rdolan9007 Reviews

A Canterbury Tale (1944)

A mixed bag, very powerful in places, but built around a weak eccentric plot

[7/10 · 3 April 2024]

A Canterbury Tale.

This is one of the lesser-known works by Powell and Pressburger, well heard of by me at the very least. Therefore, when I heard about it being regarded as worthy of a look, I made a point of watching it (thanks to the BFI season of Powell and Pressburger films). BFI certainly deserve a mention for showing movies that perhaps don't get the airtime they would otherwise deserve.

It is a minor classic; close to but in the somehow not quite being an outright classic. There are very fine moments of inspirational greatness that would have hit home hard with an audience in 1944. Even today I suspect it would stir a patriotic feeling or two even in the most cynical of hearts. Yet apparently, reception was mixed at the time towards the film as wartime audiences did not turn out in particularly large numbers to watch it.

From the occasionally ambiguous distance of time, it is not so easy to see why it should not have been a major success. It had an epic scale with poignant humane stories woven throughout it. The script might, perhaps at least not be quite as sharp as you would like, although that may just be from a modern perspective only. The acting overall is certainly good enough. It is natural and likeable even with sometimes and deliberately unknown actors cast in some important roles. The main story however is certainly a little bizarre and the plotting is sometimes handled awkwardly; maybe one reason why the film was not quite as well received at the time. The main plot does have an eccentricity to it, while any overt jeopardy is limited in the main story. The second world war is there subtly informing everything, even if the film is very gentle but clear in its use of propaganda.

This film refers to an Englishness, and perhaps more slightly more loosely a Britishness, that doesn't quite exist today. Its religious overtones, I imagine will not have quite the same immediate power too most of those watching in the audience today. There is also the love of a particularly rustic ancient traditional countryside; already dying by the time of the second world war. There are eccentric countryside folks; and the sense as you might imagine from the title of the film, that this is a 'modernised' version of a traditional English pilgrimage. This is very much the defence of Christian countries against the actual terror that fascism will bring. This pilgrimage is one that even attracts an American GI to a generally romanticised version of a Christian England.

Describing the background of the story first is I believe important, because the power of the story comes from understanding what this film might have meant at the time to people, and why that context is so important to its narrative. The film does deliver in its most powerful moments because it assumes (probably correctly) you have been seduced by the overall mood and atmosphere that has been carefully created. Unfortunately, this is an occasionally uneven film; perhaps not that far behind 'A matter of life and Death' by the same directors; a film that is still considered the highwater mark, of just about any director's output.

The story comes about when an American GI (John Sweet) gets of the train at the wrong stop. He is meant to go all the way to Canterbury. At the village he alights upon, he meets a British soldier (Dennis Price), and a woman by the name of Alison Smith (Sheila Sims). They try to find a place to stay at night when she is assaulted by someone who pours glue in her hair. They end up following a suspect into a villager's home. The house dwellers don't suspect anything, although there is an upstairs to it where a justice of the peace appears to have an office. The JP is played by Eric Portman, who is sat behind a desk when questioned by Alison Smith and the others. When the others go to a nearby inn to go to bed, Alison Smith notices a cupboard in the office which houses a British army uniform, that looks very recently worn. Therefore, unmistakeably pointing towards the JP. She doesn't really question him on the issue at that time, and the film surprisingly at the time makes rather little deal about it. They eventually gain more evidence that the JP has committed the crime. He has at it happens committed it for bizarre reasons; something to do with forcing attractive women to leave the village so more men can come to his lectures. They all however soon end up in Canterbury via their analogous kind of pilgrimage. Here they receive mixed fortunes in the news they are about to hear. In the case of Smith's and the American's soldiers they have good news. Dennis Price's British soldier ends up playing a magnificent organ (please don't) in Canterbury cathedral, which as a church organist in pre-war life is obviously a tremendous honour. Eric Portman as the guilty JP, does not get arrested by the police as he surely should have been. He however was probably about to ask Alison to marry him, but is thwarted by the shock news that Alison's loved one is alive. He therefore leaves Alison without explanation when her back is momentarily turned. She is absolutely astonished to see that he has disappeared.

As you can see from the above, this is a difficult film to sum up in terms of its plotting. The film works surprisingly well in terms of its complex plotting; even if I found several of the story elements strange, or unconvincing.

The most obvious anomaly is the treatment of the JP, who after combined detective work by the protagonists' is not reported to the police. His behaviour of pouring glue down women's hair would be treated by modern eyes as very weird and disturbing. It might have been seen to contain a sexually motivated element, and yet paradoxically the hair glue attacks, because they are treated as a nuisance, means the film I think loses a vital sense of jeopardy. In a modern film this plot point would have likely been the pre-cursor to that of a serial killer, or a potential rapist! (very difficult territory at that time, admittedly.) At the time this behaviour while unusual is obviously treated as something as an unpleasant nuisance rather than sinister.

Eric Portman's suspicious performance as the JP is somewhat jarring in the film. It feels like his part should have been that of an enemy spy, rather than an iffy JP with a disturbing pattern of behaviour that doesn't lead to anything more serious. It however does appear that the film requires his dark undertone to undercut the overall optimism in the film becoming too much. It still feels like an off-key performance, that probably belongs in a different movie.

There are digressions in this film with local people playing some of the more eccentric village characters, and Charles Hawtrey of very bespectacled Carry on fame, turns up as a station porter. Those characters are probably there to represent an England under threat should the Nazi's win of losing these overall decent people.

The film never feels like it is meandering though, there is a mock children's battle which is beautifully realised; with a small child pointedly crying at the noise of it all. Is he crying for comic relief in the film, or perhaps underlying a more serious point about war and the pain it causes? With what is currently happening in Gaza, Israel, and Ukraine, this seems like a relevant and deeply poignant question.

The ending is very nicely tied up in Canterbury and contains almost all the most powerful scenes in the film. The sound of Onward Christian soldiers sang by the congregation at a service is extraordinarily poignant. These are scenes of intense power, with the cinematography occasionally saturating the screen with painterly like imagery. It is almost as if a sense of power, of a godlike presence is present in that scene. This is a 'Christian' England and America as represented by the GI on a holy pilgrimage or about to embark on a holy crusade to rid the world of the Nazi's. This film it is worth noting was probably made during 1943 and just released in 1944 before the forthcoming invasion of Europe.

It's an unwieldy film even so, yet it does have beautiful individual scenes with in it. The start of the film has a jump shot of a hawk morphing into a spitfire to create a jump from the medieval age to the second world war. It creates a sense of continuity, and of people bracing themselves be resolute in the face of the enemy.

It maybe that I have been more negative about this film in this review, than I do actually feel about the film whilst I was watching it. I was never bored. It moved at a good pace. It was also a nicely judged idea to bring the Canterbury tales ambience into the backdrop of the second world war. There is perhaps a tad too much of the propaganda element evident, although it never becomes a real problem. It does however feel quite strange in a story that is perhaps on the face of it ill-suited to propaganda, or perhaps the propaganda is not quite done as well as it could have been in a way to suit this film. The real problem maybe with this film is the fact it is hung around the plot of the hair glue antagonist. It just doesn't quite feel right, and it probably is unnecessary as well. There did need to be jeopardy in the film, but that story line doesn't create quite enough.

Instead, the film shows real jeopardy when portraying the bomb damage caused to Canterbury which apparently was real damage caused by the Luftwaffe. This would (bombing at least) certainly have been in the minds of most people who watched this film in 1944. It's however a strange film and a difficult film to categorise. It appears of its time, partly because its deliberately made for the sensitivity of a particular time, and that does create moments of great depth. I still have the overall feeling of being a very distant observer to this strange and difficult time, as represented in.

Narvik: Hitler's First Defeat (2022)

Solid war film, but lacks punch when it comes to the complex issues it raises.

[6/10 · 24 February 2023]

Narvik is one of those battles you might just have heard about but maybe like me have overlooked. I imagine that in Norway where the battle of Narvik took place, it probably has a significantly higher profile. It is often seen as 'Hitler's first defeat' although in reality it only temporarily delayed the defeat of the allies in Norway. It is a complicated battle as well, with naval, air and ground battles taking place in a relatively short space of time during 1940. It also has a mixture of French, Polish, British, and of course the Norwegians themselves involved in bitter fighting with the Germans.

Therefore any film on this subject has to be assured in its handling of such complex material. The success of this film also depends on how it relates the nature of the battle to another key story in the film. It is that of a personal one, a mother who does a deal with the Nazi Germans, to treat her dangerously ill child, injured by ironically enough, British shelling. The mother's story is also complicated by the fact her husband is a respected fighter in the Norwegian army. This is the setting of a story which also deals with collaboration, and the potential fall out because of it. She betrays two English agents to secure the treatment of her child, which makes her actions treacherous. This she justifies as a way to save her child. The film does pose complicated questions about what you would do to save your child, or whether you should have looked at the wider implications of those actions. You are actually serving a ruthless enemy by that treachery, and that enemy after all has invaded your country. Shouldn't sacrificing your child be part of the greater good?

Naturally, these are not easy questions, and prick what you might assume we consider to be normal moral certainties. It is obviously better not to be unwillingly placed in that position, and Hitler's invasion of Norway means that she has become a complicated victim of the war. She has been placed in that invidious position by the health of her son, and yet we tend to judge people most when they are under extreme pressure. In what we perhaps might unfairly consider to be their 'true nature' There are therefore definitely interesting undercurrents in this film, but I'm not sure the film is entirely successful. It doesn't quite work for me, and what should be a searing experience, doesn't quite land any real emotional punches. It feels like it circles the difficult subjects raised in this film, but doesn't quite have the scalpel's edge to cut through to the centre of them.

It may also suffer from a lack of focus, due to exploring many different aspects raised by the film. The film I should say however is well made, and the plotting, pacing, and narrative arc are easy to follow, which certainly should not be considered a given. The lack of focus is one of an emotional clarity, about the film perhaps not taking a firm moral position itself on the issue it raises. It doesn't evoke enough sympathy for the mother, or enough anger from those aware of her collaboration. It doesn't follow the fate of the English spies, even though we know they were most likely tortured and then shot. The film attempts a complex portrayal of twisting loyalties, but doesn't really show the true cost of what the decisions undertaken by the mother actually mean.

Kristine Hartgen does do excellent work as the mother of the young boy and Carl Martin Eggesbø is good in the role of her husband Gunnar Tofte. So the problems I think lie more with the script rather than the acting. I feel the moments of emotional power are softened too much. The end scene where the husband and wife are reconciled after the husbands initial anger feels like a pat one. It doesn't feel convincing because there seems to be such a short space of time between his first reaction to her treachery and that final scene. The anger directed at the mother by Narvik's population seem to take the form of just standard insults; that appear to lack any of the expected venom. I imagine in Norway collaboration, whatever your feelings about the mother's decision, is still a subject still requiring considerable sensitivity. It feels like the film is quite nervous about what the attitudes to the mother might be; perhaps due to most of the population, not knowing the exigencies of her situation. It comes across as milder, perhaps more distant film because of the emotional softening; deliberate or otherwise. I also detected a faint trace of anti-British sentiment in it, which was perhaps in danger of equalising the illegal invasion of Nazi Germany, with the British involvement in Narvik.

