Film reviews over for now

Due to being generally busy and to not being so inclined, I am stopping writing film reviews - at least for the time being. But I am proud of the reviews I have written to date and glad I have written them.

Review of IMDb Top 250 Films - Braveheart (1995)

I intend to conduct a review of the top 250 films on the IMDb database. At a rate of two per month this will still take forever as the list constantly changes. I don't claim to be a very knowledgeable or intellectual film critic but have tremendous confidence in my ability to discern good direction, script and acting, and to expose films which have enjoyed / endured an undeserved reputation in my perhaps arrogant opinion. There may be a few minor spoilers in my reviews.

Braveheart - Rating: 4.75 out of 6

This gushing, wildly romantic, idealistic and reportedly woefully inaccurate Hollywood blockbuster makes wonderful cinema!

The opening scenes are among the film's best, with lyricism right at the very start: cameras panning over the Scottish mountains, the subtitle "Scotland, 1280", and a folky voice asking us to "let me tell you of William Wallace....". This lyricism soon paves the way for full-blown manipulative sentimentality whether we are shown the gruesome scene of the hanging bodies or where his future wife gives the young Wallace a flower at the funeral (a plot contrivance which works wonders at pulling at the heartstrings!) Now several, probably most, professional reviewers would turn up their noses at this, calling it sugary, chick-flickish and cheap, but the common misconception amongst film reviewers is that they think such manipulation almost by definition makes a film "bad", and therefore to be avoided. It can do, but not necessarily, as film is entitled to be as much about pure escapism as anything else, even when portraying apparently historical events (dramatic licence is fine if it is effected well). In this film, the romance of the scenery, the people and the love affairs are milked for all they're worth by the soundtrack, by slow motion and other devices; it all works and thus improves the film, but not enough - again almost by definition - for it to be a classic. Legends of the Fall is a very similar film in many ways, not least in this regard.

Such epics do not as a rule require great scripts or acting: the former is of good standard, nothing more, and the only outstanding performance is that given by Patrick McGoohan as Edward I, theatrically stunning yet cinematically realistic. His opening ("Prima Nocta") scene, especially, is fantastically good. But McGoohan aside the film works on plot and its epic quality, constantly pulling at our heartstrings. By "plot" I also mean the numerous subplots: Wallace's far-fetched but oh-so-romantic love affair with the princess, the Scottish nobles -v- Scottish commoners, the Bruce's position in that situation and manipulation by his father, and of course Stephen the mad Irishman, the last necessary as otherwise only Big Hamish would have been a mate of any note!

That's not to gloss over the quality of the individual scenes, even those not involving McGoohan! The unexpected death of Wallace's wife and subsequent revenge attack by the Scots are very well-handled, having an unusual (for such scenes) naturalistic / organic / improvisationalist quality. The two big violent battlescenes are very watchable, because cleverly there is always some plot lever to keep the viewer interested in each one, e.g. the use of Scottish spears to surprise the charging English cavalry. And note should be mentioned of several nice touches, for example the new wife lovingly whispering to her husband just before she is taken away for Prima Nocta and Wallace begging for forgiveness from his wife's parents. Could his commoner wife really have had such flawless skin and teeth in 1280? Most probably not, but who cares!

Taking the film for what it is, I find it difficult to find any significant flaws. So why give this 4.75 when the Shawshank Redemption gets 5.25? Because of what I said earlier: when all's said and done this film relies on sugary manipulation for its greatness, and although that is perfectly fine if it produces a thoroughly entertaining film, it means instant disqualification from being truly great. That's why Shawshank is a classic and this isn't.

Review of IMDb Top 250 Films - The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

I intend to conduct a review of the top 250 films on the IMDb database. At a rate of two per month this will still take forever as the list constantly changes. I don't claim to be a very knowledgeable or intellectual film critic but have tremendous confidence in my ability to discern good direction, script and acting, and to expose films which have enjoyed / endured an undeserved reputation in my perhaps arrogant opinion. There may be a few minor spoilers in my reviews.

The Shawshank Redemption - Rating: 5.25 out of 6

This film sits consistently at No.1 of the IMDb Top 250 and I would not quarrel too hard about that. This is film-making of supreme elegance and judgement and it is a travesty (and I don't use that word lightly) that it lost out on the Best Picture Academy Award to none other than Forrest Gump, a spuriously sentimental film which, if I get around to reviewing it - which I hope I won't - deserves half the rating given to this film at best. There is nothing clever-clever about Shawshank, nothing pretentious, arty or even especially moralistic or thought-provoking, this is simply top-drawer entertainment from start to finish. Evidence, if there need be any, that pace is not needed to maintain interest (or narrative theme): this can be achieved through the sheer quality of individual scenes.

The acting and directing are top-notch throughout and my compliment on judgement above refers to the editing - nothing, anywhere, is out of place and each scene is not only relevant but gripping. In a slow-paced film the editing is of such importance and here it is spot on. My one niggle regarding the acting is the actor who plays Tommy - his was a pivotal role and perhaps greater charisma was needed to do it justice. Freeman and Robbins are both first-class but the most magnetic presence is Bob Gunton as the warden whose silent menace is palpable. Surely never has someone been so rightly cast. His 'masterpieces' are the "I'll cast you down with the sodomites" speech to Andy in the hole and his final scenes after the breakout. Bob Gunton is the warden surely; how could anyone act that well! Almost Shakespearean: Greed and Hypocrisy (pure Evil really) personified in a way that is nonetheless so cogent and believable.

