Film Review: Lay The Favorite (dir by Stephen Frears)

Posted on March 19, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

2012’s Lay the Favorite is a movie about gambling.

Rebecca Hall stars as Beth Raymer, a dancer in Florida who makes her money by giving private shows and lap dances to paying customers. Bored and disillusioned with her life, she follows the advice of her father (Corbin Bernsen) and decides to pursue her lifelong dream of becoming a Las Vegas cocktail waitress.

(Really, that’s your dream? I mean, my mom occasionally worked as a waitress because she was essentially taking care of four girls by herself and she needed the extra money but it was hardly a lifelong dream.)

Vegas is a union town, which means that Beth can’t just walk in and start serving drinks. Instead, she gets a job working with Dink Heimowitz (Bruce Willis), a big-time gambler who hires other people to place bets for him. Dink is surprisingly nice for a professional gambler and it’s not long before Beth finds herself falling for him. Dink’s wife, Tulip (Catherine Zeta-Jones), is not happy about that. Tulip need not worry about Beth eventually ends up falling in love with a journalist named Jeremy (Joshua Jackson) and the two of them quickly become one of the most boring couples that I’ve ever seen in my life. Eventually, Tulip does demand that Dink fire Beth and Beth ends up in New York, working for a decadent gambler named Rosy (Vince Vaughn). Uh-oh — bookmaking’s illegal in New York!

Rebecca Hall is one of those performers who tends to act with a capitol A. There’s not necessarily a bad thing. Hall has given some very strong and very memorable performances, in films like Vicky Christina Barcelona, Please Give, and the heart-breaking Christine. However, when Hall is miscast — as she is in this film — her style of acting can seem overly mannered. Hall plays Beth as being a collection of quirks and twitches and nervous mannerisms and embarrassed facial expressions and the end result is that Beth comes across not as being the endearing ditz that the film wants her to be but instead as just a very annoying and very immature human being. It’s actually perfectly understandable why Tulip would demand that Dink fire her. What’s less understandable is why we should care. Myself, I wanted someone to warn Joshua Jackson because I don’t think he knew what he was getting into.

Lay The Favorite is yet another film that tries to use Las Vegas as a metaphor for American culture. That’s not a bad idea. David Lynch made great use of Vegas in Twin Peaks: The Return. Martin Scorsese did the same with Casino. However, Lay The Favorite was directed by the British Stephen Frears and, as happens so often whenever a European director tries to understand American culture, the entire film leaves you feeling as if you’re on the outside looking in. Lynch and Scorsese, for instance, both understood that Las Vegas represents both the ultimate risk and the ultimate second chance. If you have the courage, you can bet every asset that you have. And if you’re lucky, you might win. If you lose, you know you can still rebuild. Whether it’s grounded in reality or not, it’s a very American idea. Lay The Favorite, on the other hand, can’t see beyond the glitz of the strip and the harsh concrete reality of a nearby apartment complex. It’s portrait of Vegas is as superficial as a tourist’s postcard. Thematically, Lay The Favorite feels as empty and predictable as its double entendre title.

On the plus side, Bruce Willis, Vince Vaughn, and Catherine Zeta-Jones all gave better performances that the film probably deserved. Willis, especially, gives a poignant performance as temperamental, henpecked, and good-natured Dink. Bruce Willis spent so much time as an action star that it was often overlooked that he was a very good character actor. Even in a bad film like this one, Willis came through.

Film Review: The Snapper (dir by Stephen Frears)

Posted on March 17, 2025 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Sharon Curley (Tina Kellegher) is 20 years old, a member of a large, working class Dublin family. Her father is Des Curley (Colm Meaney), plain-spoken, a bit old fashioned, but also someone who sincerely loves his family and works hard to give them the best that he can. Des is someone who brags about the fact that he hasn’t cried in over 20 years. Of course, when he says that, he means that he hasn’t cried sober. Crying drunk, especially while watching the World Cup, doesn’t count.

Speaking of drinking, one night out with her friends leads to Sharon finding herself pregnant. As Sharon is young and unmarried, the identity of the father becomes a subject of gossip in her close-knit neighborhood. At first, Sharon refuses to tell anyone who the father is. Eventually, she confesses that the father was a Spanish sailor who picked her up and gave her the greatest night of passion of her life. Of course, Sharon’s lying. The father is actually a rather unimpressive middle-aged man named George Burgess (Pat Laffan). George picked her up while she was inebriated. He’s the type of person who kept her panties after they had sex but expects to be thanked for not showing them to his friends. George reacts to the prospect of becoming a father by disappearing.