It is a shame this film doesn't quite handle some of the more complicated material as well as it could have done. The war scenes themselves are well done and are tense. An attack on a bridge is very well handled; as is the landing of Norwegian and French troops as a prelude to capturing a mountain top containing a hidden cannon. There is a cliché but nearly always a useful one where a Norwegian soldier looks at the picture of girlfriend of the young soldier he has just shot, and is shocked at the youth of the man he has killed. Any war film at this moment is tempered by the horrible contemporary truth of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is always important to be reminded that war or the threat of it never seems to quite ever go away. There will be the inevitable matters arising of who have been seen to collaborate in Ukraine with the Russians. Those issues will probably have to await years before they are properly explored and resolved. Narvik does provide a reminder of the cost of war; one which of course is never not worth remembering. The film is ambitious, and just about works well enough. My difficulty with it comes with its lack of emotional clarity, and a softening of the issues it explores. There is not enough of that jolting, cold, angry, bitter, callous indifference of war. Narvik does slightly fluff its lines: not enough to stop it being a film well worth watching, but one that of promise that is not quite fulfilled or overly satisfactory.

Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle (1987)

Brilliant examination of friendship and their resolve against the subtle pressures that can be caused by capitalism.

[10/10 · 28 September 2022]

Four adventures with Reinette and Mirabelle is an oddity. It is nevertheless a peculiar and beautiful film which seems to say nothing, and yet in an exquisitely quiet way suggests truths about how we live and how perhaps we should make adjustments to how we live. On the surface it is the charming, gently awkward friendship between two young women, probably in their late teens, may be 17 - 19 years old. There are perhaps hints of an intimate relationship between them, but this film doesn't actually concern itself with that, which another perhaps lesser film might have concentrated on. The film really cares about their friendship to the exclusion of almost everything else. Reinette does have a boyfriend but he is only mentioned in a brief aside early on, and he is never heard of again.

They meet in the countryside where Reinette has a puncture whilst on her bike, and seeks help from Mirabelle a passer-by. Reinette first asks where the nearest garage is, only to be told it is five miles away. Mirabelle's house is very close by however, and she soon help repairs the wheel for Mirabelle. They strike up a friendship almost immediately, and she stays overnight, to Mirabelle's obvious delight. Mirabelle's house is a partially run-down old farmhouse. Think one of those beloved by an upper middle-class British family/me, wanting somewhere idyllic to do up in pastoral, rural France. It is unexplained why Mirabelle lives on her won in such a rundown property, but such details are not important in this film.

Mirabelle turns out to be someone trying to be an artist. Her work is surreal with near abstract figures of naked women portrayed in minimalist backgrounds. She is seemingly naïve, blithe, with a childlike gregariousness. She is very talkative, in a moment beautifully played against herself by Reinette, later on in the film.

Reinette is quieter, more sardonic, perhaps like us intrigued by Mirabelle, but perhaps she is quietly baffled as well. They don't really quarrel in the film but when an argument arises, Reinette gently but very firmly puts the opposing view across.

Mirabelle also shows her life in a nearby rural farm where she is friends with the farmers there. Reinette is introduced to a variety of goats, and chickens, as well as a shy horse. They also see some of the crops being grown by the farmers. It is the way this is done which is so marvelous; just quietly understated points being made about the nature of the rural life. It fits in with an important theme of silence in the early part of film, and perhaps even more importantly having time for contemplation that the natural world gives you. This is a not a film which imposes anything so 'crass' as a logical narrative or an unseemly pace on you. This not a film of massive incidents, but those that might occur as interesting or revealing in an ordinary run of the mill day. The countryside scenes are just the prelude however to where most of the film takes place.

Reinette is studying in Paris, doing a degree in ethnology. She describes it as the study of people to Mirabelle, and then she offers to share a flat with Mirabelle which she pays rent on in Paris. This makes it feasible for Mirabelle to study art in Paris. This arrangement suits both of them and the film then progresses to Paris; a few months on from their first encounter.

It is in Paris where the characters of both are explored in greater detail. There are everyday situations which develop unexpected edges and show an unexpected robustness to their characters. There is a dispute with a French waiter over a note that he can't or refuses to change for a bill to be paid. A simple request for directions becomes an argument for two bystanders both men trying to describe the right way to get somewhere. There is an exchange where Mirabelle lends someone money in a train station, who may or may not be a con artist. Those are the relatively minor incidents that make up a significant proportion of the film.

Yet the film has a couple of other incidents which are more significant in perhaps they get to the heart of what this film is really about and that is the subtle effects of capitalism, and morality.

Reinette (to the disdain of Mirabelle) in the retelling of an incident, has helped an unknown shoplifter escape from two store detectives. There is quietly thrilling exchange about the morality of Reinette's action which doesn't lead as you might expect to a furious dispute, but a firm and resolutely calm argument. It is a marvelous scene and it shows the strength of their friendship, but in a none showy, subtle way.

The films key scene is the final one, were the girls try to sell a piece of Mirabelle's art to and art dealer. They hope to dupe him into paying more than they thinks it's worth, and to their obvious delight it works, but here the film plays a twist on the girls, and we see that art dealer is selling the art on for a much higher price than he bought the art from the girls. It's a superbly done scene, both humorous but sharp as well. This final scene suggests what the film has been about but done so skilfully and gently, the effect only gradually makes you realise that the true enemy of the piece is capitalism, and what it does to people on an everyday level. This makes the film seem like a communist manifesto piece, but that would be a slight misreading because the points it makes are far more considered and subtle. They probably will give you pause for thought, long after the film has finished.

This film will not be for everyone, and the pace of this film and seemingly innocuous events will be irritatingly tedious to some. This is one of those films that you do have to concentrate on and be patient with, as every point and scene will add up to a full and rounded hole. It is a useful critique of capitalism, and how we have to live within the everyday demands it makes upon us, whether we want that or not. It harks back subtly to the countryside and a simpler and seemingly more communal world. This film success really does depend on your interest in the main characters, and because they are so delightfully played, their unexpected steeliness helps defy your expectations.

Your enjoyment of your film probably depends on how much work you the viewer enjoys doing, and there is a danger with some realistic films you can find yourself detached and distanced from the film. This film however for me gets the balance right. It explores the everyday world, but also with characters that absorb the influence of that world, and I think simply wins you over with its charm.

Mean Girls (2004)

A solid film, but undermined by insensitivity to important issues..

[6/10 · 17 April 2022]

The film Mean Girls, is one of those reference points that almost everybody you know, seems to know what it means when you mention it. It is almost thee archetypal 2000's film teenager angst, high school set film, involving school girls being bitchy about each other, and the unfortunate they perceive to be beneath them. I remember watching it not long after it was released in 2004, and being impressed by it as a smart, intelligent, and well written film.

When I recently came back to it however, my feelings were mixed. It might simply be a routine and unexceptional victim of time; it has after all (gasp) been seventeen years since it came out in 2004. It has I think been comfortably overtaken by more recently released films in a similar vein. Those include films like Book Smart, Edge of seventeen and Easy A. They are the more recent and superior interpretations of that kind of teenage/young adult environment, in which your status at school seems to mean everything.

It wasn't easy to put my finger on why it didn't quite work for me this time round. Maybe it has lost its freshness; although that is not to be an unexpected consequence of time. I now think it fits in between Clueless/ Bring it on and those later films I mentioned above. It certainly tries to be a more incisive film than the still excellent and amiable Clueless; and yet it doesn't quite have the insight of later teenage films.

This is still not a bad film by any means. It is well made. It is polished and it does have some interesting takes on teenage lives. It certainly has a blisteringly good cast, and an overwhelmingly female one as well. Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Rachel Macadam, Amanda Seyfried, and thee happening star of the time Lindsey Lohan.

It is Lindsey Lohan's character (Cady) that drives the film as she tries to ingratiate herself to be in amongst a self-considered elite group of girls. They pass judgement on anyone they perceive not be at their level. Commander in chief of the elite is Regina George (Rachel Macadam) What complicates matters for Lindsey Lohan is her friendship with a couple of friends who warn her off the elite girls. She ignores them about that, but promises instead to spy on the elite girls, for her new friends own amusement. Unfortunately Lindsey Lohan becomes more enamoured of being like those girls she affects to despise. The film's main plot then concerns the fallout from her attempts to be both one of the elite, and still be friends with her friends outside the group. The way Cady's comeuppance and perhaps inevitable rehabilitation is actually, nicely done. There is generous support from a teacher Miss Norbury (Tina Fey) who is probably the most sympathetic character in the film along with the principal (Tim Meadows). This is the Tina Fey before she became truly famous for her devastating take down of Sarah Palin, and the star of the usually excellent sitcom 30 rock (if unfortunately not without sadly inevitable blackface controversy) The film is mostly good natured however, and the villains are not really innately cruel. There is some subtlety in the characterisations, and this allows the film to have some satisfying pay-offs. There are innovative moments in the film, a la wildlife documentary; the students are shown acting as pack animals at times. This is a nice take, although perhaps a little surprisingly not utilised a little bit more than it is in the film. I also think there was probably a missed opportunity to explore this aspect of comparing student behaviour to animal behaviour a little further as well. This aspect overall of the film does give the film freshness, and helps marks it out from a fairly crowded market.

The films pacing is smart enough, and the film doesn't drag. It is a reasonably enjoyable film, and yet somehow it has a classic status it doesn't quite merit. There are some obviously jarring moments which tarnish it. A joke about a child grooming male teacher is played for laughs which does seem bizarre in the context of a film on the whole sympathetic to female characters. The character who is gay is not let us say that subtlety done. It's not egregiously offensive to my admittedly non gay eyes at least, but it certainly strays into the borderline of offensiveness. There is also a comment written on a yearbook which if made public might lead some to believe there is something shameful about being gay. It strikes a false note, but at the time it probably wouldn't have registered, as such, to a less aware audience including myself. Getting the tone of some jokes wrong is not necessarily a deliberate act, but a lack of sophistication in understanding the issues involved. The film is still trying to do more good than harm, and probably deserves to be cut some slack therefore, but it is still worth pointing out the potential flaws in it, even by through the sometimes correcting prism of time.

There are moments of cleverness in the film, which deserved further exploration. A little girl watching a TV apes the behaviour of women on the television by trying to take her top off. This could have been a way to examine the pervasive media influence of sexuality on young people, and how the pressures to conform to it are inculcated into people from an early age. This scene though is merely a throwaway moment, which might be deliberate, but somehow feels like a missed opportunity. It is also bizarre in the context when Tina Fey changes her top in a class room, as the principal walks in. It's a strange throwback 'gag' and blatantly sexist in a movie I think wants us to think it is saying something different from that.

