Film reviews part 25 (in order of viewing)

Hard Truths (2024). 31.7.25. Not as good as expected. Mike Leigh has a tendency towards caricature and unfortunately created one in the main character despite an excellent portrayal. A very thin story as well, with the scenes at the doctor, dentist, furniture store feeling rather contrived and pointless beyond trying to make us amused at her problems. Similarly pointless were the short scenes at her nieces’ workplaces. And, finally, there was no explanation (was her condition always like this, had it got worse, was she happy as a child....?) and no resolution apart from a slightly bizarre scene which didn’t work well. Nevertheless, Mike Leigh’s talents as a writer and director are such that this still managed to be a rather enjoyable film! 7½/10

Grand hotel (1932). 19&20.8.25. Best Picture Oscar winner. An example of a film being made a hundred years ago being - in a sense - just as sophisticated and exuberant as they are today and without the woodenness of many films from the 40s to early 60s*. I was relieved too that there was no farce in this comedy-drama and that it was played pretty straight. To me, a young, radiant and very sexy Joan Crawford outshone Garbo, who had the least interesting and least challenging main role of this ensemble piece. 8/10 [*After writing this review, I see from Wikipedia that this was a Pre-Code film, which might explain the exuberance!]

The edge of the world (1937). 9&11.9.25. A very slight, short film. 6/10

Bachelor Knight, aka Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer (1947). 12.9.25. An entertaining bit of fluff with an on-form Cary Grant and similarly strong performances from the two female leads. 7½/10

No bears (2022). 7&10.10.25. Mildly intriguing but ultimately not up to much, and it wasn’t explained (apparently) that the film being made (within the film) was a docudrama rather than a straight drama, which caused some confusion. Nice to see a slice of Iranian village life. 6½/10

That they may face the rising sun (2023). 21.10.25. A meandering meditation which is just perfect if you’re in the right mood. The acting is spot-on, and dialogue so casual and understated that it often feels like a fly-on-the-wall documentary. 7½/10

Steve (2025). 23&24.10.25. Highly watchable, almost mesmerising situation piece, with a particularly poignant moment featuring the local MP. 8/10

Nowhere special (2020). 29.10.25. Quite well-done but rather slight. 7/10

Law of Tehran, aka just 6.5 (2019). 4.11.25. Initially a great thriller, but goes off the boil somewhat in the second half, which concentrates more on a message to the audience than keeping up the dramatic momentum. Payman Maadi is superb, as he was in A Separation. 7½/10

King Kong (1933). 6&7.11.25. One can see how exciting this would have been in 1933, and even today it seems a somewhat powerful film in certain respects. Ultimately though it was clearly made as a box-office draw for the specific time and holds limited appeal to today’s audiences. All the characters are one-dimensional, but Fay Wray’s character especially so. 6/10

I also started watching the following films, but they didn't interest me enough to keep watching.

Fallen leaves (2023). 18.8.25. Watched half.

Blue Jean (2022). 27.10.25. Watched half.

Film reviews part 24 (in order of viewing)

Passport to Pimlico (1949). 13&14.3.25. Very silly, farcical melodrama. Both style and content are very of its time, and only of its time. Compare it with that other Ealing Comedy classic The Ladykillers, which is timeless. 5½/10

Compartment Number 6 (2021). 17.3.25 (approx). I thought this was excellent(ish) with pitch-perfect performances by the leads, and all the lead character's decisions and emotions seemed very apposite. One could perhaps sense the Russian mentality and culture as well (generally speaking). 8½/10

Anora (2024). 22.3.25. Worthy Best Oscar winner. A masterclass in cinematic movie-making when given a thin storyline. 8½/10

One fine morning (2022). 29 & 30.3.25. Delicately written, beautifully acted, and full of nice touches. Not much happens but with film-making as good as this that’s fine. 8/10

Letter to Brezhnev (1985). 4.4.25. Despite the wobbly acting and the general dated crudity of the production (crudity in the broad sense), this bright and breezy, typically 80s film is worth watching for what it is. 7/10

