Michael-Winterbottom Movie Reviews

I want to echo other reviewers and say that "Cracker" is arguably the best mystery series ever produced. It is a crime that the entire series is not available on DVD (and yet "Father Ted" is? The mind BOGGLES!!).

If there ever was a show that combined drama, wit, off-color humor, and powerful performances, "Cracker" would have to be it. This is (after "Blackadder II") easily my second favorite television program, and "To Be A Somebody" is without question the best episode of it.

The plot? Albie Kinsella (Robert Carlyle) is upset over the death of his father. He shaves his head and begins a homicidal rampage, in which he intends to avenge the victims of the very real Hillsborough soccer disaster of '89 (of which series creator McGovern was a witness). He kills a Pakistani store clerk (Badi Uzzaman), the criminologist (Glyn Grain) in charge of the investigation of the former murder, and D.C.I. David Billborough (Christopher Eccleston). At the end he is captured, and goes one on one with Fitz.

Robbie Coltrane's Fitz is arguably the best TV character ever dreamed up; a drinker, smoker, womanizer, and compulsive gambler, he is nonetheless a brilliant psychologist who is frequently called by the police to help in investigations. As if he weren't having enough personal problems of his own; his wife, Judith (the superb Barbara Flynn), is embittered and angered by Fitz's actions and continually threatens to leave him. Coltrane combines cool wit, a superb voice-acting talent, and simple genius to deal with the criminals. Coltrane - easily my favorite actor - handles the role impossibly well.

Carlyle, as Albie, creates a killer that is somewhat sympathetic - he is attempting to avenge the deaths of his friends and follow football fans, and provide some sort of income for his wife (Tracy Gillman) and child. He is quite obviously a deranged maniac, a football hooligan (he continues to chant "L-I-V-E-R-P-Double-O L Liverpool MC" throughout the episode), and he gains an increasing confidence in himself as he goes (he is snivelling and crying after he kills the shop keeper, but he doesn't blink an eye concerning his other two killings), until the final climactic episode - he is attempting to kill a freelance journalist for some reason, and makes a bomb - but he is apprehended at soccer match by the seemingly deranged DS Beck (Lorcan Cranitch), who is even more over the edge after the murder of Billboroug, and beaten to the edge of the death. Carlyle's performance is near-perfect - and his final confrontation with Fitz is one of the best scenes of television ever filmed.

The ending I won't give away, but let me just say this much: You won't expect it, and it's certainly not a happy one.

Although produced for the English television studio Granada, Cracker features the talents of some of the best Celtic talent currently gracing the screen. Much of the success of the Cracker series is squarely attributable to the screen presence of the extraordinary Robbie Coltrane. Since his debut to international audiences in the Bob Hoskins vehicle MONA LISA, Coltrane has evolved from a serio-comic actor to one of Britain's most charismatic leading men. In general the success of the series is due to his consummate abilities as an actor. In TO BE A SOMEBODY he is partnered with a fellow Scottish compatriot, Robert Carlyle who is most familiar to audiences as the demented BEGSBY in the smash hit TRAINSPOTTING. For once Coltrane has to take a back seat. This is without a doubt Robert Carlyle's show. There are few better examples of the craft of acting as Mr. Carlyle exhibits here, a veritable clinic. Christopher Eccleston who made his feature screen debut in LET HIM HAVE IT is also a stand out. But the real unsung star is the screenwriter Jimmy McGovern whose capacity for wit is amazing. In the short span of this series he manages to create scenarios and diologue which are intelligent, thought provoking and more than just a little amusing. Even characters who are merely bit players are fleshed out and instilled with real character. One never gets the impression that a character is merely a walk on and that is the true sign of a great craftsman. It must be said that I have always been bothered by one scene in this film. It is the murder of the Asian shopkeeper. Having seen the American film FALLING DOWN (about a white collar worker who goes on a killing spree) I noticed a very great similarity between the two. Each character begins his murderous rampage by getting into an altercation with an asian shopkeeper over the exorbitant prices charged in his shop. Both sceens play the same and curiously both films were released in the same year. Check it out for yourself.

I first came across Cracker on British tv a long time ago and i,ve been gripped from the start. Along with the equally brilliant Prime Suspect, Cracker is one of the best Television programmes on British Television. The acting is superb and the story lines grip from the start.