There is also a scene where the four elite do a strangely 'sexily' polished Santa routine in front of an audience at some end of season school performance. This maybe just to show any watching agents how talented they are; perhaps for their later film careers coming after Mean girls. I don't quite know why the film felt it needed it, otherwise.

There are well done scenes like the attendance of the girls in the school gym, where they stand up and proclaim who they are and are proud to be. It ends up with some nicely judged comedy, and a trust exercise were they fall back into the crowd. It goes wrong in an obvious but still funny way. It is one of those few scenes I vaguely remember from the time I last saw the film.

There are nice lines of dialog and as well as unfortunately a famous one also mentioned by the excellent band 'wet leg' about 'buttered muffins'. This again seems like joke played for laughs in the film, but now seems drearily and banally sexist, and hopefully in perhaps more enlightened times(maybe) wouldn't get into the script.

So my problem with this film is that while it is a film of good intentions, it is often undermined by sexist jokes, or homosexual insensitivity. I think there are enough moments in the film to make it a worthwhile watch; the A-list cast alone doing good work is a fair reason to watch it. There are nicely innovative moments in it like the 'wildlife' scenes. It is a strange, if not complete failure however. It does interesting work on the surface; but doesn't really want to or feel the need to dive deep in to the issues it raises. It's a film that you might think well that was ok to watch but is quite not the edgy, sensitive, comic film it probably wants to be, and more pertinently, perhaps, it wants us to think it might be.

The Duchess (2008)

Slightly better than average period drama based on a true story.

[7/10 · 17 June 2020]

I was tempted to pass on 'the Duchess', as it sounded like a hum-drum period drama piece which looked pretty but had no real edge. I did hear however that it might be better than I originally thought, and so decided to watch it. While this film is not a great one, I would say it is a good one. The main advantage this film has is that it is based on true events, and that does gives the film some dramatic urgency, something that it occasionally comes close to losing.

The story had it been made up would have seemed too contrived and in a way too clichéd in its depiction of the events in this film. The truth (with artistic license, naturally) revealed by this film is a thorough if a sometimes uninvolving examination of the gender politics of that time (18th century England). It is also by remote implication a study of the systems that reinforce both the suppression and repression often involved in those politics.

The plot involves Keira Knightley playing Spencer who is married to the Duke of Devonshire played by Ralph Fiennes, emphasising her 'inability' to quickly bear him a male heir; a state of affairs which is further complicated by the Duke having an affair with her best friend Bess Foster (Hayley Atwell). In a somewhat awkward turn of events Bess then moves in with Georgiana and the duke, in which the initial hostility between Georgiana and Bess gradually becomes an important friendship again. This in part is due to the rape of Georgiana by the duke, which is mainly heard of screen in a harrowing sequence. To make this cocktail of intertwining relations even more unstable, is Georgiana's 'scandalous' affair with aspiring politician Charles Grey played by Dominic Cooper.

The story despite its complexity is well told, and the predicament of all the characters is nicely illustrated, each one of whom is trapped by the systems of class and codes that imprison them. There is the duke's desperation at not having a male heir in a society which demands it. Georgiana herself being married to the repressed and rake of a duke, who also represses her in turn. Bess Foster is someone torn between friendship to Georgiana and her love of the duke, and finally there is Charles Grey being unable to free Georgiana from the duke, who uses Georgiana's children as emotional blackmail to stop her seeing Charles Grey. Then there is the final sting in the tale; Georgiana has Charles Grey's baby (Eliza) which she has to give up ,and is finally brought up in secret by Charles Grey's family.

The acting is good, although Keira Knightley's performance is not much more than what you might expect of a standard period drama piece. She doesn't do much more than is required, ie look attractive in nice voluminous dresses, and be impressed by the duke's palatial houses. This maybe seems harsh, but in a way that is all Keira Knightley is required to do in this film, and she does that perfectly capably. The film itself doesn't really demand much more of her in this role. The result is perhaps you don't always feel for her plight as keenly as you might.

On the otherhand Ralph Fiennes gives you the feeling this is a duke who is usually repressing his feelings, and not given to emotional enthusiasm, other than to his dogs. The times when Ralph Fiennes does break through the strictures of his rigid comportment are done to impressive effect. The rape scene were the hidden hostility and aggression suddenly surface in his character is shocking. Yet Fiennes still conjures enough sympathy for you to not forgive the rape but understand it in part comes from a system that places unremitting pressure on both men and women.

Hayley Atwell also gives an excellent performance; she seems to portray a natural warmth, that always makes her an interesting screen presence. It is also a convincing one. You can understand how her torn friendship to Georgiana is caused by Bess's love of her own children, which the duke has used his influence to gain custody for her, from her abusive husband. This act makes Bess's affair with the duke more understandable in her initial betrayal of Georgiana.

Dominic Cooper is all right as Charles Grey, although perhaps a little ill-suited for the role. There doesn't seem to be the charisma that would attract Georgiana, but the political scenes are were Cooper is at his best, and as well as that Charles Fox played by Simon McBurney. McBurney is superb in that role, referential and respectful of Georgiana, and the impression of being a canny political operator as well. I did enjoy the dalliance with politics as seen from the Whig perspective in this film; they came across as slightly more radical that the Tories, and it explains why Georgiana's character would be attracted to them.

The film is probably a little too polished and fitfully shallow to be more than an interesting and slightly better than average period piece. There is bite there, but maybe lacks the overall menace of Lady Macbeth, which is not dissimilar in terms of subject. In being a true story it is an important one as well. This comes at a time just before the upper class echelons are being threatened by demands for voting reform, and women are still seen openly as property to produce heirs. It appears to be a far different time and age, and yet the themes of misogyny, rape and abuse in marriage are still relevant. I think this is a good film, and yet maybe slips of the target, rather than skewering it. Yet the final captions for the characters are poignant, sad, and not unhopeful as well. The film therefore made me care about these characters and their fates, which helps temper the reservations I have about the film. I enjoyed the film without being in thrall to it: it is good but I can't say it is a classic of the genre.

Frozen River (2008)

Gripping thriller with intriguing characters, on a frozen US/Canada/reservation border.

[9/10 · 12 June 2020]

Frozen river was a film I knew nothing about, although from the brief outline I read about it, I thought it worth a chance. It was to be a happy chance as well. This really is an excellent film, set against the bleak, wintry, oh so, cold, backdrop of the US-Canadian Border, and a First American reservation that straddles both countries.

It starts of seemingly like a simple hardship tale of a single mother (two children), struggling to make ends meet with a feckless, stay away, gambling husband. This tale however goes into to unexpected territory (literally at times) very quickly. It starts with Melissa Leo as Ray Eddy the mother trying to pick up her husband's abandoned car near the border. At the moment she is about to pick up the car Misty Upham (Lila Littlewolf) plays a first American who steals it, and the mother chases Upham in her own car to the caravan on the reservation.

This begins a sequence of events were the mother is forced by Lila to smuggle people across the reservation into the United States. This is done via car over the eponymous frozen river which also contains hazardous areas of black ice. The people to be smuggled across are Chinese, or Pakistani; either workers or in one near heart-breaking case a family. Ray however requires money to buy a large pre-build home, and her (at first) unwillingness to smuggle people across the river becomes a regular occurrence. She also strikes up a friendship with Lila, almost without them realising, and is beautifully understated, which really pays dividends by the end of the film.

The nature of that friendship is formed through the consequences of actions that seem at first harmless but then become serious. Ray throws away the bag of a Pakistani family thinking it is useless baggage. It only comes clear after she has smuggled the family across the border that the bag contains a baby. She and Lila have to go back to the frozen lake to find the baby, whom they believe dead at first, but who seemingly miraculously comes back to life and they manage to return the baby to the family.

There is a sprinkling of dangerous incidents revolving around their journeys across the ice. A consequence of one journey is both of them coming face to face with a magnificently cheap petty gangster night club owner, played by Jacques Bruno. He makes the mistake of trying to rip Ray and Lila of and Ray most memorably pulls a gun on him. It's a terrific scene, mixed with tension and no little humour by the end of it.

Apart from Jacques Bruno the other supporting role that deserves special attention is the gloriously lugubrious cop Trooper Finnerty played by Michael O'Keefe. His eyes only betray the very mildest concern when dealing with Ray in his encounters with her. He tries to warn her gently that he knows she running into trouble, yet Ray's poverty is driving her onwards to a troubled fate.

The fate is a poignant one, and Ray sacrifices her-self to keep Lila from being expelled from the sanctuary of the reservation and arrested by the police. The police want to make an example over the people smuggling, and need an arrest. Lila has been in trouble before on the reservation which would be an infraction too far for the reservation leaders. Ray out of both friendship and need therefore cops to a guilty plea, and knows she will end up in prison for a few months.

The film ends up with Lila moving into Ray's home to look after Ray's children and Lila's own young child; the story of which is a briefly referred to sub-plot in the film. The film has a beautifully bitter sweet ending, therefore, although there is a guarded optimism that things may at least get slightly better.

There is fine craftsmanship in this film. The character development is careful and subtle. Ray's eldest child causes a fire while she is away. He is a teenager, who is just not quite mature enough to look after himself or her youngest child. This makes the film's ending of her inviting Lila to look after her children a far more nuanced one. Her eldest son also gets involved in a phone scam helping out a friend. He ends up being caught although he escapes punishment when he apologises to an old lady who suffered feom the fraud. He is trying to make money to help the family out rather than for his own gain.

The film brilliantly examines how poverty is slowly grinding down these people's existences. They are reduced into taking risks in order to make money. Not for their own greed, but just to end up with a slightly better existence. It doesn't let them off for their crimes however 'morally' justified they might seem, but says this is a choice people take sometimes; not because they are all bad but because they are desperate.

I like the harshness in this the film: the bleakness of the icy cinematography creating a backdrop that makes for a fascinating change from the usual. It reminds me of Winter's bone, which while I liked it a lot, doesn't quite have the subtlety of Frozen Rivers characterisation. It's a film that doesn't give you glib answers which I really like. The characters face realistic consequences of their actions, which I also like in this film. I can't think of any flaws in this film either and it is a few days since I've watched it. I suppose if I was really nit-picking I would say the analogy of the baby being rescued at around the time of Christmas, but in my case only on reflection is a little obvious. I'm also not sure I need to see this film again, which I don't know is a good thing or not. It is also sad to note that Misty Upham died in 2014, whose quieter performance as Lila is perhaps, overshadowed by Melissa Leo's but is a fine performance as well.

Leave No Trace (2018)

A poignant and beautifully told story of a father and daughter try to escape the modern world by living out in the woods.

[9/10 · 5 June 2020]

Be left in no doubt Leave No Trace is a very fine film. This came as a relief because I really wanted this to be a good film. I really liked the idea of story's premise; that of a father and nearly teenage daughter living in the wilds of a forest park (near Portland), and having to fend for themselves. The pair as a result live-in what can barely be called a den. They forage for food, have to collect water via various irregular methods, and are in effect trying to keep out the existence of the modern world. Ben Foster plays the ex-veteran father, suffering from the effects of war on his mental health, and Thomasin McKenzie plays his daughter who at first enjoys and accepts this state of affairs.

