Movie Reviews
‘Joy’ Review: Thomasin McKenzie, James Norton and Bill Nighy Lift Netflix’s Pedestrian Drama About IVF-Pioneering Brits
It’s hard to build dramatic momentum out of scientists hunched over microscopes peering at petri dishes. Indeed, director Ben Taylor struggles to clear that hurdle in his conventional but watchable enough account of the development of what became known as in vitro fertilization. While it’s more compelling as human drama than science, the film benefits from timeliness, given right-wing efforts to curb women’s reproductive freedoms and recent moves by Senate Republicans to block a bill protecting the right to IVF. That factor, plus the very capable cast, should help Joy find an audience on Netflix, though anti-choice extremists won’t be among them.
If the production looks and sounds like a movie but plays more like dated television, the fault lies mainly with Jack Thorne’s by-the-numbers script. The writer takes Brit historical dramas like The Imitation Game as his model to map a breakthrough in 20th century medical science that gave hope to countless women unable to conceive a child. But the stodgy familiarity of the inspirational, based-on-a-true-story template gives Joy a halting rhythm that echoes the stop-start progress of the fertility treatment pioneers.
Joy
The Bottom Line Test-tube baby story is fine for tube viewing.
Venue: BFI London Film Festival (Galas)
Release date: Friday, Nov. 22 (Netflix)
Cast: Thomasin McKenzie, James Norton, Bill Nighy, Joanna Scanlan, Tanya Moodie, Rish Shah, Charlie Murphy, Ella Bruccoleri, Dougie McMeekin
Director: Ben Taylor
Screenwriter: Jack Thorne
Rated PG-13,
1 hour 53 minutes
That team is formed when Jean Purdy (Thomasin McKenzie), a nurse and future embryologist, is hired as a lab manager in the Department of Physiology at Cambridge, working under Robert Edwards (James Norton). After making initial headway with the study of human fertilization in the late ‘60s, they take their findings to obstetrician and gynecologist Patrick Steptoe (Bill Nighy), at that time considered something of a pariah by the British medical establishment for his championing of laparoscopy.
Patrick is crotchety and dismissive of their overtures at first, but Bob and Jean talk him around with their passionate belief in the project and intriguing early research. They agree to set up operations in a disused wing of Oldham General Hospital, a four-hour drive from Cambridge. Patrick warns them they will have the Church, the state and the whole world against them. “But we’ll have the mothers,” counters Bob.
As work on the project inches forward, the three dissimilar personalities — along with Muriel (Tanya Moodie), the brisk, no-nonsense senior nurse who insists on being addressed by her job title of Matron — gradually build a harmonious professional relationship.
But the focus tightens on Jean as the central figure. A churchgoing Christian cut off by her loving mother Gladys (Joanna Scanlan) when she refuses to abandon the controversial work, Jean is revealed to have a personal investment in women’s fertility issues. This becomes especially relevant for her when her unintended romance with Cambridge lab colleague Arun (Rish Shah) gets serious and he proposes, making it clear he’s eager to start a family.
One of the more enjoyable parts of the movie is Jean’s rapport with the disparate group of women signing up for the experiment, who forge a sense of community during their hospital visits. Jean’s manner of dealing with them as she administers regular hormone injections is detached and clinical at first — much like her earlier consent to have sex with Arun, on the condition that he form no attachment.
When a member of the Ovum Club, as they’ve dubbed themselves, points out that Jean could stand to work on her people skills, she immediately softens, learning to put the women at ease. It’s through those interactions that Thorne’s screenplay shows deep compassion for the many childless women yearning for a baby, grounding the drama in basic human need as much as science. There’s poignancy also in the participants’ knowledge that most of them will not get pregnant, but that they are laying the groundwork for future mothers who will.
A heated scene in which the Medical Research Council declines to provide development funding, arguing that the research will benefit only a small handful of the population, underscores Jean, Bob and Patrick’s frustration as they try to make people grasp the concept of infertility as a treatable condition.
The one-step-forward, two-steps-back pattern of positive results followed by disappointment becomes a bit static. But after Jean learns that her still estranged mother is dying, she breaks with the group, dismissing their efforts as a failure and parting on bitter terms with Bob. That allows for the inevitable resumption of work when stinging loss galvanizes Jean back into action.