In this Cracker mystery, Robbie Coltrane appears as Fitz, a pychologist and the lead character. It appears to be the first of the series and is one of the best. All of the actors were well cast in their roles. This series is full of depth and can easily withstand repeated viewing. This particular episode presents the viewer with all the admirable and other facets of the main characters. A British series, Cracker didn't make the transition to the USA as another actor played the role of Fitz. This was intricately plotted and well acted - a pleasure to view.

The Cracker series and this movie in particular have what many movies today lack: excellent dialogue. This movie does not rely on big budget special effects or artful cinematography to distract the viewer from sub-par writing. This is the second movie in the Cracker series and continues to develop story lines involving the personal lives of Fitz and the police detectives he works with. Far from causing distraction from the central story of this episode (a pair of lovers whose alienation draw them together and precipitates ever escalating acts of violence) the personal story lines of Fitz and the detectives he works with add to the human drama and realism of the story. The best scenes in the movie involve Fitz's psychological insight and biting sarcasm. The movie does not romanticize the young killers or the police who are trying to catch them. It dramatically portrays the consequences of violence in a way American films rarely do, while subtely mocking society's fascination and celebration of murderers. If you are tired of "psychological" thrillers without a brain, this movie is the cure for what ails you.

Enjoyed the film immensely. Robbie Coltrane, Christopher Eccleston are at their best. The character of Sean was almost unwatchable in his craziness. Especially liked the interrogation scenes with Fitz and Tina.

I bought this obviously looking deeper into the filmography of The Mummy's Rachel Wiesz and was a little shocked when I found this one. First of all, I am not sure how this one got an R rating with all the male and female genitalia floating around (including 2 particularly explicit scenes). I've seen Unrated and NC-17 films with less nudity and sex than this one. I think the ratings board were sleeping when this passed through with an R.

It's a decent film to watch, but I didn't like the very darkly lit shots that were prevelant in this film. The young mute boy does a very good job and his relationship with Wiesz keeps the film interesting. Wiesz's character is quite unpredictable, where she refuses to have sex with her boyfriend of 6-months, but quickly sleeps with her ex after not seeing him for 9 years. I felt at times that she was a little too much like the mute boy, in that she needed to say more or at least we needed to delve more into her character to understand more about her. We didn't get to see more though, and she speaks very little in this film.

Overall a decent way to spend 87 minutes, but one viewing is enough. And be aware of the explicit nudity, both male and female.

This may be an entirely fanboy attitude, but I WANT YOU is by no stretch of the imagination a great film by any measure. It doesn't boast one tremendous storyline you'll not soon forget once the ending is near. It doesn't bluster with great social significance. It doesn't offer a moral statement by which the world can be a better place.

Simply put, I WANT YOU is a character piece that revolves entirely around the incredible Rachel Weisz. Modesty aside, she's a beautiful woman, and the sexually explicit scenes played out here are not only tastefully well-done but appear to be closer to "real sex" than "cinema sex." It's the subtle nuances that Weisz brings to her character -- yes, in even the non-sex scenes -- that shows her true talent and gift with the camera.

Frankly, I'm amazed that she isn't getting more artistic work, based on the grace she shows in I WANT YOU.

Find Rachel Weisz, and ........congradulate her on her A+ performance in I Want You. Not a good movie for younger kids though. It is very sexually oriented. The plot is simple really, but there are a lot of skeletons in the closet in this movie. I think the characters are very easy to get interested. I like how the characters move through only one set though. I give it a four thumbs way way up!

I bought this obviously looking deeper into the filmography of The Mummy's Rachel Wiesz and was a little shocked when I found this one. First of all, I am not sure how this one got an R rating with all the male and female genitalia floating around (including 2 particularly explicit scenes). I've seen Unrated and NC-17 films with less nudity and sex than this one. I think the ratings board were sleeping when this passed through with an R.

It's a decent film to watch, but I didn't like the very darkly lit shots that were prevelant in this film. The young mute boy does a very good job and his relationship with Wiesz keeps the film interesting. Wiesz's character is quite unpredictable, where she refuses to have sex with her boyfriend of 6-months, but quickly sleeps with her ex after not seeing him for 9 years. I felt at times that she was a little too much like the mute boy, in that she needed to say more or at least we needed to delve more into her character to understand more about her. We didn't get to see more though, and she speaks very little in this film.

Overall a decent way to spend 87 minutes, but one viewing is enough. And be aware of the explicit nudity, both male and female.

This may be an entirely fanboy attitude, but I WANT YOU is by no stretch of the imagination a great film by any measure. It doesn't boast one tremendous storyline you'll not soon forget once the ending is near. It doesn't bluster with great social significance. It doesn't offer a moral statement by which the world can be a better place.