Their world begins to crumble when they are found by the authorities, and are offered housing on a Christmas tree farm which Ben Foster also works on. Here the girl begins to make friends, one of whom keeps rabbits and they are the cutest rabbits to be seen outside the curse of the Were-rabbit. The father though finds it impossible to reconcile himself with feeling trapped in the world of conventional domesticity. He takes the reluctant but compliant daughter with him until the moment which will eventually causes them to break apart.

They hitch hike via a truck to another forest, and find a deserted locked cabin. This might seem to be the ideal for them, although you find yourself thinking that the owners of the cabin will eventually find them. The story could have used that as a twist, but instead the father has to go out to get food or money, and ends up in a serious accident. The daughter eventually finds help, and as a result she and the father end up in an RV park, were the owner lets her father and herself stay until he recuperates.

Here the crisis that has been developing between father and daughter in the film is quietly but brutally exposed as the girl loves the people and the community of the RV park, and yet her father still cannot comes to terms with even this benign and peaceful world. Their final parting is an un-histrionic but devastating conclusion to the film.

The performances throughout this film are exceptional. The father-daughter relationship is thoroughly natural and convincing as a result. The whole film hangs on this relationship and it works so well, that by the end of the film, you may feel like you have been punched out. These people do seem recognisably real, and that ending is not the one you want, but it is the right one in terms of the story. Throughout the film you do get glimpses of hope that maybe somehow things will be all right for them. You want things to be all right for them, but the damage done to the father is so deep that the ending, while it kills you, has a powerful remorseless logic to it.

The other key performances include that of Jean (Dana Millican) the social worker assigned to their case. She plays it with the exactly right amount of professionalism and sympathy for their plight. It is a shame that the film's story in away doesn't allow her more time on screen. Yet it makes abandoning the place she finds for them even more painful. This might seem like a hard slog of a watch, but it really isn't. I think Leave No Trace is filmed with such sensitivity that you are simply drawn in. You get inside the predicament of the protagonists, and are able to understand their decisions, even if you don't always agree with them.

Dale Dickey as the RV park owner also gives a fine warm sympathetic performance. She helps out the girl and the father in a way that feels unforced, and you think they both might finally find peace in the park. It is the girl who does, but the father can't and he literally disappears in to a forest by the films end; someone who has become truly 'lost' wandering without hope, trying desperately to find peace in the natural world.

The cinematography captures the woodland scenes throughout the film extraordinarily well; the dense foliage, still rich and vivid under grey wet skies at the beginning and then the softer sunlit but still dense forest surrounding the trailer park. I was reminded at times of Malick's direction in the film Badlands. It's like the scenery defines almost the mood of the people with in the film. There are hints of Kes as well in the film with the daughter's and her friends handling of the rabbits.

The film makes its points carefully. The father having to work in the Christmas tree packing farm; were he has to shape the trees to fit consumer demand. This setting is so cruelly against his idea of what nature should be to him. There is also the sight of bulldozers, knocking down a veterans illegal shack/tented village in the park, while one of the vets is instinctively shouting, for the authorities to stop destroying his 'home' but then realises even as he shouts it is futile. The father and daughters discovery made the discovery of their village inevitable as well. Thus is the fate of soldiers who fought for their country, trying to find peace on 'public' land; their plight mostly ignored, and not given or sometimes unwilling to get the mental health treatment they need.

This is a film with a heart, yet not over doing the sentiment, nor descending into melodrama; just telling a deceptively simple but important story. You care about these peoples' fates. It doesn't really offer any substantive answers, and that in the end makes it an honest film with the integrity to match.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

Disappointing, but still watchable finale to the star wars story.

[7/10 · 28 May 2020]

I've seen all the star wars movies so I am a fan of the series; although I if I see a bad star wars film, it doesn't outrage me to supernova-sized proportions. I might be temporarily disappointed, bordering on contempt, but then I 'forget' about it, and move on to something else. Therefore, while I care about how good or bad a star wars film is, I have no axe to grind: No requirement to tear it a new one. I try to review it without undue prejudice. I will therefore not be an outraged fan; faux or otherwise. It will not trample on my dreams, even if I admit the phantom menace was shockingly bad. I just have no wish to watch it again - it's a film, after-all. Phantom menace came and went alongside those ill-judged Yoda commercials and the irksome Jar-Jar Banks interjections. I was therefore temporarily disappointed with the above but the world somehow will carry-on.

So I can look the 'Rise of skywalker' squarely in the eye and say it was all right. Yep. Okay. It is not the best of the star wars' films, however I think it might be the weakest of the star wars films; outside the phantom menace trilogy. The latter of which all other star wars film should quite rightly be judged, as a warning at least.

I saw this film a few days ago and the danger of that is that it does allow you time to think about its flaws; perhaps over-emphasising them. At the time I enjoyed the film, but I admit there was no great fulfilment. No feeling that I had watched an event film- that being a truly fitting finale goodbye to this sequence of the original star wars story. I am now more disappointed in the film, and I wondered why. One of the flaws I noted at the time was the early clunkiness of the scripts. The humour seemed forced, and the use of repetition in gag lines jarring, or Jar jar-jarring perhaps?! If the script had carried on that way, then the film would have had far more serious problems. The script though does tighten up; it is still not brilliant but it does suffice. The film also threatens its own little jar jar binks moment with a 'cute' robot which has a cone for a head, and may or may not be there for commercial opportunities. Fortunately the robot is only on screen briefly and that petty annoyance is not so much of a problem for me at least.

The story itself is a straightforward one: Rey (Daisy Ridley) has to find the Emperor Paladine (Ian McDiarmid) and destroy him, trying to locate palm sized pyramids which are a map to where the last base of the Sith and the emperor is to be found. Wrapped around this story are Rey's emotional battles with Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), and at the very end the emperor who has raised a gigantic fleet of star destroyers, each usefully equipped with planet destroying lasers.

The major problem with this film I think, is that it really offers nothing new to the star-wars story. The interactions of the Jedi in each other's location have been done before. The surprise appearance of old characters has been done before (Han solo, Luke skywalker and Princess Leia). The planet destroying lasers has also been done before; the only novelty being they are attached to all the star destroyers in a massive star-fleet. There is naturally enough the obligatory destroying of a planet as such. The goodbye to Princess Leia/Carrie Fisher was better done as in the earlier star wars film 'rogue one'. I think because 'Rise of Skywalker' recycled those old star wars tricks, there was really no sense of jeopardy

In contrast to Princess Leia's death, Kylo Ren's death lacked any real emotional punch. This isn't Adam Driver's fault, but probably due to the script forcing an ending that felt trite. You knew that Rey was going to defeat the Emperor. There have been elements of crowd-pleasing as a criticism aimed at the rise of skywalker. I think if the Star Wars writers had been braver then that could have been avoided. Yet because this was the last 'true' Star Wars, they perhaps felt they had to do a farewell tour and not upset anyone. The only real jeopardy in the film comes from when what appears to be Chewbacca's prison transport being blown-up with him on board. Even his 'death' is not allowed to be suspenseful for that long. He appears not long after to be alive and well, with the fact it was not his transporter. It feels like a cheat now, at the time of watching I went with it. If the directors had been brave and killed Chewbacca, yes there would have been Wookie like howls of outrage at this, but it might have skewed the film in a more thoughtful direction. It didn't and what we get is a Star Wars by the numbers, but not with the ingredients that made the previous star wars films in this sequence at least so good.

The crowd pleasing elements therefore do feel like a film franchise that has nowhere else to go - in this guise at least. This feels like the right time for this sequence of star wars films to finish as has been reported. The original cast that helped make star-wars great, are getting much older, or have died. The sense of that star wars scale also seems to be diminishing. The half-destroyed death star stranded in the waves was meant to be an epic feature, but it lacked the impact of the crashed star destroyer that Rey used to scavenge from in 'the force awakens'. Again it is problematic because we have seen the tricks before. The CGI doesn't work all that convincingly in some cases; the Starfleet doesn't have the feel of a real star fleet. There are moments of absurdity as well. The riding of camel like creatures across a star destroyer by the rebel combatants was well ludicrous, and distanced you from the film. If the destroyer on the other hand, was on the ground for repair or as a result of damage then maybe they could get away with it. Here it doesn't work.

I didn't always mind the cute creatures that worked their way into some scenes. The original star wars has always had 'cute' comic moments. The little robots on the original death star that Chewie scares into running of by roaring at them is still funny. I liked the birds looking on bemused as Skywalker raises the X-wing in this film. That by the way is another moment that should be exciting, but doesn't quite have the impact I wanted it to have, because it was better done in the empire strikes back.

There are plenty of negatives in this film, but there are also positives. It certainly doesn't drag for one. The action sequences are well done. The light sabres fights do deliver if perhaps they go on too long. The acting is on the whole fine if unremarkable. Richard E Grant hams it up a bit, but I think that maybe is shown up in away by the cast who are maybe a bit subdued overall. Ian Mcdiarmid also does his best with a role in which he can only be over-the-top villain in. He also has an atypical Mordor like hall surrounded by giant statues of various Sith Lord worthies. It seems a little harsh to be criticising a series in which the director JJ Abrahams has played a significant part in revitalising. Star Wars has also moved with the times; by having Rey at the centre of proceedings, it has given the star wars a credible female hero other than Princess Leia. It was also nice to see Lando Calrissian back in business for some much needed if limited diversity in a film series which still has a predominantly 'white' feel to it. This film therefore has its faults, and lacks those moments that truly excite you, but it still felt like good enough (just) company all the same.

Emperor (2012)

An unsatisfactory film exploring a controversial time in the immediate aftermath of post war Japan.

[6/10 · 18 May 2020]

I think this is a film that becomes more unsatisfactory the more you think about it. This isn't simply a case of plot holes revealing themselves at a later date, and you don't mind because the film swept you away at the time. This is because the film concerns itself with true events, and its interpretation of those events is softened. Yes films will often bend historical accuracy when it comes to the truth, but the stakes really do matter here, and if a film gives the wrong impression that can be dangerous in terms of the truth. I don't say Emperor severely bends the truth, but there is plenty of important omission, and an important lack of context.

It's a shame because the end of the 2nd world war in Japan is a fascinating period of time. It does deserve a film of impeccable honesty, and while we get a polished and well constructed film, its flaws do undermine it.

The film obstentsibly concerns whether or not Emperor Hirohito is guilty of war-crimes and therefore liable for execution. It is General Bonner Fellers' (Matthew Fox) task to find out whether the above can be proven or not- this under the direct orders of General Douglas MacArthur (Tommy Lee Jones) himself. There is also a love story sub-plot which concerns Fellers and Aya Shimida(Eriko Hatsune).