Sharon struggles, with both the gossip and the knowledge that her neighbors, people who she has known her entire life, are judging her for being pregnant and unmarried. Continually, she is asked, “Who are you having the baby for?,” as if she’s doing a favor for the man who knocked her up and then abandoned her. Sharon decides to keep the baby and even has a laugh at the thought of naming it Georgina. Des, at first, has a hard time understanding Sharon’s decision but eventually, he supports his daughter. He even reads all of the pamphlets on pregnancy and giving birth. When a young man at the hospital mentions that he’s waiting on the delivery of his third child, Des offers him a pamphlet on “family planning.”

Made for British television and released theatrically in 1993, The Snapper is based on a book by Roddy Doyle. The book was a sequel to The Commitments but, because 20th Century Fox owned the rights to The Commitments, the family’s name was changed for the film version of The Snapper. The Rabbittes became the Curleys and there’s certainly no mention of the fact that Sharon’s brother once managed a soul band. That said, Colm Meaney reprises his role as the befuddled but loving family patriarch. He and Tina Kellegher give performances in The Snapper that feel authentic and honest. Every laugh, every smile, and even every tear feels earned.

Much as The Commitments did with music, The Snapper uses a domestic drama, the type that has inspired countless glossy films, to examine the realities of being working class in 20th Century Dublin. With the tight-knit community full of judgment and not much support, Sharon learns who she can and cannot depend on but she also learns that’s she’s far stronger than anyone, including herself, knew. The Snapper is a wonderful snapshot of life.

Playing Catch-Up With Four Biopics From 2017: All Eyez On Me, Maudie, A Quiet Passion, and Victoria and Abdul

Posted on January 7, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Continuing with my efforts to get caught up on the major films that I saw in 2017, here are my reviews of four biopics! Two of them are very good. One of them is so-so. And the other one … well, let’s just get to it…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFttQtY_AVM

All Eyez on Me (dir by Benny Boon)

All Eyez On Me is a movie that I think a lot of people had high hopes for. It was a biopic about Tupac Shakur, who died over 20 years ago but remains one of the most influential artists of all time. Starring Demetrius Shipp, Jr. (who, if nothing else, bore a strong physical resemblance to Tupac), All Eyez on Me followed Shakur from his youth as the son of activist Afeni Shakur (Danai Gurira), through his early stardom, his political awakening, his time in prison, his eventual association with Suge Knight (Dominic L. Santana), and his still unsolved murder in Las Vegas. Along the way all of the expected people pop up. Kat Graham plays Jada Pinkett and tells Tupac that he’s wasting his talent. Someone who looks nothing like Dr. Dre is introduced as being Dr. Dre. Another actor wanders through a scene and says his name is Snoop Dogg. The film last 2 hours and 20 minutes, with some scenes feeling oddly rushed while other drag on interminably.

The main reason why All Eyez On Me fails is that, unlike Straight Outta Compton, All Eyez on Me never figures out how translate Tupac’s legacy into cinematic form. For instance, when I watched Straight Outta Compton, I probably knew less about NWA than I knew about Tupac Shakur when I watched All Eyez On Me. But then there was that scene where NWA performed “Fuck That Police” while surrounded by the police and, at that moment, I understood why NWA deserved their own movie. There’s no comparable scene in All Eyez On Me, which gets so bogged down in going through the usual biopic motions that it never really comes to grips with why Tupac is such an iconic figure. Combine that with some less than stellar performances and some amazingly awkward dialogue and the end result is a film that is massively disappointing.

Maudie (dir by Aisling Walsh)

Maudie tells the story of Maud Lewis, a Canadian woman who found fame as a painter despite suffering from crippling arthritis. Working and living in a one-room house with her husband, a fisherman named Everett (Ethan Hawke), Maud Lewis’s paintings of flowers and birds eventually became so popular that one was even purchased by then-Vice President Richard Nixon.

Maudie is a very special movie, largely because of the incredibly moving performance of Sally Hawkins in the role of Maud. As played by Hawkins, Maud may occasionally be meek but she never surrenders her dream to create something beautiful out the often harsh circumstances of her life. Hawkins not only captures Maud’s physical struggles but she also captures (and makes compelling) the inner strength of this remarkable artist. Ethan Hawke also gives a remarkable performance as the gruff Everett. When you Everett first appears, you hate him. But, as the film progresses, Hawke starts to show hints of a sensitive soul that’d hiding underneath all of his gruffnes. In the end, Everett is as saved by Maud’s art as is Maud.