Simply put, I WANT YOU is a character piece that revolves entirely around the incredible Rachel Weisz. Modesty aside, she's a beautiful woman, and the sexually explicit scenes played out here are not only tastefully well-done but appear to be closer to "real sex" than "cinema sex." It's the subtle nuances that Weisz brings to her character -- yes, in even the non-sex scenes -- that shows her true talent and gift with the camera.

Frankly, I'm amazed that she isn't getting more artistic work, based on the grace she shows in I WANT YOU.

Find Rachel Weisz, and ........congradulate her on her A+ performance in I Want You. Not a good movie for younger kids though. It is very sexually oriented. The plot is simple really, but there are a lot of skeletons in the closet in this movie. I think the characters are very easy to get interested. I like how the characters move through only one set though. I give it a four thumbs way way up!

Just because you have a camera and a credit card does not mean that you're a trendy independent filmmaker. There are those that gush over these little low budget films - instant 5 star review because it was made without studio backing. There are indie films that are amazing - Reservoir Dogs, Donnie Darko, etc. that worthy of praise. However, Wonderland is pure boredom coupled with that grainy look and a shaky hand-held camera - it looks cheap, the acting is poor and the story goes nowhere and stays there.

At the beginning , Wonderland doesn't seem to have the right elements in order to fascinate the viewer . It's characters are ordinary , unappealing people : a woman who is so bitter about everything that led her own son away from home , a t.v-salesman who has isolated himself from all the people which surround him that even his own mother can't help but confessing that " ... It feels like i have a stranger in my own house " , a divorced hairdresser with a teenage boy and an imature ex-husband she has to put up with . All of them are inperfect , all of them have insecurities and all of them face various kinds of troubles everyday . As minutes go by though something strange happends . Remember those unappealing people we were talking about ? Well , slowly as we get to know them we start to like them . They all feel so familiar to us , they could easily be our next door neighbours . Winterbottom studies his heroes very carefully and manages to capture the feeling of the daily mess we all have faced before . His movie is set in Southern London , a place he presents like it's some kind of a secret garden with lost souls in it trying to find their peace of mind . What makes Wonderland work so well is also the fact that it's being carried by an unfamiliar to most of us yet highly talented group of actors . Some of them had small parts in relatively more known pictures ( N.Hill , Shooting Fish ) , most of them we meet for the first time . Finally the music is absolutely brilliant , especially those wonderfull pianno parts that it's almost impossible to the viewer to imagine Wonderland withought this particular soundtrack .

I avoid the "grade inflation" so prevalent at this site. There are few movies I rate "5", but this one certainly deserves it. It has the feel of Magnolia, but with more subtlety. Wonderland depicts modern urban alienation, but with tremendous human compassion and artfullness instead of cold philosophy or polemics. The directing and photography are both top-notch. The occasional visual gimmick works because it is employed only where appropriate. Unlike Magnolia, the several characters intermix throughout the movie. Our understanding of the them is established with impressive economy. The only criticisms I have are the several instances of indistinct dialogue (I'm thankful for subtitles) and the lack of extras on the DVD.

Just because you have a camera and a credit card does not mean that you're a trendy independent filmmaker. There are those that gush over these little low budget films - instant 5 star review because it was made without studio backing. There are indie films that are amazing - Reservoir Dogs, Donnie Darko, etc. that worthy of praise. However, Wonderland is pure boredom coupled with that grainy look and a shaky hand-held camera - it looks cheap, the acting is poor and the story goes nowhere and stays there.

At the beginning , Wonderland doesn't seem to have the right elements in order to fascinate the viewer . It's characters are ordinary , unappealing people : a woman who is so bitter about everything that led her own son away from home , a t.v-salesman who has isolated himself from all the people which surround him that even his own mother can't help but confessing that " ... It feels like i have a stranger in my own house " , a divorced hairdresser with a teenage boy and an imature ex-husband she has to put up with . All of them are inperfect , all of them have insecurities and all of them face various kinds of troubles everyday . As minutes go by though something strange happends . Remember those unappealing people we were talking about ? Well , slowly as we get to know them we start to like them . They all feel so familiar to us , they could easily be our next door neighbours . Winterbottom studies his heroes very carefully and manages to capture the feeling of the daily mess we all have faced before . His movie is set in Southern London , a place he presents like it's some kind of a secret garden with lost souls in it trying to find their peace of mind . What makes Wonderland work so well is also the fact that it's being carried by an unfamiliar to most of us yet highly talented group of actors . Some of them had small parts in relatively more known pictures ( N.Hill , Shooting Fish ) , most of them we meet for the first time . Finally the music is absolutely brilliant , especially those wonderfull pianno parts that it's almost impossible to the viewer to imagine Wonderland withought this particular soundtrack .