The acting from Tommy Lee Jones as MacArthur is superb. One gets the feeling this maybe a definitive performance of MacArthur. As leader of the victorious allied forces he plays a scheming, intelligent, sympathetic, ebullient, forceful, and demanding, as well as the well known qualities he has of being a prima donna. The film seems to go up a gear whenever Jone's is on screen. Fox himself gives a decent performance as Fellers; a slightly uptight but competent general; although he is less convincing in the pre-war flashback scenes he has with Eriko Hatsune.

There is good Japanese support from the various members of the Japanese war government whom Fellers' interviews in order to try ascertain the guilt of Hirohito. The prime minister Hideki Tojo played by Shohei Hino is probably the finest of these performances, even if he only on screen a short time.

There are several stand out scenes in this film. Firstly an incredibly tense scene when you do not know whether the emperor's personal guards will allow Fellers' into the imperial palace without a fight breaking out. Secondly the scene were Fellers' tries to get Tojo to name names in Tojo's prison cell is beautifully done. Lastly there is the notable scene were MacArthur interviews Empero Hirohito for the first time. This is a nice set piece were MacArthur politely but unceremoniously treats the Emperor Hirohito; much to the dismay of Hirohito's senior palace official.

The above mostly concerns the good parts of the film, which to be fair are good. The problems arise were the film tries to deal with the Emperor's guilt. Fellers' is shown to be methodical in search of the truth, rather against the spirit MacArthur wants him to conduct the investigation. MacArthur wants an acquital of Hirohito so as to ensure stability in post war Japan. What the film doesn't quite admit is that there was a cover up of the Emperor's war guilt for political convenience. Fellers' is shown to be trying his best to uncover the truth, but he knew which way the political wind was blowing, and it probably was not hard for him to have given MacArthur what he wanted. The fact there was only ten days for any investigation suggests MacArthur wasn't serious about an investigation fullstop. It matters because there were atrocious war crimes committed by the Japanese military, and as ruler Hirohito was guilty by implication at least. Yet the film deliberately concentrates on a complicated political structure, which gives you the impression the emperor was less involved in decision making than it probably appeared.

Now his guilt is not as clear cut as Hitler's was for his war crimes, but Hirohito must have agreed for the attack on Pearl Harbour to go ahead. The film suggests he was pressurised (by the military) into doing so, or tried to argue against it in very subtle ways. This appears to be a Japanese-American project so perhaps the film makers were softer than they should have been on this point.

Another important point, which the film does explore briefly is whether it was the right decision to allow Hirohito to stay as Emperor. He did order the surrender of the Japanese forces, which would have been certainly against significant military pressure. Yet did he do this for Japan's benefit or his own benefit or both. Clearly had he held out against surrender then he would surely have been executed in Japan's inevitable defeat.

Japan however did become a democratic country with a powerful economy, but was this as a result of the Emperor remaining in place, or would it have happened anyway. MacArthur in the film does have reason to fear a Japanese revolt if the Emperor is removed or executed. This would nesitate a force of perhaps a million allied service-men to occupy Japan. The Japanese people however might have been so fed up with fighting by this time, they might not have cared about whether the Emperor Hirohito remained in power. America also had the nuclear bomb, and had used it on the Japanese people to force the surrender in the first place although perhaps the Japanese military would have fought on anyway. They would most likely not have had the support of the Japanese people in the face of more atomic bomb drops. These are important factors to consider especially when Hirohito remained Japanese leader until his death in 1988. This was when the controversy over his war guilt or not was re-awakened in the west.

It is a murky fascinating episode in history, and the truth about the Emperor's guilt may never be proven conclusively. It was certainly quite useful for MacArthur that was the case, but maybe he made the right decision, even if in a fairer world the Emperor should have faced trial. The film superficially explores these issues before the Emperor should be given a substantial benefit of the doubt. I can't argue that It's a reasonably well made film, but I'm not convinced it gives enough weight to the evidence against Emperor Hirohito. The film feels like something of a stitch-up, which given the subject matter is probably in keeping with the subject.

Land and Freedom (1995)

War, politics and love in the Spanish civil war as seen by left wing director Ken Loach.

[7/10 · 15 May 2020]

There is a moment of disappointment for me when I realise that the film is not a true story. I looked at the end of the credits only to see that 'all characters were fictitious' blah blah. The reason for my surprise was that this film is the epitome of Ken Loach's naturalism which he directs with his usual unvarnished honesty. The film therefore quietly fooled me on my part alone, that it was a true story.

I can always give or take some of Ken Loach's politics, but here I think he dials it back enough, to give an important examination of the Spanish civil war. I think there is a perhaps unwitting homage (pun intended) to Orwells 'homage to Catalonia' especially in its examination of the inter-sectional infighting (sometimes literally) between the Stalin backed armies, and the other Spanish militia groups, all of whoms obstensible foe is meant to be Franco.

The angle that Loach takes is to look at the POUM which mainly represents the workers, and that would tie in with Loach's general philosophy. This actually works to the benefit of the film, because the true enemy of the peace along with Franco, is the distant, puppet master, Stalin - who wants all armies to fight under his banner. The POUM are to be absorbed into the Communist party proper, and if they resist; well they will end up shot.

It really is one of those fascinating and slightly neglected corners of history - due to the war's proximity to the second world war. Here Loach uses as a device a love story between Ian Hart as David Carr and Bianca played by Rosana Pastor and this plays to a tragic conclusion. Ian Hart is good enough for the role, but Bianca is played with intelligence and a lovely warmth and earns Rosana Pastor the acting plaudits. The film does work as a love story, and because I thought this was a true story, I did have hopes for them - alas however. Ken Loach though handles this doomed love affair well, and weights it with enough balance not to distort the overall direction of the film.

The acting in the cameo roles is good, even from those who were not trained as actors which is especially on show at a village meeting in the middle of the film. There is key support from Tom Gilroy who plays Lawrence; an American radical who will disloyally support Stalin by the end of the film. Worthy of mention is Iciar Bollain as Maite another fighter who imparts a brilliant naturalism that is a feature of Ken Loach's films.

The scenes of battle are very well done, and considering the likely tight budget of the shoot, very convincing. The structure is an unusual one, were contemporary footage is linked to events in the civil war, and the brave decision were a lengthy village meeting is shown. It is very close to being too long and perhaps critically so, yet the back and forth discussions just hold enough interest for you to forgive the expositional tone of it.

The most interesting part of the story apart from the love story, where probably the Barcelona scenes. The would be allies turn to shooting at each other, and here we get how Stalin is not interested in a unified front against Franco, but only interested in those loyal to him. The message that Loach tries to hint at is that had the anti-Franco resistance been unified they might have won. I think that is tendentious, because Franco's army was better equiped, and he was there on the ground in Spain. There is not much doubt that a unified resistance, could made the war last a couple more years, but I suspect that Franco would have won in the end. He could also rely upon Hitler to help him out as well; the bombing of Guernica being the prime example of that.

There are elements of this film I like, and it is a useful way into the Spanish civil war; for those who know a little about it. I think it is an important film, but it lacks the feeling of an epic. I was interested in the love story, but the contemporary scenes were a little bit of a luxury. There is a suggestion at the end that the fight goes on, and for Ken Loach you shouldn't doubt that. Whether you want to be entirely on Ken Loach's side is a different matter though; you might drift into more unrealistic left wing policy. The village meeting was probably a risk worth taking, but it is a close call. I probably admire this film, rather than love it. If you weren't interested or didn't know much about this period of history, then I'm not quite sure it would keep your attention through-out. This though is a solid enough piece of film-making, and worth attention.

The Current War (2017)

So so drama about Edison going head to head with a rival to supply electricity in its early days.

[6/10 · 7 May 2020]

I maybe being a little harsh by giving the current war a 6, on the otherhand, I don't think it has quite done enough to deserve a 7. This is not a bad film, but doesn't somehow it doesn't really wow you. This is a film of missed opportunities, as it is a film with a terrific cast, even if in the main the performances are not entirely convincing. It has an ambitious storyline, but the script while solid enough lacks fizzle. It creates the opportunities for interesting ideas, but somehow sidesteps them. It is a film that tries to hit a range of targets, but while there maybe a flurries, the punches rarely land with conviction. The CGI is also a bit clunky. You can get away with that if the film overall is good enough. Unfortunately the current war isn't quite up to the mark. That CGI failing is a significant one, because the moments in the film were you expect the film to dazzle often fall flat.

It's a shame because the story of how electricity came into being should be exciting. It is the invention that in effect created the modern world. The real figures involved in harnessing that power are actually compelling. This however is not reflected in Benedict Cumberbatch's (Edison) performance. He mostly lacks conviction in the role. It's perfectly adequate, but it is a strange failing that he doesn't play the role with far more intensity.

The acting honours therefore go to Michael Shannon, who is very comfortable as Westinghouse. He does have a terrific moustache as well. He is the main rival to Edison and propounds ac current which is cheaper and more efficient over longer distances, than Edison's dc alternative.. It's a compelling narrative, but one that's undercut by the introduction of Tesla which adds a subplot, that unfortunately becomes a distraction. Ironically enough Tesla (Nicholas Hoult) is the character who probably has the most interesting backstory. The film hints at that backstory but doesn't really explore it.

There is a further complication in the plot when the invention of the electric chair is thrown into the mix. Seen as a 'painless' way to kill murderers etc; both Westinghouse and Edison are implicated in its invention. This is partly because of a dirty tricks campaign, instigated by Edison to cast aspersions on Westinghouse's character, but this rebounds when Edison is caught out giving advice on how to make the electric chair work. There is some soul searching by Edison on whether he should allow a man to be deliberately killed by electricity. It seems to go against his principles, but his desperate rivalry with George Westinghouse means he abandons them.

The electric chair sequences are illustrative of a film that pulls its punches. The first execution went horribly wrong, but instead of showing in its gory detail, it only shows the point of view the murderer sees. It makes the film seem anodyne when it should be 'shocking'

Another sequence that shows were the film goes wrong is when a horse is electrocuted as part of Edison's dirty tricks campaign to smear ac. The horse is merely shown at peace dead on the floor of the stable, and not as the electricity is put into his body. The film therefore seems to shy away from anything that might be seen as upsetting or controversial. Maybe what the film really lacks is edge, to give it impact.

There are also very little for women to do in this film except be wives for the protagonists. It doesn't allow for an actress of Tuppence middleton's quality to do much with being Edison's wife except die about half way through. Similarly Katherine Waterstone as Westinghouse's wife doesn't really have much to do either.

The film culminates with Westinghouse winning the contract to light the Chicago world fair exhibition. Yet due to the poor CGI, the world fair location is poorly rendered. It does undercut the film at its climax. The handling of the key moments throughout the film are badly undercut by the CGI. The first demonstration of Edison's dc lighting in the centre of New York should be literally dazzling, but it isn't. It's just some well... rather dull lighting being turned on. It's a failing that is indicative of a film that doesn't get the detailing right. The CGI however might not have mattered as much if wasn't for the other faults in the film.