The final stretch leading up to the first successful “test-tube birth” in 1978, acquires welcome notes of suspense and emotional power — the latter amplified by text at the end of the film revealing that 12 million babies have been born thanks to IVF in the decades since. We also learn that Edwards, the last surviving member of the team, was awarded the Nobel Prize for their work in 2010.
Thorne frames the story with Bob’s letter, heard in voiceover, lobbying for the inclusion of Jean’s name on a plaque at the hospital honoring the IVF pioneers. What the script doesn’t address, somewhat mystifyingly, is the decades during which Purdy’s vital contribution went unacknowledged, no doubt due to her gender and the reductive view of her role as that of a mere lab technician.
The screenplay also fails to make much of the public hostility directed at the research team. The handful of press and protestors outside the hospital shouting “Dr. Frankenstein,” a bit of graffiti and one instance in which Jean is shown receiving a hate-mail package don’t exactly solidify the idea of a wall of opposition. A TV appearance in which Bob is shouted down by an angry studio audience is more effective.
Taylor, a seasoned TV director best known for the streaming series Catastrophe and Sex Education, does a competent job with his sharp-looking first feature, even if the narrative flow is erratic. The movie leans heavily on Steven Price’s score for dramatic weight and on a very random selection of ‘60s and ‘70s needle drops for energy. Only Nina Simone’s gorgeous cover of “Here Comes the Sun” over the opening credits makes thematic sense in terms of the story’s ultimate outcome.
Fortunately, the actors lift the material. McKenzie creates an appealing contrast between Jean’s mousy voice and her grit and forthrightness, shaded with an understated vein of melancholy. Nighy brings his usual economy of means to a veteran medical professional whose formality gives way to reveal his warm, caring nature; Patrick’s approaching retirement age incentivizes him to make a difference. Norton, nerded out with glasses and Michael Caine’s old hair, has the charm and sincerity necessary to put across Thorne’s frequently hackneyed declarations — “We’re making the impossible possible,” “Everything changes from here.”
Scanlan as Jean’s mum and Moodie as Matron both make strong impressions, though even those smaller roles are not entirely spared moments of speechifying. For instance, when Jean is distressed to learn that Patrick has been performing abortions at the hospital — which were legal by that time but still strongly opposed by the Church — Matron thunders back: “We are here to give women a choice. Every choice.”
Joy may not represent the height of sophisticated storytelling, but it has the advantage of an interesting story rescued from historical obscurity. It will touch the hearts of many parents whose lives have been changed — and in the case of their children, made possible — by those ten long years of dedication that led to the IVF breakthrough.
Movie Reviews
Review | Daughter’s Daughter: Sylvia Chang anchors intricate women’s drama
3.5/5 stars
A widow in her sixties with a pair of estranged daughters is confronted with a difficult decision following a family tragedy in Huang Xi’s thoughtful drama Daughter’s Daughter.
Winner of the 2024 Golden Horse Awards prize for best screenplay at a ceremony in Taiwan in November, the film explores the strained relationships between parents and their children in a society that is losing sight of traditional filial duties.
The couple were trying for a baby via IVF treatment and a viable embryo survives them, with Jin now the legal guardian. While wrestling with the grief of losing her child, Jin is burdened with the impossible task of deciding the fate of her as-yet unborn grandchild.
Movie Reviews
Andrew Bell’s ‘BLEEDING’ (2024) – Movie Review – PopHorror
I’ve seen good films and I’ve seen bad films. This is, indeed, not a good film by any stretch of the imagination.
Evidently, a new drug that is adjacent to vampire blood is being bought and sold on the black market for profit and pleasure, which already sounds like something from a Bram Stoker rip-off novel. Sean is a young drug dealer who gets his cousin Eric “into some deep shit,” as the characters would put it. Sean’s dad destroys the drugs in a fit of rage and owes money to the people who loaned it to him.
Let’s just get this out of the way. This movie is bad and for all the reasons that you might think. For starters, the dialogue is horrendous and sounds like something from a Grand Theft Auto game, where every other word is profanity. It seems like the writer was writing the script for a film project while in college and forgot to add character development (or characters that we cared about).
Moreover, the plot has already been played so many times. How many times do we have to see a virus ravage the people of a town (or the entire world) and watch it slowly destroy the people in the film little by little? I’m no stranger to a virus movie and I’m certainly on board with a good one. I’ve even made a few virus-related films. It would have been nice to see the filmmakers do something différent with the material.
