish old lady who was strained to work in the Magdalene asylum due to pregnancy out of wedlock by the catholic church in 1952. Then, Lee was forced to put her son, Anthony, into adoption. She encounters an unemployed journalist, Martin Sixsmith, who agrees to help her find her son and then publish her story. After fifty years, what do they expect to find? The purpose of the journey to uncover the hearts of the mothers similar to Philomena, who suffered to "atone their sins" with the loss of their children. The director Stephan Fears presentation that evoked the emotions of the viewer in addition to the acting abilities of Dench and Coogan have illuminated the story of a mother and child in an emotionally magnificent way. Despite the difference in origin and time, the viewers are put in a situation to question the beliefs of modernism. Before looking at the form of the film, one would look at the context of the film. The story exposed a form of oppression against teenage mothers with excuses of following the will of the bible. However, this oppression has provided for churches an income to stay by putting children for adoption for a certain price. Nowadays, this treatment has faded to the ground due to the lack in God's existence in people. Strangely even after leaving the church for many years, the protagonist (Philomena) continued to treat the nuns in the catholic church of Sean Ross Abby well, which showed great devote to the God and Jesus. Judi Dench's portrayal of this honest and religiously devote woman was superb, with elements of good emotional expression and tone. On the other hand, the character of Martin opposed that of Philomena. He believed that what the church did was unforgiveable and needs to be address. This character presented the audience's emotions from now then regarding the church's actions towards Philomena and her son. The film did not present complex cinematic techniques the simplicity of the techniques mimicked the subtle air surrounding the film as a whole.For Philomena, the significance was both in the words being spoken, since the film was dialogue-heavy, and in facial expression in particular the focus seemed to be on the expression of the eyes. This meant that throughout the film there were a lot of close-ups focusing on the character's face and body within the shot. these techniques were very simple, moreover, the intent was very obvious: watch this person's face. This is because a person's face will tell us a lot more about what the characters thinking and feeling than what can be said during the dialogue. Another thing to appreciate in the presentation of the film is the static look of the movie. there were lots of moments where the audience is staring at a car driving down the road or people walking along. Nothing too complicated.A great example of this is when the movie portrayed the oppression and the prejudice that occurred in the catholic church. the cinematography was nothing too extraordinary; the scene was taken with polished angles and the lighting was dimmed. This set the gloomy atmosphere that the film was portraying. This style of cinematography was done to try to mimic reality in order to capture the emotions of the audience. In addition, the film was not told chronologically, it was edited using flashbacks and the home videos to represent what has happened in the past. the film was color-corrected to present the struggles and emotions through less-saturation.Philomena goes for some gags, but at the center of the movie lies a powerful drama. While the film has a sentimental feel that according to the words of Sixsmith 'weak-minded, vulnerable ignorant people" it also builds into a striking and surprising contemplation on the dilemma of religious belief.
Adam F (jp) wrote: Love the last 20 mins
Copen L (br) wrote: ... (C)...<~...(TM), 1/4????,
Natalie Johannah T (ca) wrote: Combines the grittiness of a Euro-Independent film with just enough of the American obsession with story.
Joseph E (gb) wrote: I will give this movie credit for it's production design and one or two jokes that work, but the focus is way off and the plot itself is not that very interesting. It's not the worst I have seen, but I guess it is worth one viewing.