Directed by Aisling Walsh, this is a low-key but all together remarkable and touching film. If Sally Hawkins wasn’t already certain to get an Oscar nomination for Shape of the Water, she would definitely deserve one for Maudie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh-XATkaRl0

A Quiet Passion (dir by Terrence Davies)

You would be totally justified in assuming that this film, a biopic of poet Emily Dickinson, would have absolutely nothing in common with The Last Jedi. However, believe it or not, they actually do have something very much in common. They are both films that, on Rotten Tomatoes, scored high with critics and not so high with audiences. When last I checked, it had a 93% critical score and a 51% audience score.

Well, you know what? Who cares? The idea that you can judge a film’s worth based on an arbitrary number is pure evil, anyway.

Personally, I’m not surprised to hear that audiences struggled with A Quiet Passion. It’s a very challenging film, one that is more concerned with mood than with traditional narrative. The film is much like Dickinson herself: dark, uncompromising, sharply funny, and, on the surface, unconcerned with what people might think. Much as how Dickinson retreated into her Amherst home, the film retreats into Dickinson’s head. It’s not always the most pleasant place to hide out but, at the same time, it’s so alive with creativity and filled with such a sharp wit that it’s tempting never to leave.

In the role of Emily, Cynthia Nixon gave one of the best performance of the year, bringing Emily to uncompromising life. Neither the film not Nixon ever make the mistake of sentimentalizing Dickinson. Her pain is just as real as her genius. Ultimately, though, both Nixon’s performance and A Quiet Passion stands as a tribute to Emily’s own quiet passion.

Much like Emily Dickinson’s poetry, A Quiet Passion will be appreciated with time.

Victoria & Abdul (dir by Stephen Frears)

If there’s ever been a film that deserves to be known as “generic Oscar bait,” it’s Victoria & Abdul.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not a bad movie or anything like that. Instead, it’s a very respectable film about Queen Victoria (Judi Dench) and her servant, Abdul Karim (Ali Fazal), an Indian Muslim. While the rest of the royal court is scandalized by Victoria’s close relationship with the foreigner, Karim teaches the Queen about the Koran and encourages her to enjoy life. The royal court is played by the usual collection of distinguished actors who always appear in movies like this: Simon Callow, Tom Pigott-Smith, and Michael Gambon. Victoria’s heir is played by Eddie Izzard, which should tell you all you need to know about how the future Edward VII is portrayed.

As I said, it’s not a bad movie as much as it’s just not a very interesting one. You know that Abdul and Victoria are going to become close. You know that the Royal Court is going to be a bunch of snobs. You know that Victoria is going to get a chance to express anti-colonial sentiments that she must surely never actually possessed. Indeed, whenever the film tries to make any sort of larger statement, all of the characters suddenly start talking as if they’re from 2017 as opposed to the late 1800s.

This is the second time that Judi Dench has played Victoria. Previously, she played the Queen in a film called Mrs. Brown, which was about Victoria’s friendship with a Scottish servant. Apparently, Victoria got along well with servants.

Embracing the Melodrama Part II #106: The Queen (dir by Stephen Frears)

Posted on June 6, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

It recently occurred to me that, if you were so inclined, you could reconstruct the entire history of the British royal family by watching movies that have been nominated for best picture.

You would start, of course, by watching Becket. Then you’d move on to The Lion In Winter. After The Lion in Winter, you’ll enjoy a double feature of Ivanhoe and The Adventures of Robin Hood. After that, it’s time to watch Henry V. When it comes to Henry VIII, you’ve actually got three films to choose from: The Private Life of Henry VIII, A Man For All Seasons, or Anne of The Thousand Days. I suggest that you go with the Private Life of Henry VIII and then follow it up with a double feature of Elizabeth and Shakespeare in Love. After that, you’ll jump forward in time a bit. You’ll watch The Madness of King George and Mrs. Brown because, even though neither was nominated for best picture, they both feature Oscar-nominated royal performances. Finally, you’ll watch Chariots of Fire and The King’s Speech. And, after all of that, you’ll end things by watching the 2006 Best Picture nominee The Queen.

And what a way to end! The Queen is perhaps the best of the many Oscar-nominated films to be made about British royalty. While the Queen is rightly known for being the film that finally won the great Helen Mirren an Oscar, it’s also a witty and frequently poignant look at how a group of entrenched people are forced to adapt to a changing world. It’s a film that works not just because Helen Mirren gives a good performance in the role of Queen Elizabeth II but also because she humanizes Elizabeth, turning her into a character to whom viewers can relate.