Finally, the acting is laughably terrible. There is way too much overacting, with screaming and shouting in every other scene. It’s like watching an episode of a Vikings series, with all of the characters are yelling at each other.
All in all, this movie was something that had no purpose and was bereft of character development, which makes me wonder how the film managed to get made.
Movie Reviews
Movie Review: ‘Gladiator II’ | Recent News
“Gladiator II” has some awfully big sandals to fill, both commercially and creatively. Its predecessor, 2000’s “Gladiator,” made $187 million at the domestic box office. The new film has thus far made an estimated $132 million after three weekends of release. With a lot of money up for grabs in the upcoming holiday season, another $55 million isn’t out of the question. Maybe I could even stretch to see it making the $68 million it needs to hit the $200 million mark. Yes, inflation means that it’s less impressive to make these numbers now than it did nearly a quarter-century ago, but these are attainable goals.
What I do not see as attainable is the sequel ever becoming as well-regarded as the original. That film won the Academy Award for Best Picture, so already the new one has to live up to an impossibly high (dare I say “gold”?) standard. But even with realistic standards, this movie is still a disappointment.
The second film takes place a few decades after the first, with the once-great Roman Empire ready to collapse under the blissfully-ignorant rule of twin emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger). They’re still greedy enough to want to expand the empire, so they send out top general Acacius (Pedro Pascal) to conquer a kingdom in Africa. Acacius doesn’t believe in the imperialist cause, but he’s sworn allegiance to his home, so he sacks the kingdom, which includes killing the wife of top soldier Hanno (Paul Mescal), who swears revenge.
Hanno is taken prisoner and sold into slavery, where he’s served up as a potential gladiator without much consideration. But he impresses in his tryout against a troop of baboons, and is purchased by Macrinus (Denzel Washington), a former slave who sees managing gladiators as a way to curry favor with the emperors, feeding into political ambitions and possibly even a power grab. He makes a deal with Hanno that if his “personal instrument of destruction” can become a superstar in the Colosseum, he’ll eventually give him a chance at revenge against Acacius.
Hanno is conflicted between wanting revenge and not wanting to be used as a political pawn for a slimeball like Macrinus. He’s not conflicted about wanting to stay alive, however, so he plays along in putting together a string of victories. Also, Acacius’s wife Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), the daughter of former emperor Aurelius, notices that Hanno bears a striking resemblance to her long-lost son Luscious. And Luscious’s father… is not Acacius.
The story and action aren’t very engaging in “Gladiator II,” with choppy editing and plodding pacing. But the real weakness of the movie is the acting. Pascal and Nielsen are fine, and the emperors get to do some fun scenery-chewing, but whoever thought that bland pretty-boy Paul Mescal could be an inspirational protagonist on par with the iconic Russell Crowe made a severe miscalculation. Also, and I’m not saying that the rest of the cast is exactly making me feel immersed in Roman culture, but there’s something so unmistakably American about Denzel Washington. Maybe it’s his voice, maybe it’s his mannerisms, maybe it that he shares a last name with the nation’s capital, but he belongs at Caesar’s Palace much more than he belongs at… these Caesars’… palace. He’s too Vegas-y is what I’m saying.
“Gladiator II” has my permission to be a modest financial hit as long as it stays in the shadow of superior recent releases “Moana 2” and “Wicked,” the latter of which has much scarier CGI primates. But it hasn’t won me over as a movie worth recommending, and I definitely don’t consider it an awards contender. Am I not entertained? Taking into account the wording of that question, I can say that yes, I am not entertained.
Grade: C-
“Gladiator II” is rated R for strong bloody violence. Its running time is 148 minutes.
Robert R. Garver is a graduate of the Cinema Studies program at New York University. His weekly movie reviews have been published since 2006.
-
Technology1 week ago
Elon Musk targets OpenAI’s for-profit transition in a new filing
-
News1 week ago
Rassemblement National’s Jordan Bardella threatens to bring down French government
-
Technology1 week ago
9 ways scammers can use your phone number to try to trick you
-
World1 week ago
Georgian PM praises country's protest crackdown despite US condemnation
-
World7 days ago
Freedom is permanent for Missourian described as the longest-held wrongly incarcerated woman in US
-
Technology3 days ago
Struggling to hear TV dialogue? Try these simple fixes
-
Business23 hours ago
OpenAI's controversial Sora is finally launching today. Will it truly disrupt Hollywood?
-
World6 days ago
Brussels denies knowledge of Reynders's alleged money laundering