Two men kidnap a girl. That’s pretty much all I can say about The Disappearance of Alice Creed without giving away the various twists. What I found interesting about this film was that the three main characters are the only people in the whole movie. Also, almost the entire story takes place within 2 rooms in an apartment, and everything develops from the dialogue and interaction between the characters and the performances, which were great. In that sense, it’s kind of like a play. On the other hand, it’s shot with some stylish cinematography, which gives it sufficient “movie-ness” that you might not even notice how small the scope is. (Some people in the audience actually chuckled when the credits rolled and they realized that there were only 3 people in it.)
Excellent acting, great script, great style, and some very cool and unexpected twists. My favourite of the festival so far.
I attended a press & industry screening1 of this documentary about Daniel Ellsberg, a government official who, during the Vietnam War, leaked some top secret Pentagon documents (the “Pentagon Papers”) that proved that the war was based on government lies. Americans probably know the history of the event, but ignorant Canadian that I am, I was not familiar with it. So on one level, I enjoyed the movie as a history lesson. But what really drove the film for me was Ellsberg’s personality. (He narrates the film and is seen throughout in the typical talking head interviews.) When he speaks, you can tell that he’s absolutely committed to doing the right thing. More than that, he followed his words with actions—actions that put his own freedom at risk. I have great respect for this, and I think that he is a true hero.
On the negative side, I thought they overdid the portrayal of Nixon as a bad, bad man. The repeated use of sound clips of Nixon saying vulgar and awful things almost came off as unintentionally funny because it was so on the nose. (E.g. someone in an interview would say something like, “Surely, the government would not do XYZ.” Then it would cut to a tape of Nixon saying “By God, we better goddamn do XYZ to those sons of bitches.“) I would have preferred a little more subtlety. Minor criticisms aside, this was a very fascinating doc.
3.5 out of 5
Footnotes
My volunteer reward vouchers give access to these insider screenings that are not available to the public—a very nice perk. As an aside, P&I screenings are a completely different experience compared to public screenings. Everybody is there to work, not necessarily to “enjoy” the film, so it’s totally lacking in energy. For example, Suck was also a press screening, and I heard maybe two people laughing. I’m sure that there would have been a much bigger reaction at a public show. ↩
I was catching up on some Ebert & Roeper shows via their podcast… A couple weeks ago, they reviewed Into the Blue. Richard Roeper gave it a thumbs down for all the expected reasons: ridiculous plot, mindless action scenes, etc. Ebert, on the other hand, gave it a thumbs up, to Roeper’s astonishment. He began his justification of his recommendation thusly (I’m paraphrasing here):
“Jessica Alba is a pretty girl. She’s pretty in this movie. So that’s a thumbs up.”
Can’t argue with that, Roger Ebert. Of course, he tried to give other reasons for liking the movie, but it was altogether unconvincing. I propose that Ebert & Roeper introduce a “thumb down, penis up” rating for just this purpose.
About Me
Hi! Albert here. Canadian. Chinese.
Writing software since 2001. “Blogging” since 2004. Reading since forever.
You can find me on socials with the links below, or contact me here.