The film opens with the death of Princess Diana in Paris. As the world mourns, the British royal family struggles with how to deal with the tragedy. Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) worries about the well-being of his sons. Prince Philip (James Cromwell) is rather haughtily unconcerned with how the general public feels about Diana or the rest of the royal family. The Queen Mother (Syliva Syms) continues to insist that the Royal Family is just as important as it has always been. Only Queen Elizabeth (Helen Mirren) seems to truly understand that the Royal Family cannot continue to cut itself off from the rest of the world. Even though Elizabeth understands that the world outside of Buckingham Palace has changed, she’s still unsure about what her place in this new world will be.

Of course, not only does Elizabeth have to adjust with the changing values of the British public but she also has to deal with a new prime minister. Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) has been swept into office, pledging that he’s going to “modernize” British society. While the politically savvy Blair is determined to treat Elizabeth with respect, some of his closest advisers do little to disguise the contempt with which they view the royal family. This include Tony’s own wife, Cherie (Helen McCrory).

And so, while self-styled reformer Blair finds himself in the strange position of defending tradition, Elizabeth tries to figure whether those traditions still matter in changing times.

The Queen is a film that demands an intelligent audience, one that is capable of enjoying a film based solely on the basis of good acting and intelligent dialogue. The Queen‘s triumph is that it humanizes an iconic figure and reminds us that even the biggest events are both historical and personal. I have no idea whether the real Elizabeth is anything like the character played by Helen Mirren but I certainly hope she is.

Embracing the Melodrama #37: Dangerous Liaisons (dir by Stephen Frears)

Posted on July 8, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

When watching a film like the 1988 best picture nominee Dangerous Liaisons, it helps to know something about history. The film takes place in 18th century France and, even though it’s never specifically stated in the film, I watched it very much aware that the story was taking place just a few years before the French Revolution. Even the aristocratic libertines who survive until the end of the film are probably destined to end up losing their lives at the guillotine. Even though you don’t see anyone losing their head during Dangerous Liaisons (nor do you hear anyone say, “Let them eat cake.”), the film offers up such an atmosphere of decadence and manipulation that it leaves the viewer with little doubt as to why the people occasionally feel the need to rise up and destroy their social betters.

Dangerous Liaisons tells the story of the Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich) and the Marquise de Mertuil (Glenn Close), two amoral members of the aristocracy who deal with their boredom by playing games with the emotions of others. Valmont is a notorious womanizer while Mertuil is obsessed with “dominating” the male sex and “avenging my own.” At the start of the film, Mertuil has discovered that a former lover is planning on marrying the innocent Cecile (18 year-old Uma Thurman, stealing every scene that she appears in), who has basically spent her entire life in a convent. Mertuil asks Valmont to seduce and take Cecile’s virginity before the wedding. At first, Valmont says that Cecile is to easy of a challenge and declines. Instead, Valmont has decided that he wants to seduce Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Phieffer), a married woman who is renowned for both her strong religious feelings and her virtuous character. Mertuil agrees that she will sleep with Valmont if he can provide her with written proof that he’s managed to seduce Tourvel.

Tourvel is staying with Valmont’s aunt (Mildred Natwick), which gives Valmont — with the help of his servant, Azolan (Peter Capaldi) — several chances to try to trick Tourvel into believing that he’s a better man than everyone assumes him to be. (With Azolan’s help, Valmont finds a poor family and donates money to them. Of course, he makes sure that word of this gets back to Tourvel.) However, Valmont then discovers that Cecile’s mother (Swoosie Kurtz) has been writing letters to Tourvel, warning her about Valmont’s lack of character. To get revenge, Valmont agrees to seduce Cecile.

Dangerous Liaisons, which is based on a play that was based on a novel, is sumptuous costume drama. If you’re like me and you love seeing how the rich and famous lived in past centuries, you’ll find a lot to enjoy in Dangerous Liaisons. With the elaborate costumes and the ornate sets, the film is a real visual feast.

The film is also a feast for those of us who enjoy good acting as well. With the exception of a very young Keanu Reeves (who is oddly miscast as the poor music teacher who falls in love with Cecile), the entire film is perfectly cast, right down to the most minor of characters. (I particularly enjoyed listening to Peter Capaldi, even if his Scottish accent occasionally did seem rather out-of-place in a film about the pre-Revolution France.) For me, the biggest shock was John Malkovich. Don’t get me wrong — I’ve always felt that Malkovich was a good character actor but he’s never been someone that I would think of as being sexy. However, he gives close to a perfect performance as Valmont and, oddly enough, the fact that he’s not really conventionally handsome only serves to make Valmont all the more seductive. Purring out his cynical dialogue and openly leering at every single woman in Paris, Malkovich turns Valmont into a familiar but all too appealing devil.

Dangerous Liaisons was later remade as Cruel Intentions, which is a film that I’ll be taking a look at very soon.