I did feel that there was a good film wanting to get out, which is why I don't think this film is entirely without merit. The story is interesting in itself and the film is ambitious - no great failing. Yet maybe this is a film that might have done with another half hour, in order to allow more time for the film to breathe. Normally an hour-fifty should be enough for most films, but this is a rare film that maybe deserved more than two hours of your time. It's a watchable film, but it lacks edge, has an overly complicated narrative, and the acting is one with mixed performances. It's a shame, because the film's premise is a good one, but it just doesn't work. It's not a terrible film, but I don't think it's one you will need to see again.

Breathless (1960)

A crime film which is a classic of the 'new wave' French cinema, but is relatively tame by today's standards.

[7/10 · 26 April 2020]

There is no doubt ' a bout de souffle' (Breathless) is rightly regarded as a classic, and probably a film, any serious film lover should see. Yet this drama about a thief turned murderer has inevitably perhaps lost some of its power. It lacks in my eyes at least the bite of a modern thriller. Yet there are hints in the film of a more realistic and cynical view of the world, and it does surprise me that this film is made in 1960. To me this does feel like a film ten years ahead of its time. If this came out in the late sixties or early seventies, its mood would have matched the sensibility of Hollywood of that time. Films like Bonnie and Clyde and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, seem to owe a subtle debt to Breathless. I wonder therefore why I don't like Breathless more

I certainly admire the acting of Jean Paul Belmondo as Michel Poiccard/Lazlo Kovacs and to a lesser extent the co-star Jean Seberg ( as New Yorker - Patricia Franchini). She is the love interest of Poiccard - he hides out in her Paris apartment; after he has murdered the policeman. The image of his cocky, cool demeanour with cigarette hanging from his mouth is rightly iconic. This is the attitude of someone who wants to play the cool gangster hero a la Humphrey Bogart. He also likes to sleep around and Patricia Franchini is a target of a persistent seduction attempt. This film might also be seen as more of a love story than a crime story. Yet without the crime the love story would probably lose its interest for us. Yet you know that Belmondo is not likely to escape his fate. The sound of unrelated police sirens, occasionally heard outside the apartment, suggest how things will end for him.

It is Seberg who will ultimately betray him, as a test of whether she loves him or not. If she loved him she wouldn't betray him being her rationale. The casualness by which seem comes to this decision is shown to be even crueller, when not only does she betray him to the police, but that leads to him being killed by the police. The sequence in which Belmondo dies is a true classic. In almost the final shots of the film, he staggers as in a syncopated dance with a slowly bleeding but fatal bullet wound to his back. The scene is truly astonishing.

The thing I tended to like most about this film was its use of technique. The jump editing; were time is usually seen to jump forward a few seconds is brilliant, and very effective. I have not seen it done all that often in film either, although it is perhaps more frequent than I've noticed.

The opening scenes of the film are likewise brilliant in execution and is a masterclass in setting up a character like Poiccard's. His frustration in driving a stolen car down a busyish road is beautifully shot, and unexpectedly funny as he gives a commentary on the driving about him..

There is greatness in this film, and yet perhaps the cynicism in it makes it difficult to care to much about the fate of the characters. I find this film a brilliant technical achievement, but there are also strange longeurs in it. It's however a film that would definitely shock a normal 1960's audience. The magazines that Poiccard reads contain toplesss naked women and are shown on the film; for the time that must have been incredibly risque.

It does feel in part like a modern film, but one that is finding its footsteps; one that doesn't always know how to use the ingredients it has as its disposal. Maybe the story's relative simplicity counts against it. It is a short film, and interesting shadier characters are shown only in passing as a result. I also found Poiccard's fasciantion with Patricia unrealistic. She is attractive, but her character seems dull and vacant. Maybe I just didn't quite get the film. Maybe there are people annoyed by my reservations about an undoubted classic. I can certainly see the hints of greatness in the film as I mentioned above.. It feels like the beginning of something but I was surprised to find how indifferent I was to the fate of the characters. Technically it is a superb film, but emotionally and surprisingly to me I found it didn't quite hit home.

Sarajevo (2014 TV Movie)

Attractive film with decent acting, but its accuracy is problematic.

[6/10 · 21 April 2020]

This is a period of history I am interested in, and therefore Sarajevo was a film I was interesting in watching because of the subject matter. It is a film that is certainly elegantly presented, with well judged performances as well. Yet its conclusions that the assasination of the Arch duke Ferdinand, and his wife was part of a Austrian plot to go to war with Serbia is tendentious at best. It is certainly a nice twist, and one that gives the film momentum. The problem is that a simpler story is the far more likely one. It was probably bad luck and incompetent policing that helped lead to the death of Ferdinand and there by the first world war. It's true that Austra/ Germany wanted an excuse to go to war with Serbia, but whether Austria would have connived in the death of their own leader Ferdinand is extremly unlikely.

The above reservations are the reason I don't rate the film more highly than a six. It is a good solid film however, although the central love story was probably unnecessary. Florian Teichtmeister does a good job a Leo Peffer investigating an investigation whose outcome is fixed from the outset. Melika Foroutain playing Maria Jeftanovic is the Serbian he falls in love with, and whose presence in Sarajevo is increasingly threatened by the establishment, looking for revenge. There are interesting elements in the story that Leo peffer is a Jew, and that will prove useful to the Austrians in trying to accuse the Serbian government of being behind the assasination. If Leo Peffer can sign off on the investigation whilst being seen as a 'neutral' it will look better for a wider international community.

He doesn't play ball with that, and that leads to him being directly threatened and intimidated. The story relies on the tension on whether he will give in or not to this pressure. There are other interesting characters like Heino Ferch who appears as friendly doctor but may or may not be. His performance was the most interesting in the film, and he tries to give Leo realistic advice. This advice might be double edged however.

So there are interesting elements in this film, and it has the pervasive atmosphere of a down at heels Austro Hungarian empire, riven by warmongers, and careerists. Gustav Princip and the other serbs involved in the murder of the arch duke are shown to be tortured, and threatened with execution to make them talk. Innocent Serbs are also executed, although how much truth there is in this I don't really know.

The production values are excellent, and the expositionary elements of the film are handled pretty well. I liked the film, but its speculation undermines its authenticity. If you want your period drama tinged with violence at an important time, then this is worth a watch. If however your looking for a truly factual account of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the assasination, then handle this film with some care. It's a decent effort, and will wile away an evening reasonably enough. Yet it doesn't quite fulfill its promise.

Midsommar (2019)

If you like your gory paganism delivered at a stately pace, then this might be your film.

[7/10 · 29 March 2020]

It maybe a bit unfair to define this film as gory paganism as described in the header. It is however hard to ignore those few but important moments of gore, because they are genuinely gory moments, and yet it doesn't destablise the film. The gore comes at the just the right moments and brings with it a necessary menace. This film might have been a long 2 hours and 20 minutes otherwise. .

Ari Aster's direction is skillful,but a little distancing at time. He does get away with it, because the acting is often excellent. Florence Pugh plays a damaged woman, whose tragic loss of her family, forces her to be both fascinated and horrified by the unfolding pagan ceremonies in a remote Swedish village. Her portayal of Dani is complex, and demanding. She reacts subtly to the horror, even though you know exactly how she is feeling. It is difficult acting,but exactly in keeping with the films overall mood.

Jack Reynor's performance as her boyfriend is very good as well. He had wanted to break-up with her but her tragic circumstances forced him to invite her to a midsommar festival. He hopes that she won't go therefore leaving it to be a jolly with him and three of his male friends..

Will Poulter is good as the ass-hole character who is one of those friends, and you kind of know and hope that he's going to get his. .William Jackson Harper is another friend,and he is possibly outside the two leads the most interesting character. Obstensibly someone who has integrity, but who takes risks he knows he shouldn't. It doesn't end well.

This is more of a pyschological horror film, although the gore does pervade your thoughts during the film. The film is beautifully shot, and yet I found it slightly disappointing. I'm not quite sure why. Maybe a tighter film would have been a better one. I know Aster has said this film is a break-up in pyscho-drama form. I do get that point in retrospect. There are also allusions as has been pointed out by critics to the wicker-man. I'm not a great fan of that film, which might annoy some people, yet strangely I think I preferred the Wickerman.

I accept Midsommar is a good film, which is why I rate it seven, and yet I'm not sure it went any where really new. Perhaps it tried to too much, and slightly missed the right emphasis on both the pagan horror,and the modern pyschological take on Dani's emotional struggles.

I don't need to see this film again,which means something is missing from it. I don't quite know what it is which puzzles me. Maybe the minor characters are not detailed enough to keep your attention in the many quiet moments. A good film, but not for me an enthralling one.

Wild (I) (2014)

A personal journey of 'discovery', but avoids obvious traps of sentimentality and mawkishness.

[8/10 · 31 August 2019]

I had hummed and hawed over watching this film or not. I couldn't quite remember if I had heard good things about it or not. I think I may have done, so decided to give it a shot. I was actually pleasantly surprised, and surprised that I engaged with the story so much. I knew and liked Reese Witherspoon from her earlier movies: the cheerful 'legally blonde', the clever film 'Pleasantville', and perhaps the best of the lot the political satire, set in a school, in the film called 'election'.

This film is the true story based on the book by Cheryl Strayed (played by Reese Witherspoon) the main character in the film. She is undertaking an arduous and occasionally dangerous hike, alone, along the Pacific coastal trail (PCT); a 1200-ish mile walk in all. The main reason for her hike is to try and come to terms with the death of her mother, and recover in body and mind from her resultant drug abuse and unhealthily sexualised response to that grief.

Her past relationship with her mother and her often drug addled sexual encounters are shown in flashback (no pun intended, even if it would have been a good one). These flashbacks never jar though, and really give an insight into her pain, and what she is trying to get away from in her particularly dark past. Laura Dern who plays her mother gives a very warm performance - one that in less skillful hands could have been soppyish. Her performance works though, and you understand the pain, her mother went through, trying to deal with an abusive, alcoholic husband.

The direction by Jean-Marc Vallée, while perhaps a little too restrained, despite the scenery that was obviously on offer, does a good job of keeping the multi-stranded story coherent and involving. The script by Nick Hornby probably deserves a lot of the credit for this, as well. It would have been so easy to get the pacing wrong, and make a two hour film of someone hiking feel like an eternity. Yet I was never bored in this film. Reese Witherspoon shows herself capable of taking a tough role on, and while she doesn't need to be that exceptional in the role, she is plenty good enough to take you along with her..

Although men do play at times a significant part in her hike, both in flashback and along the hike itself, this is not really a story about them. The film depends on the performances of both Laura Dern and Reese Witherspoon to keep your attention. They succeed in doing so..

The Square (2017)

An arty film about art with an incoherent plot.

[6/10 · 3 January 2019]

I'm not quite sure whether this is meant to be a comedy, or something more serious. It's possible, obviously, that it can be both, but the main problem is that this film doesn't appear to know either. This doesn't help the plot which examines a man Christian (Claes Bang) who works at an art museum trying topublicise an art exhibition whilst his private life is a mess. His performance is fine if remote; not helped by having to deal with some bizarre changes in tone in the film.