Lynn + Lucy (2019). 18.4.25. One of countless low-budget modern British films, but this very authentic, three-dimensional one about sisterhood (and the lack of it) stands a little above most of the rest. 8/10

Good luck to you, Leo Grande (2022). 19.5.25. A very anti-conventional morality piece, this seems to work well almost despite the script and performances, neither or which are quite first-rate (although great performances might depend on a great script). Bottom line: absolutely watchable / borderline engrossing. 7½/10

Jude (1996). 18.6.25. Rather perfunctory retelling: perfectly adequate but the production feels rushed and two-dimensional / it doesn’t have the depth it might have had taking into account that Hardy’s story is so powerful. A multi-episode TV drama might work better. 7/10

Playground (2021). 22.6.25. A bit too sparse for my taste despite several nice touches. 6/10

Bonnie and Clyde (1967). 8,9&11.7.25. The style is dated and slightly perfunctory, there is no depth, Gene Hackman seems miscast and his character needed fleshing out more, but still a mildly entertaining two hours. 6½/10

Film reviews part 23 (in order of viewing)

His three daughters (2023). 9.1.25. A brilliant, biting exposition, but then it became a bit mawkish for my taste. Perfect for the theatre. 7½/10

A real pain (2024). 15.1.25. CINEMA. A sweet and gentle film with excellent performances from the leads and supporting characters. The very last frame reminded me of the ending of the film Lourdes: both endings very poignant. 8/10

What’s up, doc (1972). 14&15.1.25. A very silly and dated farce. 5½/10

Funny girl (1968). 16&17.1.25. A 50s musical in style but with some three-dimensional dialogue – especially in the second half - and a memorable performance from Streisand (unlike the silly character she played in What’s up, doc). A ‘woman’s film’, told decidedly from a female perspective. Unfortunately the gambling storyline was ‘malnourished’ and the motive for the characters’ joint decision at the end was unexplained – unless I’m missing something (but explained by the Wikipedia article for the real Fanny Brice). The songs are terrible as well! Still, this held my attention throughout. 6½/10

The haunting (1963). 18.1.25 (approx). Generally literate, engaging throughout, and with excellent performances from Richard Johnson and Claire Bloom, this old-fashioned ghost story stands the test of time for script, direction and acting, even if the scares are now somewhat dated. The final reveal wasn’t as sharp / clever / scary as I’d hoped, the focus instead being on the lead character’s issues (which were dealt with very well). 7/10

What’s love got to do with it (1993). 25.1.25. A compelling, borderline-riveting biopic with an incredible performance from Laurence Fishburne in particular. 8½/10

Jailhouse Rock (1957). 27.1.25. Lively and good fun, with a believable Elvis (for the most part). The final 15 minutes flagged though, redeemed by a sweet, lovely ballad at the end. 7/10

(TV Movie: Anna Keranina (1961). 26.1.25. ​Rather lifeless bare-bones retelling of a probably much deeper and more interesting novel. 6/10.)

Saving Private Ryan (1998). 11&12.2.25. The material is thin, but the violence - while shocking even by today’s standards - seems authentic in this war setting and, strangely, both very well-choreographed and utterly chaotic, almost telling a story by itself (very unusual). So these egregiously violent scenes complement and greatly enhance the film, and yet in my opinion this was not the case with - say - the 2017 film Dunkirk, which seemed to be ALL about violence and sheer spectacle, and so was a nonentity as far as I was concerned. The final scene was particularly touching. 7½/10

Full time (2021). 17.2.25. Packs a lot into its 1h20 running time; the fast pace means it’s nearly always riveting – whether through great film-making or not – and I like the moral which slowly and subtly reveals itself. It reminds me of the film Two days one night, although that film has more substance.7½/10

Superbad (2007). 5.3.25. Puerile but often laugh-out-loud funny. It’s let down by the final third, which becomes too farcical and haphazard. 7/10

Film reviews part 22 (in order of viewing)