I avoid the "grade inflation" so prevalent at this site. There are few movies I rate "5", but this one certainly deserves it. It has the feel of Magnolia, but with more subtlety. Wonderland depicts modern urban alienation, but with tremendous human compassion and artfullness instead of cold philosophy or polemics. The directing and photography are both top-notch. The occasional visual gimmick works because it is employed only where appropriate. Unlike Magnolia, the several characters intermix throughout the movie. Our understanding of the them is established with impressive economy. The only criticisms I have are the several instances of indistinct dialogue (I'm thankful for subtitles) and the lack of extras on the DVD.

Those familiar with the bittersweet, obsessive, compulsive aspect of Thomas Hardy's so-called romantic novels will instantly know that this film is not apt to leave one with a warm fuzzy feeling by the last reel. Certainly it is not recommended that one read the novel, Jude the Obscure, before viewing. How many films have failed to live up to the expectations of the literary adaptation? Why would this be any different? Jude is a man of humble birth who strives to rise above his allotment in life. Rather than approaching the subject as a modern fairy tale where dreams do come true, the standard treatment in cinema, there is a grim realism which reflects the destructive nature of impractical and unnatural compulsions. Jude attempts to fly in the face of social convention in a headlong flight of self-destruction which at times has the horrific fascination of a slow motion train wreck, one is disturbed by the sight but unable to turn away. I knew nothing of this film save that the title characters were played by the extremely talented pair, Kate Winslet and Christopher Eccleston. That was sufficient enticement for me and as always I was not disappointed by the performances. Despite the current trend to degrade the "Masterpiece Theatre" production style actors and directors of immense talent breath life into even the dullest works. Dull this film isn't but grim it certainly is. Only a brave director would tackle this kind of project. How much easier it would have been to soften the hard edge to make the viewing more palatable. There is much to be gleaned from witnessing in all its ugliness the past stigmatization of relationships we now accept as commonplace. If one comes away from this film with nothing more than an inkling of gratitude or awe for the sacrifice of those who attempted to effect social change then this film is worth the viewing.

This is has got to be the most depressing movie I've ever watched. I own a copy of the movie, and I have viewed it at least five times since purchasing it. My husband refuses to ever watch it, and there is no way I'd let my young children watch it. Honestly, I thought about getting rid of the movie, but I couldn't. So now, it sits in the back of our entertainment armoire. I can't even recommend it or loan it to friends as they will think I am off my rocker for watching such a depressing movie more than once.

But obviously, I can't part with it, and I have seen it more than once. So there is something magnetic about it. I think Eccleston and Winslet give great performances. . . Some say Winslet is better in her part, but perhaps it is the role of Sue that is supposed to sparkle next to the dull existence of Jude? Sue is the bit of brightness, and Jude is lured to her because of that sparkle. . . He is supposed to be stable and dull in contrast to her ever-changing whims of passion. I would not say that Winslet is the only bright spot in the way of acting in this movie. Eccleston does a stellar job (not over-doing and not under-doing, a balance, I'd say), and it's somewhat sad that he seems to be typecast into "evil" guy roles because he doesn't look like your run of the mill Tom Cruise or the next "hot" Hollywood guy.

The mood is as hopeless and dreary as Hardy's original novel thanks to cinematography and the musical score. . . Was Hardy really so down on women and life as it is?

I'm not sure it's a good thing or a bad thing, but this movie leaves me feeling unsettled in a dreary sort of way.

This is not a lighthearted movie, and it makes 'Titanic' look like a comedy. So if you're out to get this to see Kate Winslet in the buff in it, you are going to be very disappointed with seeing her giving birth with a "prosthetic" birth canal and all. This is not for the faint of heart or those just in search of a "love story". It's very graphic. . . children hanging, hogs butchered, hearts broken, baby's being born. . .

In this 1996 adaptation of Thomas Hardy's novel, Jude the Obscure, a sad, archetypal story plays itself out across the rainy English landscape, helped along by brilliant acting and directing alike.

Though the film is admittedly incredibly bleak, and the ending sad beyond words, it is all-told a brilliant, classic film.

