timoth93
Joined May 2006
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews10
timoth93's rating
My thesis is in Eighteenth Century British history although I confess to not knowing that much about William Wilberforce. However the portrayal of the supporting characters, the key Eighteenth Century statesmen - William Pitt the Younger and Charles Fox - was enough to disappoint me.
Michael Gambon is an accomplished, but he is miscast as Charles James Fox. When I heard that Gambon was in the film, I thought he would be playing Lord North and even thought this until about halfway through the movie when Wilberforce and Pitt enthusiastically exclaim that they have Fox in their corner. Fox was a fascinating character, but he is mischaracterised here. He was righteous and principled, but he was also hopelessly undisciplined, an alcoholic, playboy and a bon vivant. Crucially though, Fox was not past his prime at the time that William Pitt, the Younger became Prime Minister in 1783. Fox, born in 1749, was only 34 (ten years younger than William Pitt who was born in 1759). Yet, in this movie, we have Michael Gambon as Fox and Benedict Cumberbatch as Pitt - aged 66 and 30 respectively at the time of this movie). Cumberbatch is within the ballpark to play Pitt from the ages 23 to 46 as he does in this movie but Gambon, at 66, is actually nine years older than Fox was when he died aged 57. This disparity in the ages also leads to the portrayal of Pitt's ascendancy as a changing of the guard with the older Fox being cast out, instead of as part of an enduring rivalry between two contemporaries.
Early on, Pitt confides to Wilberforce that he is intent on becoming Prime Minister. This is presumably in late 1781 or early 1782 as Lord North is Prime Minister. Pitt exclaims that Fox and North will be forced out and Rockingham will take over however, with Rockingham's declining health, it will soon be Pitt's time to pounce. There are a number of problems with this. For one thing, conflating Fox and North together is anachronistic. They were bitter rivals and Fox was North's chief critic during the American War of Independence. The two later came together in 1783 for the short-lived, Fox-North Coalition which was borne out of opportunism more than any shared allegiance (however that was after the death of the Marquess of Rockingham who is clearly still alive in the scene in this movie).
The second problem with Pitt's plot is it sounds far too much like Pitt is gifted with the hindsight that the 21st Century screenwriter had when writing this script. I don't doubt Pitt's ambition but the events that led to him becoming Prime Minister at just 24 were so unexpected that I think even Pitt would have been surprised by how quickly he came to power. Pitt had only entered parliament in 1781 at which time Lord North's Ministry was declining due to the American War of Independence. Lord North eventually resigned in March 1784 and the Marquess of Rockingham, who had long been in Opposition, became Prime Minister. Rockingham was 52. It is possible that knowledge of his health was widespread, but I doubt he would have been chosen to head the coalition if it was known that he would drop dead three months later. That's when Pitt's star began to shine, but first he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer to the new Prime Minister, the Earl Lord Shelbourne. Shelbourne was distrusted and viewed as a puppet of King George which lead to Ministers who had served in the Rockingham Ministry, among them Fox, to resign and Shelbourne's premiership was undermined. This led to the unholy union between Fox and North who ousted Shelbourne and formed a Ministry under the leadership of a third party in the Duke of Portland. When the Fox-North Coalition was defeated in the House in December 1793, King George offered the Prime Ministership to William Pitt and he accepted. Suffice to say, there is no way this complicated and, in many ways fortuitous events could have been foreseen by Pitt more than a year beforehand. Now here's the kicker. When Pitt became Prime Minister, Fox served as Opposition Leader in the House (Portland in the Lords) and many believed that, if not the for the King's intervention, Fox controlled the House.
Why is all this important in a film that's ostensibly about William Wilberforce and his struggles to abolish slavery? Because if the viewer has any prior knowledge about this period seriously, how are we to take the plight of Wilberforce seriously when he is shown to have the support of both the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader in abolishing the slave trade? We get an idea that the slave trade is a powerful political lobby, but this isn't really explored and Banastre Tarelton (played by Ciaran Hinds) seems to be a pretty weak adversary compared to the two foremost statesmen in the land.
Why not explore the difficulties William Pitt had in holding government? Pitt mentions the French Revolution as a reason why they have to stay united but who were the major influence backroom dealers in the Pitt Ministry that stopped him achieving what we are led to believe he supported? Perhaps Pitt was not as committed to the abolition of slavery as this movie portrays. Perhaps also the rivalry between Pitt and Fox was more toxic while this movie portrays them as being largely cooperative.
Obviously movies have to condense massive periods of time into two hours but this just feels like we are getting a less interesting take than the real story.