Boyhood (2014). 14-16.8.24. An intriguing, somewhat captivating first hour, but the absence of plot started to irk after that, and the script and characterisation weren’t quite interesting enough to compensate, despite a sprinkling of nice touches such as when the two kids talk together to compete for Mason Sr’s attention. And the constant bonhomie, the superficially messed-up but (of course) absolutely ideal father, the ‘we have to be tolerant and appreciate the gun-loving religious people’ message etc all started to rankle. I can see the (worthy) reasons why it won the Oscar though. 7½/10

Doctor Zhivago (1965). 22 & 25.8.24. A slick, stylish production very much of its time. More focused on the big sweeping picture than having an eye for detail, but some of the dialogue and the love triangle storyline were advanced for its time and impressive. One can see why it would have been highly thought of when it was released. No comparison with, say, Lean’s Brief Encounter though. 7/10

Strangers on a train (1951). 29&30.8.24. The first two-thirds were so much better than the action-heavy and melodramatic final third; this is a regular criticism of mine regarding films, especially perhaps older films. The incidental music was a hindrance. A few nice touches here and there, such as the mother character, just about make this a 7. 7/10

Meantime (1983). 2&3.9.24. Another spot-on Mike Leigh film in terms of dialogue and characterisation, although a few of the characters’ motivations were annoyingly but doubtless deliberately unexplained. Very similar in style and structure to (at least) Life is Sweet. All the cast are excellent but the performances from Phil Daniels and Marion Bailey stand out especially. 8½/10

Get Carter (1971). 7.9.24. An absolutely cracking, tight, first-rate film, and perhaps one of the first really raw, authentic crime films – of which the 1970s are famous – to come out of Britain or America? It needs to be seen at least twice though to really ‘get it’ as there is a lot going on. The scene where he is having ‘telephone sex’, while his landlady is obliged to listen, is captivating, and possibly the most erotic thing I’ve seen on film. 9/10

Waves (2019). 26&27.9.24. The overall message is strong and beautiful; the direction and pacing are good; there is originality, three-dimensional characters (which is kind of the point of the film) and pathos galore; but the dialogue is unexceptional which means it cannot raise its head above the rest. 7/10

Custody (2017). 4&5.10.24. After thinking about this film some time after watching it I am minded to give it a better review than I would have if writing just afterwards. The first hour was excellent in ramping up the suspense, and nuances in dialogue and direction mean there is a more to think about regarding the family dynamics than seems obvious. That said, this is essentially a simple film that does not need to be seen more than once to appreciate it more fully. 7½/10

Deliverance (1972). 21.11.24. I was captured right from the start with its realistic dialogue reminiscent of the Deer Hunter (NOT a favourite of mine) and characterisation, especially of the hillbillies which I would guess is authentic for the time. There is a straightforward and entertaining plot, the cinematography is gorgeous, and the scenes in the water are thrilling. My only gripe is that the film rather tailed off towards the end; it could have been punchier. Still, good entertainment. 8/10

Minari (2020). 5.12.24. Warm and engaging but didn’t fulfil its early promise, and with a damp squib ending (although ‘insightful’ no doubt). 7/10

The blue caftan (2022). 27.12.24. I was wary of watching this film because from (a) the title, (b) subject matter and (c) being Moroccan, I expected pretentiousness. But this was better than expected and – for once with this type of film – I tend to agree with the good reviews, or at least I think there is a lot here for the casual intelligent (not necessarily intellectual) viewer. Well-paced, and well-acted by the actors playing the married couple. 7/10

Planes, trains and automobiles (1987). 30.12.24. This was the first time I’d seen this classic. I am a fan of the more modern film Due Date – which was clearly heavily based on this – and prefer that movie. This is a bit loose, I don’t really feel for Steve Martin’s character (is he miscast?) and the laughs are too intermittent. Good fun though / it never seriously slacks. 7/10

I also started watching the following films, but they didn't interest me enough to keep watching.

Decision to leave (2022). 8.10.24. Watched half.

Memoria (2021). 8.11.24. Watched 45 minutes.