After a short opening sequence introducing us to the young Jude, the viewer is quickly drawn into the parameters of Jude's adult world. Almost at once, we begin to feel his pain, his longing, his hope, and his persistence. We understand well what is driving him in his journey through life. This is a novel brought to life, a story in motion.

As a die-hard fan of Kate Winslet, I have to say that this film one of my Winslet favorites. In my view, 1997's blockbuster Titanic was not only a success as a box office triumph or well-loved film in its own right, but also because it opened the world's eyes to the talent of this young British actress, whose consistently fine performances and willingness to break through barriers as an actress have brought the world great joy on the silver screen, and will surely continue to do so well into the new millenium. In Jude, Winslet is charismatic and beautiful (as usual), and plays Sue Brideheard to a tee. Introduced to her in a small, well-loved photograph, we soon come to understand what Jude sees in her. Her beauty, her intelligence, her promise of a better life. Her laughter still echoes in my head, like the flashbacks in the film. She is youth, she is carefree, she is unattainable, she is a vision, a memory, love.

Eccleston is perfect for the role of the ever-yearning Jude, his face a landscape of green hills, rain, cobblestone streets and stone carvings, and green hills yet again. There are shadows in his eyes, in his face. The depth of his feelings is well-conveyed. His tall frame is so strong and able in one way, so thin and aching in another. We walk with him, cry with him, and love him as we must love ourselves when fate comes crashing down upon us.

P.S. This was my introduction to British actress Rachel Griffiths, who went on to star in Hilary and Jackie, and is currently starring in Me, Myself, and I. Although her role is smaller than Eccleston's and Winslet's, and her character perhaps less likable, she also does a fine job.

I've read some bad reviews on here, but I enjoyed this film. I'm certain that if you're even the least bit interested in where the rave scene started, you will enjoy this film. It starts out in the late 70's with the inception of Factory Records and goes through the entire rise and then subsequent fall of the company. With music from such bands as the Happy Mondays, Joy Division, New Order and even the Sex Pistols...all who were at least once released under the Facotry Records label. Along the way are some great moments in music history that I'm sure many are totally unaware of, and perhaps many don't care to know of. Regardless of that though this is an entertaining film. The DVD looka great, and actually has a commentary track from the real Tony Wilson, the man behind it all.

To call this movie a "docudrama" is probably giving too much credit to its factual accuracy. In the DVD Special Features there's an audio commentary from "The Real" Tony Wilson, which reveals that this movie is only loosely based on real events and he seems at times to be quite irked at the account of events and Steve Coogan's portrayal of him. And whilst Factory Records and the Hacienda undoubtedly played a huge part in British music and club culture, to refer to it as the "birthplace of rave" is clearly incorrect. For the uninformed fan of the Northern rave/indie/Madchester (call it what you will) scene, this movie is best enjoyed as a comedy, not a historically reliable document.

However, the recreation of the Hacienda itself is simply stunning - its visual accuracy is utterly flawless. When I was watching for the first time I had to check on the DVD cover to see if it was really filmed in 2002, because I couldn't believe it wasn't the real thing. I for one am pleased that the film didn't accurately reflect the last couple of years at the Hac, when gang infiltration made the place seedy and at times frightening. I prefer to remember it in the way it is depicted in the penultimate scene of the movie, the fictional 'last night at the Hacienda'. For anyone who spent nights and early mornings on that dancefloor, this scene makes this a must-own DVD. It will bring back happy memories and a strange feeling in the pit of your stomach of yearning for something that you once had that you know you'll never quite get back. It's not real, but in a way it's better than real.

I rented and then bought this movie because I am a Joy Division and early punk fan, but I ended up learning a lot about the Manchester rave scene.
Tony Wilson's commentary is a great thing to listen to, if only for his clarification of the film's myths. Steve Coogan is great as Tony Wilson, as is Sean Harris as Ian Curtis. He doesn't look a thing like Ian, so don't be deceived if you've never seen a picture of the real man. But the 'dancing' is good, and he's great during the silences of the film, very captivating. The suicide scene makes me very, very sad, so I can only imagine what it did to the real Tony Wilson, or the members of New Order.
About the Happy Mondays section. Though there are plenty of myths they could have chosen from, most of the ones used in this movie are fictional. But they portray Bez and Shaun Ryder in a very funny way.
This movie is both extremely funny and depressing. If you're a music fan, it's good to own. I could watch it very many times.