Philomena

The search for a lost son and a deep human story in a film that does not try very hard to be anything more than a deep human story itself. But if a drama is supposed to be pleasant and moving, then let it be pleasant and moving in the same subtle way as Philomena. The screenwriting duo did not succumb to the temptation to reduce an ambiguous story to emotional porn. Despite prioritising emotions over broader socio-cultural contexts, they offer more than a handful of clearly comprehensible truths, turning Philomena into a passive victim and the Church into an diabolical institution. Besides the nuanced fictionalisation of actual people, the film greatly benefits from its sense of humour. With precisely measured portions of humour, the dialogue protects the narrative from academic dullness and significantly lightens up the fatally artsy combination of religion, politics and homosexuality. Thanks to the actors, we can – similarly as in the recent Rush – sympathise with both of the characters simultaneously, even though their natures and worldviews are completely different. Whereas Frears takes care of the smooth transitions between investigative and intimate drama, we are responsible for switching between the sentimental (Philomena) and cynical (Sixsmith) framing of the story (the points of view of the two self-styled detectives align in the end, as expected). Philomena openly appeals for the favour of viewers, but in the context of heart-warming films for all ages, it retains its dignity in spite of its populism, which is an increasingly rare feat. 75% (06.03.2014)

I think that if I didn’t like the British and their dry humor, I would hardly have given this movie a three-star rating. But I did like the fact that it was set in Ireland. I also liked how global the setting of the movie was, as it also takes place in the USA. I was also happy to see Judi Dench, whom on the one hand I could understand, but on the other hand not at all. But I was still able to respect her despite everything that was happening in the movie. And that made the ending of the film a lot more palatable. And the magical atmosphere helps as well, supported as it was by the soundtrack. Without it, this movie would be only a half of what it is. (28.02.2014)

It's exactly what it looks like, and if the clichéd contrast between the rational burnt-out journalist and the plain good-natured elderly lady appeals to you from the audience perspective, you'll get your rocks off just the way you like it, maybe even burn some of that laundry with the iron, forget to feed the cat, overcook dinner. The principle of reconciliation and forgiveness that is constantly pushed is the film's only emotional asset as such, but it will only work on those who like to wallow in reconciliation and forgiveness. While it has the potential of confronting a lady whose values are rather old-fashioned with many situations that affect her personally but whose tolerance is mostly a contemporary person's asset (homosexuality, AIDS, immigrants), unfortunately it's the good-natured conciliatory nature of the central character that once again makes it all a funny fable that unfortunately pulls its biggest ace out of its sleeve when the nearly 80-year-old Judi Dench says "clitoris" out loud. I'm adding a star for bringing the beautiful Irish epithet "fecking eejit" to my ears again after about 10 years. (18.06.2014)

A non-violent moral nudge that requires seriousness and a certain amount of audience empathy, but in a dry British delivery that sounds at least as charming and positive as if Richard Curtis had directed and Bill Nighy had played the leading role. Steve Coogan is excellent in his role as a journalist at the crossroads between pragmatic work and personal life, while Judi Dench dispenses joy not only with her beautiful performance, but also with the cheerful aura and witty detachment her character exudes. Add to that an emotionally varied plot, a pleasant soundtrack and the experienced direction of a successful English veteran and the result is a very successful film that is not at all a disgrace on this year's Oscar list (which is far from usual). 75% (01.03.2014)

It is said that the first five minutes of a film determine how much you will like it. True, there are exceptions, so I gave Philomena a generous chance and made an effort to keep my attention until three-quarters through the runtime. My efforts were in vain. From the first minute until the infamous end, the story and the film itself were completely irrelevant to me. The emotional moments, acting performances, or really anything else didn't bother me, but I simply didn't connect with the film and it went over my head. Sometimes that happens. Sorry, Judi, but I won't be giving it an overall impression of more than 40%. (16.03.2020)