Anais in love (2021). 3.12.24. Watched first half and bits of second half.

Film reviews part 21 (in order of viewing)

Richard III (1955). 27&29.5.24. Perhaps the best filmed production of a Shakespeare play I’ve seen to date, although the rather haphazard, amateurish battle scenes at the end – filmed inexplicably in the Spanish countryside (and it shows)  - spoilt a little what had gone before (and why would a horseless Richard be drawing attention to himself in the way that he did!). 8/10 

A cock and bull story (2005). 4.6.24. A novel idea, which basically works. 7½/10

The big country (1958). 10-13.6.24. Intelligent nuanced Western with three-dimensional characters and situations. Right up there with The Gunfighter, High Noon and The Good the Bad and the Ugly. 9/10

Shiva Baby (2020). 13.6.24. Claustrophobic – which was doubtless the intention (to reflect the claustrophobia felt by Danielle). Anyway, this is all good stuff for what it is (which isn’t much), and wisely kept to a very short duration (78 minutes). 7/10

Close (2022). 14.6.24. After a boring start where I thought it might turn out to be yet another pretentious French-language film, this steadily improved and ticked all the right boxes but without great flair / becoming exceptional. An extremely poignant story and excellent performances. 8/10

Man for all seasons (1968). 15.6.24. A very worthy Best Film Oscar-winner, this is unusual, striking and ultimately outstanding (both in the literal and contemporary senses of that word), with a mesmerising lead performance from Paul Scofield. 9/10

Hit man (2023). 18.6.24. This is being written a week after watching which isn’t good, but from memory I thought it was solid entertainment (no more than that, and forgettable). 7/10

The Duke (2020). 2.7.24. Another “good”, ticks-all-the-right-boxes British film: light, bright and soon forgettable. Despite good jobs by Broadbent and Mirren, talented Geordie actors would have made things more believable and therefore spiced it up a bit, the dialogue often lacked flair – and the two sons and their girlfriends were very sketchy and underused. 7/10

Ali & Ava (2021) (early July 2024). A winning vibe and winning performances  ̶  especially Claire Rushbrook’s remarkable Ava – more than make up for the thin material. 7½/10

Chopper (2000). 21.7.24. Up until the final set-piece this was tight and literate; just short of being excellent. But the final quarter of the film becomes unnecessarily confusing. Still, very memorable. 7½/10

Film reviews part 20 (in order of viewing)

Elle (2016). 17.2.24. The main plot development of the film didn’t work for me while I was watching it. However, after reading the Wikipedia article and reflecting, I can grudgingly accept what the writer and director were getting at, and that Michelle’s actions – despite being on the face of it implausible – might be just about plausible for this particular woman. This point aside, there was a lot going on to maintain interest, and Huppert’s performance (and/or the script or direction maybe?) somehow managed to be borderline comic while still being completely realistic. 7½/10

Petite Maman (2021). 27.2.24. Short, low-key, pretty pointless, supernatural film. Quite relaxing to look at. [The professional or mainstream critics love this film however; no doubt they can see a whole range of artistic sensibility. The part of Mark Kermode’s review which is quoted in Wikipedia astonishes me!] 5½/10

Parallel mothers (2021). 2&3.3.24. To me, this was writing by numbers: the (literally!) monotonous dialogue does it no favours in terms of creating an atmosphere of dramatic potency. When the reveal comes, it is dealt with extremely neatly and logically which is nice in the sense that it is very realistic / there is no silly melodrama, but also disappointing as a filmic experience. The turn in the two women’s relationship in the middle of the film I really hoped wouldn’t happen despite the subtle indications, and was greatly disappointed when it did (an unnecessary contemporary cliché and which devalues the power of genuine uncomplicated female friendship). 7/10

Nomadland (2020). 11&12.3.24. A meandering journey, visiting several characters and not telling much of a story. Always watchable, always completely realistic, but not enough here for a Best Film Oscar. 7½/10