Michael Gambon is an accomplished, but he is miscast as Charles James Fox. When I heard that Gambon was in the film, I thought he would be playing Lord North and even thought this until about halfway through the movie when Wilberforce and Pitt enthusiastically exclaim that they have Fox in their corner. Fox was a fascinating character, but he is mischaracterised here. He was righteous and principled, but he was also hopelessly undisciplined, an alcoholic, playboy and a bon vivant. Crucially though, Fox was not past his prime at the time that William Pitt, the Younger became Prime Minister in 1783. Fox, born in 1749, was only 34 (ten years younger than William Pitt who was born in 1759). Yet, in this movie, we have Michael Gambon as Fox and Benedict Cumberbatch as Pitt - aged 66 and 30 respectively at the time of this movie). Cumberbatch is within the ballpark to play Pitt from the ages 23 to 46 as he does in this movie but Gambon, at 66, is actually nine years older than Fox was when he died aged 57. This disparity in the ages also leads to the portrayal of Pitt's ascendancy as a changing of the guard with the older Fox being cast out, instead of as part of an enduring rivalry between two contemporaries.
Early on, Pitt confides to Wilberforce that he is intent on becoming Prime Minister. This is presumably in late 1781 or early 1782 as Lord North is Prime Minister. Pitt exclaims that Fox and North will be forced out and Rockingham will take over however, with Rockingham's declining health, it will soon be Pitt's time to pounce. There are a number of problems with this. For one thing, conflating Fox and North together is anachronistic. They were bitter rivals and Fox was North's chief critic during the American War of Independence. The two later came together in 1783 for the short-lived, Fox-North Coalition which was borne out of opportunism more than any shared allegiance (however that was after the death of the Marquess of Rockingham who is clearly still alive in the scene in this movie).
The second problem with Pitt's plot is it sounds far too much like Pitt is gifted with the hindsight that the 21st Century screenwriter had when writing this script. I don't doubt Pitt's ambition but the events that led to him becoming Prime Minister at just 24 were so unexpected that I think even Pitt would have been surprised by how quickly he came to power. Pitt had only entered parliament in 1781 at which time Lord North's Ministry was declining due to the American War of Independence. Lord North eventually resigned in March 1784 and the Marquess of Rockingham, who had long been in Opposition, became Prime Minister. Rockingham was 52. It is possible that knowledge of his health was widespread, but I doubt he would have been chosen to head the coalition if it was known that he would drop dead three months later. That's when Pitt's star began to shine, but first he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer to the new Prime Minister, the Earl Lord Shelbourne. Shelbourne was distrusted and viewed as a puppet of King George which lead to Ministers who had served in the Rockingham Ministry, among them Fox, to resign and Shelbourne's premiership was undermined. This led to the unholy union between Fox and North who ousted Shelbourne and formed a Ministry under the leadership of a third party in the Duke of Portland. When the Fox-North Coalition was defeated in the House in December 1793, King George offered the Prime Ministership to William Pitt and he accepted. Suffice to say, there is no way this complicated and, in many ways fortuitous events could have been foreseen by Pitt more than a year beforehand. Now here's the kicker. When Pitt became Prime Minister, Fox served as Opposition Leader in the House (Portland in the Lords) and many believed that, if not the for the King's intervention, Fox controlled the House.
Why is all this important in a film that's ostensibly about William Wilberforce and his struggles to abolish slavery? Because if the viewer has any prior knowledge about this period seriously, how are we to take the plight of Wilberforce seriously when he is shown to have the support of both the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader in abolishing the slave trade? We get an idea that the slave trade is a powerful political lobby, but this isn't really explored and Banastre Tarelton (played by Ciaran Hinds) seems to be a pretty weak adversary compared to the two foremost statesmen in the land.
Why not explore the difficulties William Pitt had in holding government? Pitt mentions the French Revolution as a reason why they have to stay united but who were the major influence backroom dealers in the Pitt Ministry that stopped him achieving what we are led to believe he supported? Perhaps Pitt was not as committed to the abolition of slavery as this movie portrays. Perhaps also the rivalry between Pitt and Fox was more toxic while this movie portrays them as being largely cooperative.
Obviously movies have to condense massive periods of time into two hours but this just feels like we are getting a less interesting take than the real story.
This movie is so unbelievably good. Everything about it is brilliant. This should be seen by all. Though I'm not sure I'd recommend it to my parents. Kevin Smith is the kinda guy you either love or hate. In his career he has developed some of the most quotable cult classics. However some people feel that his characters are all the same. That is not entirely incorrect, to many people his characters all seem to be course and over oppinionated. However Kevin Smith provides such balance in most of his films between comedy and drama, between a crude man and a not as crude man that his films actually feel more realistic and close to home than any other comedy. I'm sure everyone can feel somewhat connected to the characters, everyone knows people like these (though maybe not as extreme). It is quite relateable really, the friendship between Holden and Banky, Holden being the intellectual and mostly staying silent or apologizing for his less socially acceptable friend. Admitedly these films are not for everyone, and personally I feel that this film has cruder dialogue than most other Kevin Smith films. Some may feel that the crudeness is unnecessary, however that is Kevin Smith. That I guess is his real talent. To be able to hide a love story behind a crude mess of comical characters that you may not wish to know in real life but sure as hell are entertaining to watch on screen.