The problems in tone are exemplified by his relationship with Elizabeth Moss playing an art critic, which is funny, and then surreal, and includes a bizarre moment in the bedroom which inadvertantly explores the elastic properties of a condom. Nope, I am not making that last bit up. Whilst humorous it doesn't add anything to our understanding of her character or his relationship with her.

There are brilliant moments in this film, but then somehow nothing quite happens with them. The Oleg (Terry Notary) character who does a kind of performance art which is mostly agressive passive and effects to cause both embarrasment and then fear at a dinner party, is excellent... at first. It spoils the scene by becoming and disturbingly an attempted rape scene. It would have been nice for the scene to have ended in a less predicatable way, as such this scene now just feels exploitative.

The above scene points out the mix of the surreal, comic, serious, and occasionally uncomfortable viewing this fim provides. It becomes therefore a frustrating, and messy film. It jabs at the pretensions of the art world but then appears to make pretentious points about freedom of speech itself.

There are always moments of interest in this film, especially when a kid accused by Claes Bang of being a theif (alongside many others via a letter drop), turns up. The kid is marvellously persistent and annoying and 'right' as well when it comes to his innocence.

There are probably two major problems with this film. It's length at two and a half hours is far too long. At least half an hour could have been taken out and would have most likely improved the plotting. It would have forced Ostlund the director to decide on which storyline was the most important. This might have helped me (at least) understand the plot better and I think would have made for a better sharper film.

The other problem is the characters are not likeable. It isn't always the case that characters need to be likeable, but you do need to empathise with their predicament. I didn't really care about Christian, and yet I think it was a fine performance by Claes Bang. I can't really explain that except the story was incoherent, and that must have become an alienating factor in wacthing his performance.

There is an interesting subplot involving a viral campaign for the museum that goes horribly wrong. Yet it feels dislocated from the rest of the film which considering it's an art film about art feels really strange. There are moments in this film worth watching but as a whole it's a very long scratchy watch.

Apostle (2018)

Incredibly violent, and brutal film. Very tense, but confused as to what it is really trying to say..

[6/10 · 27 October 2018]

I don't mind violence or gore in films particularly but I like there to be a coherent point to it. It shouldn't be there gratuitously, but to act as an essential part of the story. The story also has to be interesting as well to justify the use of such violence. Make no mistake this is a very violent film. It is well made, but I'm unconvinced that the story is a solid enough one to jusitfy this level of violence.

When I talk of violence: there is disembowelling,.trepanning turned up to eleven, a pulversing human sized, mincing machine, neck slitting scenes, religious cross branding. Therefore a veritable generation game conveyor belt of horror tropes, new and old.

This story is really the Wickerman on an excursion to the slaughterhouse. It's themes are really about pagan worship, usurping no thrills barred christian worship. Yet the violence means what could have a dark but satisfying tale, becomes a brutalist blood fest. It doesn't allow a lot of room for subtle acting, but Michael Sheen does very good work as the leader/prophet, and is compelling. Dan Stevens (okayishly) plays the obstensiable hero of the piece sent to rescue a kidnapped girl from the cult that Michael Sheen leads. Things are complicated by sub-plots involving a love story between two teenagers which you probably suspect, correctly as it turns out, won't turn out well.

There also turns out to be a battle for leadership of the cult by Msrk Lewis Jones who plays Quinn. Quinn is a brutal person badly in need of anger management and an HR chat.

I think the film is well made. It is tense, but it uses non-to subtle points about paganism as an excuse to justify the level of violence. If you want a straight out gory film this will do it for you. If you want a film that makes its arguments with a degree of sophistication this is not the film for you. Yep youy've been warned.

Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Attractive and well constructed, and yet somehow an underwhelming film.

[7/10 · 17 May 2018]

I did have my preconceptions of this film, which were based upon the mixed reviews of it. I had heard it was superficial, and yet others were lavishing praise upon it. The mixed reviews I confess attracted me to the film, and I wanted to see the side of the argument, I would come down upon.

The positives first of all. It is beautifully filmed - it's slick, polished and the colours are luscious. It also has an astonishing beginning, which is one of those beginnings in where you go wow and are both 'magnetically' attracted and perhaps if you admit it a little repelled despite your pc correctness saying no you shouldn't be. It has a Lynchian quality to it and offers the promise of a quite wonderful and strange film. The other quality the film has is it's structure - a film within a film. The structure in itself allows for exciting ideas to be developed, and the film makes use of that structure to good if not quite, however, outstanding effect.

One other positive, and it has to be said because so much of the film lingers on Amy Adams, is that she is quite simply stunning looking. This may seem like an archaic value judgement, and yet the film does depend upon her attraction to match the slickness of the film. Now this is a problem as well, because Amy Adams isn't really asked to do that much acting, and when the dramatic scenes come you are not quite convinced you care about the fate of her or the other people in the film.

The film with in a film does however contain a fine performance from MIchael Shannon; a dying cop investigating the rape and murder of Jake Gyllenhall's characters family. Jake Gyllenall is also the ex-husband of Amy Adams who has sent the film script of this film to her. Therefore the setup is about how much does this film relate to Amy Adams relationship with her ex husband. Amy Adam's character is unhappily married as well, and therefore her ex-husband by way of the script (which by the way is good) reawakens a wish in her to go back to him. There is a critical problem however in that she aborted their child. This is revealed fairly late on in the film and adds a new dimension to the film with in the film.

This though is the problem: does the film with in the film convincingly relate to the overall story. I wasn't really convinced because I didn't think there was an explicit enough connection between both sides of the film. The film with in the film to be fair would have made a good enough film on its own. The acting unfortunately is rather uneven throughout both 'films'. Jake Gyllenhall seems too intense for the role, and the film really needed to allow its actors more room for subtlety.

This is a complicated and ambtious film and it is very well made, but something is missing from it. It isn't a purely superficial film, because there is depth underlying it. There are characters who are genuinely damaged, but the film ends up being more superficial because it doesn't allow room for the characters to be fully developed. I think the film's main reveal about the abortion comes too late in the film. It might have changed our earlier perceptions of where the film with in film was going and maybe this would have got me more involved with the film within a films meaning.

This is a difficult film to review, and you have to see it to really understand, why people have mixed feelings about it. I admired the acheivement, but wasn't emotionally involved in the story. The film isn't a failure, but it is a film that doesn't quite work and it's ending is rather anti-climatic. The film just didn't quite nail it.

.

Calvary (2014)

Interesting, and very disturbing film. I found it one to admire the sentiment of rather than enjoy.

[7/10 · 17 February 2018]

I am trying hard to think why this film fails to be a great film, at least in my eyes. It seems to have the qualifications. It has a great cast, a powerful story, good direction and good pacing, and yet I feel strangely unenthusiastic about it. I am still unconvinced why it failed to make me like it more. I have only just watched it (half an hour ago) so maybe I am writing this review a little to soon to really guess at the answer to the above.

Perhaps its the lack of subtlety in the film, which puts me off engaging with the characters. Maybe it is the strange lack of menace I had about the priest's (Brendan Gleeson) ultimate and very bloody fate. The acting by the way is fine throughout from most of the participants, except for a couple of the peripheal characters, which I found rather too quirky.

Kelly Reilly however is very good as the priest's daughter, recovering from a suicide attempt; attempting to reconnect with her father. Chris O'Down is excellent at priest's unwarranted nemesis. Dylan Moran is good as he can be as an unsubtle and unsympathetic wealthy landowner.

The beginning of the film does deliberately shock, where in confession an unseen and until the end unknown antagonist Chris O'Dowd, gives incredibly graphic detail about the sexual abuse he received, to the priest. I think this shocking start perhaps unbalances the film, and although the film does very well to live up to that start, it perhaps tries to hard throughout to keep that level of shock up.

The ending however is genuinely gruesome, and deliberately provocative. I think it is there to try and make us reflect as society on the' indifference' people might have had to sexual abuse. The film overall also seems to make a point about how cynicism, greed and indifference allowed child abuse, by some of the priesthood in Ireland, to happen unhindered.

I did find the ending moving especially when the daughter of the priest visits Chris O'Dowd in prison, presumably to accept his forgiveness. I do wish I liked this film more. It is brave, it is ambitious, and there is a who's who of Irish acting talent on display. Perhaps this film is just too pessimistic even allowing for the dark subject matter. You either have to like the characters, or its overall message, when a film is bleak in outlook. There are some lighter moments in the film especially with a fellow and incompetent priest, but there isn't much of it to go around in this film. Mind you the countryside is spectacularly brooding and beautiful. It is only a small compensation though to a well made but unfullfilling film.

Odette (1950)

A good important film; perhaps one of the more overlooked films about the 2nd world war.

[16 November 2017]

The film Odette, I think, is less well known than 'Carve her name with pride' - a film that deals with fairly similar wartime themes and is also based on a true story. I do think that Odette probably suffers, but only slightly in comparison, as it is a little too stolid in places. Both films would make excellent companion pieces, however, and 'Odette' is certainly well worth watching.

Odette is about a French women (Odette) who is sent to France as part of SOE. She has initially been sent to work with the French resistance around the important wartime port of Marseille. Whilst there she gradually falls in love with a British resistance man (Trevor Howard) who is also working undercover in France. Their relationship builds slowly through the film, surviving both prison and torture by the Gestapo, until after their terrible experiences they are reunited in Britain.

The love story is mostly understated, but underscores the nature and real danger of 'resistance' work in France. The film is sometimes a little stiff upper lipped and can be a little jarring, but the important scenes are done very well.

Those scenes include the torture of 'Odette' although the violence to her is not shown. The menace is there though in the framing of the scene, and you see a gestapo man take a red hot poker out of a stove, with the clear implication that he will burn her back with it. She also has her toe-nails pulled out, although we do not see that portrayed in the film. While the suggestion of Gestapo violence is palpable, it is the scene after her torture that sticks in the mind. You can see the pain seemingly etched in her face, her hair bedraggled, and clinging with sweat to her forehead.

It is a very powerful scene, which works extremely well in expressing the torment she went through. Strangely and unfortunately enough the film probably doesn't exude enough menace early on. The acting is good as you might expect from Trevor Howard. Anna Neagle who plays Odette is good as well. There is a nice cameo from Peter Ustinov as a French and occasionally grumpy wireless operator.

There is some attempt not to simply have all the Germans as one dimensional. The main German antagonist (Marius Goring) does portray a more complex German. He does not like the Gestapo and their methods, even if, as is pointed out, he goes along with what they do.

The other notable scene includes the concentration camp 'Ravensbruck' were the story becomes even darker. Odette is tortured by being imprisoned in solitary confinement with little or no food, and with the heating deliberately turned up to as hot as possible. She nearly dies from this, although she is given slightly better treatment after that. The sadism of the German women guards is hinted at in the film, although not in its probably horrifying detail. Odette is eventually rescued by the camp commander, who tries to save his own skin by releasing her to the advancing Americans.