The Old Oak (2023). 22&23.3.24. Another mesmerising film from the Laverty / Loach team (apparently Loach’s last). Slight dragging in the middle and occasionally a little saccharine, but Laverty’s dialogue is exceptional in its realism; and his (a) three-dimensional approach generally to character, and (b) honest, humanistic, broadly apolitical script, are strongly commendable. 8½/10

Here we are (2020). 23&24.3.24. A slim story, but a nice and easy way to spend an hour and a half. 7/10

True things (2021). 2.4.24. This has less meaning than it seems to think it has, but is still quite engrossing. 7/10

Never rarely sometimes often (2020). 4&5.4.24. Something of a curio, with a very affecting / mesmerising scene at one of the clinics. Some off-the-boil direction during the New York scenes makes things a touch confusing but the documentary style works overall. As the reviewers on Wikipedia state, there are no didactics, no polemic, no “hidden” messages to the viewer. The “truth” is revealed through the cinematography alone. 7/10

In this world (2002). 19.5.24. Essentially a fictionalised docudrama: no space to get involved with the principal characters. Still worth watching for the (perhaps now outdated) information. 6½/10

Quo Vadis, Ada (2020). 22.5.24. A straightforward, limited but powerful portrayal of one event in the 1990s Yugoslav wars; however, reading about the Srebrenica massacre on Wikipedia after watching the film, it seems that what was portrayed was only the tip of the iceberg. I quite liked the character of the translator, who acted like most people would act in such situations, rather than someone who constantly made ethical judgements. Overall, the film’s limited scope means its potential was never quite realised. 7½/10

I also started watching the following films, but they didn't entertain me enough to keep watching.

The train (1964). 30&31.3.24. Watched 35 mins.

Funny face (1957). 6.4.24. Watched half.

Film reviews part 19 (in order of viewing)

Anatomy of a fall (2023). CINEMA. 7.12.23. Exceptional did-she-do-it. All elements of this film are superlative. One small criticism is that the quality and entertainment value of the final few scenes didn’t quite match what had gone before. As everyone else says, particular kudos for Sandra Hüller in the lead role. 9/10

Boiling point (2021). 18.12.23. Brilliant ensemble piece. Gripping and claustrophobic (in a good way) from start to finish. 9/10

The father (2020). 30.12.23. A one-trick-pony where time as a concept disappears. It works. 8/10

Witchfinder General (1968). 3.1.24. Very silly, two-dimensional pulp – but good enough for one viewing, especially as these horrors had a historical basis. 7/10

Drive my car (2021). 5-7.1.24. Very Art House French in style, self-indulgent, and unoriginal in both concept / message and story-telling – but nevertheless very good performances from the two leads help make it watchable, despite its 2h50 running time. Overall, a poor Best International Film Oscar winner. 6/10

By the grace of God (2018). 10&11.1.24. Not much in the way of intensity, or even drama; the mood is consistent throughout and there is no space for the characters to be really fleshed out. Something of a docudrama feel about it. But certainly passable. [Postscript: I see on Wikipedia that Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian has also mentioned the word “docudrama” in relation to this film]. 6½/10

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011). 14&15.1.24. Clichéd mediocrity. 5½/10

Edward Scissorhands (1990). 18.1.24. A great story and made with lots of heart. 7½/10 (score applies to adult viewers).

Nine to five (1980). 21&22.1.24. Quaint (a dated style) and big-hearted, but after an ebullient start the film loses its way in the middle with silly plotlines involving a corpse and kidnap. However, it redeems itself somewhat near the end. 7/10

Sound of metal (2019). 4.2.24. For me, this worked more on an intellectual level than an emotional one. (The middle of the film dragged substantially, so muting the emotional response at the end.) Credit though for not being too mushy or predictable, and the final scenes were somewhat inspired. 7/10

I also started watching the following films, but they didn't entertain me enough to keep watching.

Hit the road (2021). 4.12.23. Watched half.

Planets of the Apes (1968). 8.12.23. Watched 35 minutes.

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006). 5.1.24. Watched the start.

C’mon c’mon (2021). 20.1.24. Watched half.