This was the first Kevin Smith movie I saw, I first saw it in 2006 on late night TV when I was only 13. I didn't know what to expect, and due to how late it was and my lack of understanding of some of the situations I didn't get as much out of it as I have now. However this was not all negative as it introduced me to Kevin Smith. Of course I wasn't aware of exactly who Kevin Smith was back then, but I became more intrigued as my older brother mentioned films such as Mallrats and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back that I started to realize my familiarity with these characters. About a year later I saw Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, again this was on late night TV. This was a much easier movie to get into and from there I got to know the askew universe far more. From there I felt inspired to rent out Clerks 2, having seen adds for it on TV, I knew it had something to do with the others. I enjoyed it thoroughly and from there I considered myself a minor Kevin Smith fan. Researching him on the internet and discovering all the links to one another each of his films display. Still I was wary as I knew it wasn't all for me having seen how much of Chasing Amy had gone over my head. But by the time I saw the original Clerks I became a true Kevin Smith fan.
Admitedly though I picked up Clerks 2 in a bargain bin and figured that no Kevin Smith film could ever top it. It wasn't until earlier today (technically yesterday as it is past midnight when I'm writing this comment) after having picked up 'Clerks.' at quite a good price that I decided that to really bring more to my current Kevin Smith Collection (Clerks., Clerks 2, Mallrats) I should treat myself and buy Chasing Amy (despite it not exactly being at a bargain price at where I was shopping). I knew that I'd be pleasantly surprised. However I could not anticipate just how much I would love this movie.
All the jokes completely clicked with me. The writing was some of the best I'd ever seen. I really thought the character of Holden was relateable to me (or at least how I wish I was). His dry wit. His sharp jokes. His wide vocabulary. Holden is really a clever guy with a desire to find someone he can connect with. Sure Ben Affleck has made a few bad career choices, but this is by far his finest performance. Jason Lee too delivers a career best. He plays a great contrasting character to Holden. He is a bitter, cynical man who we see is really quite unfulfilled in his life. Having nothing really except his friendship with Holden. And appearing to not even having a career without him. Banky is, a brilliant and surprising character (no spoilers). Like many people have already said, Joey Lauren Adam's steals the show. I myself always found her to be annoying in her other roles (especially her voice). And while her voice is no different, I hate to say it but she inhabits her role so convincingly that it would be a crime for me to not applaud it. In fact right now off the top of my head I cannot remember ever being as wowed as I was by any female actor. If you want proof look at the scene that takes place outside the hockey rink.
This is not just a love story, it is also a story of friendship. It is a relationship triangle (however not in a conventional sense). Each actor contributes heavily to their own respective roles. The film's conclusion is so unforgettable that you must just see if for yourself.
TML O'Hare.
This was the first Kevin Smith movie I saw, I first saw it in 2006 on late night TV when I was only 13. I didn't know what to expect, and due to how late it was and my lack of understanding of some of the situations I didn't get as much out of it as I have now. However this was not all negative as it introduced me to Kevin Smith. Of course I wasn't aware of exactly who Kevin Smith was back then, but I became more intrigued as my older brother mentioned films such as Mallrats and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back that I started to realize my familiarity with these characters. About a year later I saw Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, again this was on late night TV. This was a much easier movie to get into and from there I got to know the askew universe far more. From there I felt inspired to rent out Clerks 2, having seen adds for it on TV, I knew it had something to do with the others. I enjoyed it thoroughly and from there I considered myself a minor Kevin Smith fan. Researching him on the internet and discovering all the links to one another each of his films display. Still I was wary as I knew it wasn't all for me having seen how much of Chasing Amy had gone over my head. But by the time I saw the original Clerks I became a true Kevin Smith fan.
Admitedly though I picked up Clerks 2 in a bargain bin and figured that no Kevin Smith film could ever top it. It wasn't until earlier today (technically yesterday as it is past midnight when I'm writing this comment) after having picked up 'Clerks.' at quite a good price that I decided that to really bring more to my current Kevin Smith Collection (Clerks., Clerks 2, Mallrats) I should treat myself and buy Chasing Amy (despite it not exactly being at a bargain price at where I was shopping). I knew that I'd be pleasantly surprised. However I could not anticipate just how much I would love this movie.
All the jokes completely clicked with me. The writing was some of the best I'd ever seen. I really thought the character of Holden was relateable to me (or at least how I wish I was). His dry wit. His sharp jokes. His wide vocabulary. Holden is really a clever guy with a desire to find someone he can connect with. Sure Ben Affleck has made a few bad career choices, but this is by far his finest performance. Jason Lee too delivers a career best. He plays a great contrasting character to Holden. He is a bitter, cynical man who we see is really quite unfulfilled in his life. Having nothing really except his friendship with Holden. And appearing to not even having a career without him. Banky is, a brilliant and surprising character (no spoilers). Like many people have already said, Joey Lauren Adam's steals the show. I myself always found her to be annoying in her other roles (especially her voice). And while her voice is no different, I hate to say it but she inhabits her role so convincingly that it would be a crime for me to not applaud it. In fact right now off the top of my head I cannot remember ever being as wowed as I was by any female actor. If you want proof look at the scene that takes place outside the hockey rink.
This is not just a love story, it is also a story of friendship. It is a relationship triangle (however not in a conventional sense). Each actor contributes heavily to their own respective roles. The film's conclusion is so unforgettable that you must just see if for yourself.
TML O'Hare.