There is some humour despite the dark material in the film, but it is mostly rather forced and stilted. I think the film is probably overlong, and the script lacks bite early on. The film is of its time, and the film probably softens some scenes that a modern audience would probably expect to see.

It does a mostly successful job, however, of explaining 'Odettes' story; she did receive a well deserved 'George Cross' for her bravery. I think this is an important film, not simply for its look at her work in the French resistance, but for her confinement in Ravensbruck, were many brave women would not survive the war in that camp. They were often executed there, or basically left to die.

If you are interested there is a Wikipedia page dedicated to the prominent women who died in Ravensbruck, and it also contains more sobering detail on the nature of the suffering they endured.

I don't this film ranks as one the great war films, the script is a little leaden at times, and until later on in the film there is not that feeling or menace your might expect. I would recommend it none the less, the story is compelling enough to overcome the difficulties with the script.

Hobson's Choice (1954)

Solid if not quite up there with David Lean's best work.

[18 September 2017]

I was hoping for a little more from this film. I should clarify I was not disappointed as such in the film - it was well made and had some visual polish. It had great actors (John Mills and Charles Laughton), and in particular one truly outstanding performance from Brenda de Banzie.

I think the main 'problem' I have with the film is because that the script is a little pedestrian and clichéd in places. It has a lot of 'ee by gum' references sprinkled through out the dialogue.

From the 'ee by gums' you should be able to locate this film as a Northern film. Indeed it is set in Manchester in the 1880's and concerns the family of the often drunken boot shop owner Charles Laughton and his three long suffering daughters and in particular his oldest unmarried daughter played by Brenda de Banzie. They are unmarried because the father will not pay dowries to marry off his daughters. In revenge she decides to get married to the fairly dim, if likable boot maker who works in the shop. They then leave to set up their own business in spite of her father's wishes.

There are great moments in this film; one I think I remember already seeing in a documentary about Lean. This is where an intoxicated Charles Laughton follows the moon reflected in puddles, splashing away childlike as he goes along in fits and starts.

There are some nice visuals flourishes including vistas of open city parkland, as well as in other scenes factory chimneys punctuating brooding industrial landscapes. Overall though I did not find the cinematography quite as atmospheric as I hoped although I was probably spoiled by remembering the marvellous cinematography in Leans earlier 'Great Expectations'.

This is a film that relies upon the acting therefore to make it work, and does not fail because of Brenda de Banzies performance. She plays a fantastically strong female lead. Determined, and clever wanting something better than just to be stuck in a boot shop ministering to her ungrateful father.

Charles Laughton is good but not great in this film (puddle scene excepting). I think Charles Laughton does his turn as Charles Laughton, which is what he does best. This should not be seen as a criticism, but it perhaps over balances this film a little bit; whereas in the film 'witness for the prosecution' his performance is brilliantly judged.

John Mills performance doesn't quite work in this film either. He appears slightly uneasy in the role. It's not a bad performance, but because it's John Mills you expect a little more.

I would therefore put this film in one of David Leans lesser works. It hasn't the peerless brilliance of Great expectations, the visual splendour of Dr Zhivago or the epic grandeur of Lawrence of Arabia. It does show a film maker helping what might have been creaky cliché into something better than the sum of its parts. Yet this film, and I cannot stress this enough depends on Brenda de Banzies superb performance to make it truly worth watching.

I would also note that Prunella Scales(Basil Fawlty's wife) appears in an early role as one of the daughters.

The Quatermass Xperiment (1955)

Somewhat dated film but has moments of genuine menace and power

[6 May 2017]

I can see why this 'alien' invades Earth film would have been influential to directors and perhaps shocking as well to cinema-goers in the fifties. It would certainly have had more power back then and yet while the black and white 'gore' is effectively done it is still relatively tame by today's standards.

I was impressed however with some of the ambition and intelligent ideas running throughout the film, and this is important for the film to remain pretty watchable.

It concerns the arrival of an alien presence via a crashed rocket. It has managed to inhabit the body of the only survivor of three astronauts who where on the rocket. The alien then mutates with other life forms of both animal and vegetable varieties It inevitably kills animals and humans in the process of doing so, and whilst doing this, it threatens to generate millions of alien offspring. The only person who seems capable of stopping it is Quatermass (Brian Donleavy) with the help of a high ranking police inspector.

The actual alien is rendered in an extremely impressive way for the time, and would hold up well today. It is perhaps Richard Wordsworths portrayal as Carroon that gives this film its best moments. Carroon is the surviving astronaut, the alien first inhabits before it transforms into the alien proper. The early moments in the film when you sense the menace and uncanniness in Carroon are very well done. You expect something bad to happen and when it does happen it is done in an effective manner.

Another nice moment is when the alien comes across a kid hosting a tea party with a doll, and the kid engages the Carroon character in disarming conversation - the kid herself being blithely unaware of any possible danger. The kid is unharmed by Carroon who instead dismembers her doll before he runs off.

The drawbacks are the occasional stilted dialog and rather clumsy 'natural' seeming scenes. It perhaps doesn't quite work as a horror thriller today - the film alien as you might expect does rather put it in the shade in that regard. Yet it is a well done film given the limitations of the time, and central idea of an alien presence who walks or slithers amongst us remains a good one.

Last Tango in Paris (1972)

A film that is far from a classic it is considered by some to be- and containing a very unpleasant sex scene that could be classed as rape today.

[4/10 · 17 November 2016]

This is a seventies film that is unsure of what it is meant to be and what it becomes as a result is probably just soft pornography(with one very unpleasant exception), mixed in with a little bit of satire, some meandering reflections on childhood, and having a muted incidental dark edge to it.

The combination of sex in relationship to death however oblique was probably made controversial more by the amount of nudity on show (by the woman of course). Yet the downbeat cinematography, the sparse locations, the lack of empathetic characters make this a bleak and uninvolving film. No amount of sex or nudity makes this film interesting, despite trying its best to do so.

It really is a disappointment, not a terrible film, and not a film without odd moments of humour either. The ballroom scene near the end where the films title is directly referenced is actually funny, particularly the outraged judges who are appalled by the frivolous dancing of Brando and his young partner Maria Schneider.

The film does try to create a darkness which doesn't quite work. Brando's unfaithful wife is shown to have killed herself and he embarks on a very cold detached affair with Maria Schneider's character. It is exploring a very dysfunctional relationship, but because you don't really care about the characters, the darkness in the film appears as an after thought.

It is a challenging role for Brando but perhaps because he can be quite a complicated and aloof actor anyway, there is simply not enough warmth in this role from him to make you care about the character.

Maria Schneider unfortunately does not get much more of a role then to be completely naked. There is a side story showing her making a true life documentary with her director boyfriend. It is meant as parody, but you still don't care about her character and it further distracts from the darkness of the main plot-line.

There are genuinely controversial elements today a modern audience should find very uncomfortable. One of the sex scenes which might have been seen by some as acceptable in the seventies, would almost certainly be seen as non-consensual sex and therefore rape in today's courts.

Therefore this film is a extremely disappointing on a number of levels. What might have been a very interesting and truly great film is seen to condone rape because it does not challenge the man over his actions, or explore the affects on her of that rape.

A far less serious disappointment is that the acting does not engage you. It's a film that is a creaky, often pretentious piece, and probably (with one nasty exception) not much more than soft pornography.

Cinema Paradiso (1988)

A film that will have a special appeal to lovers of film.

[8/10 · 27 May 2016]

Cinema Paradiso does deserve many plaudits and I can see the appeal of it . It is sentimental, but it works without being mawkish. It is also nostalgic, but it is not a blinkered nostalgia. It does hint at darker things, and also a particularly traumatic moment which effects the entire tenor of the film after it happens. It is a beautifully judged film and there are scenes which are justifiably famous. In one of them the projectionist of the local cinema, turns the projector around so it can be seen on the walls of the outside town. It is a truly magnificent scene, albeit with a very dark ending.

By setting the film in Sicily and basing it around the local cinema, as well as setting it after the second world war, the film explores poverty, censorship, and loss of community. It does all of the above in a poignant, and often wry way. I think the term masterpiece is a little overstated, although I can see why people think it deserves the accolade. The very moving scene at the end is a wonderful peon to friendship. I think the film is coy about some of the more dubious aspects of Sicily, but that really is a small gripe although I still think worth mentioning.

It is a lovely film though with enough edge to restrain it from becoming too sentimental. This is a film you can safely be assured is a quality entertainment.

A Serious Man (2009)

An absorbing, and quietly smart movie from the Coen Brothers.

[3 April 2015]

This movie does not feel like a Coen brothers film, aside from a few smart deft dryly humorous touches. This movie is a more reflective and careful study than the other more showy movies they have made. The characters remain grounded in an everyday reality, even as the main character's life dramatically collapses around him.

It concerns a Jewish professor in late sixties America, who finds himself in a divorce whereby he is humiliated by having to move out of his house in order that his wife can move in with her lover. He is undermined at work by someone who writes anonymous letter accusing him of moral turpitude(unexplained). He is also under pressure to accept a bribe from a student who wants a pass grade. His children are self absorbed and at best ignore him, or at worse steal from him. He also has to look after his wastrel brother. The pressure of this eventually leads him to accepting the bribe from the student. The ending of the film suggests that his actions might have an almost divine or fateful retribution for that action. The movie however has enough ambiguity running through it to make the ending open to interpretation.

We are not meant to like the characters, but I think we are meant to understand, and certainly empathise with the professor's predicament. There is also a separate story at the beginning, unrelated in plot terms to the rest of the movie. It does as the director's have said set the dark ironic tone for movie.

This is not a easy movie to review, because it's themes are subtle, and appear contradictory. It hints at individual responsibility for people's actions, but then it suggests the working of fate as well. The professor wants answers that no one seems able or can't give him. This might have made the movie appear confused, but I don't it does, because the story is a strong enough one to make its point. It's just left to you to decide what the point is it's trying to make. This is not a cop out, because the strong story works well enough in its own terms.

The movie has a fascinating Jewish ambiance to it but one that does not veer to being clichéd. It does for example takes in a bar mitzvah but undercuts it by the professor's son being on dope at the time.

The acting in this movie is very good, if not too much of a stretch for some like Richard kind who plays the uncle. If you've seen Spin city you will recognise him from that role, pretty quickly. Micheal Stulhberg who plays the professor, I think is exemplary. He manages to convey a man very slowly undergoing an emotional collapse, behind a mostly passive exterior.

I think this a mature work from the Coen's, from a territory they are obviously, being Jewish, particularly comfortable with handling. I liked this film; even it is not a film directed in a style like their classic Fargo. It is a slow paced, but absorbing and intelligent film. It won't be for everyone, and I can understand why people might not like it. Yet I liked the ambiguity, the slow but careful pacing. This is a different kind of Coen brothers film, not for everyone, and one to admire rather than love, but I do think this is a very good film. Not an easy film with easy answers and in this case no bad thing.