Red's commentary is a very important part of the film, implicitly making clear to us that 'our gang' of inmates is essentially a good-natured one, cementing our earlier beliefs which start when they seem shocked and saddened by the taunted inmate's death near the start of the film. Freeman's warm, fatherly tones envelope us, provide the film with structure, yet never detract from the horrors that go on. The very understated score should also be noted: one is barely aware the film contains any music, so effective is it at subtly complementing the film instead of threatening to take over. Lovely music can be successful at unashamedly improving a movie (Somewhere in Time and Taxi Driver come to mind) - that is fine; I have a problem with films, already very good, where a great score manages to detract from the aesthetic while possibly improving box-office ratings. A great score could have ruined this film; the film-makers had enough confidence in it to resist.

There is a grace and gentility that runs throughout the film, absorbing without effort all the swearing. The unhurried pace, the scenes with Brooks Hatlen, Red's commentary, and some of the philosophical dialogue all contribute. As does the time period and the prisoners' vulnerability at being locked up, e.g. the awe when Rita Hayworth flicks her hair. And of course 'that' scene with the Mozart-playing record player: quite wonderful, again framed nicely by Freeman's dulcit tones. One of the highlights of a highlight in cinematic history.

Review of IMDb Top 250 Films - Rain Man (1988)

I intend to conduct a review of the top 250 films on the IMDb database. At a rate of two per month this will still take forever as the list constantly changes. I don't claim to be a very knowledgeable or intellectual film critic but have tremendous confidence in my ability to discern good direction, script and acting, and to expose films which have enjoyed / endured an undeserved reputation in my perhaps arrogant opinion. There may be a few minor spoilers in my reviews.

Rain Man - Rating: 4 out of 6

This film is a one-trick-pony about a man (Charlie Babbitt played by Tom Cruise) getting to know his autistic savant brother (Raymond Babbitt played by Dustin Hoffman); but it is to the cast and crew's credit that this very 1980s film surpasses the majority of such films of that decade (I'm thinking of the superficially similar Crocodile Dundee for instance which was immensely popular at the time but is actually very shallow and quite dire!)

It lacks pace, but given the subject matter could it really have done more to rid itself of the, at times, claustrophobic quality / lack of breeziness or joie de vivre? Probably not, but because of that it is no Tootsie (with which it compares unfavourably). Yet it makes up for it with some great acting (Cruise as much as Hoffmann, and I am no big fan of the former) which kept the viewer wanting more, and scenes which, although often showing rather stereotypical funny situations Raymond would end up in, were stylishly executed (again as opposed to Crocodile Dundee, which catered perhaps to a slightly less discerning audience). Once can sense the appeal that the funny sex-mimicing and 'airline crash' scenes ("Qantas has never crashed") would have had to the cinema-going audience.

This is not essential cinema by any means but, unlike many of the films I have been reviewing, this one stays consistently good, indeed perhaps improving towards the end, with some enjoyable scenes, notably in Las Vegas (the hooker, the dancing and the nice touch with the Wheel of Fortune when Raymond shows he is not infallible), the temporary role-reversal when Charlie learns the truth about the 'Rain Man', and when the two brothers make a semi-connection. The penultimate scene is just excellent courtesy of director Barry Levinson himself playing the psychiatrist, and I have just read on IMDb that "he adlibbed repeatedly to push Cruise's buttons"! Certainly as I was watching it I queried whether he was a professional actor so natural was his performance! The ending, of which that scene constitutes the start, is stylish and brave.

As with the rest of the cast, Valeria Golino is excellent (I just love her voice). The fact that they got rid of her for the middle of the film so that Raymond and Charlie could have their time together is an amusing and obvious contrivance. She brings a much-needed and very natural female presence into the film and her early scenes with Cruise are very well-done - notably in the car when she is chastising him for his silence.

I haven't given this film a higher rating because it never reaches excellence in any part (I cannot see Tom Cruise ever starring in a jaw-droppingly good film) and, although the lack of joie de vivre etc is not necessarily anybody's fault, the saving graces of artistic intelligence and courage / experimentation which would have compensated for it are almost by definition not to be found in a film intended to cater to a mass audience. This is good though and should be seen.

Review of IMDb Top 250 Films - His Girl Friday (1940)

I intend to conduct a review of the top 250 films on the IMDb database. At a rate of two per month this will still take forever as the list constantly changes. I don't claim to be a very knowledgeable or intellectual film critic but have tremendous confidence in my ability to discern good direction, script and acting, and to expose films which have enjoyed / endured an undeserved reputation in my perhaps arrogant opinion. There may be a few minor spoilers in my reviews.

His Girl Friday - Rating: 4.25 out of 6

There seems to be a pattern emerging with the films I am reviewing, in that they all start really really well and then lose it half way through. The first half or so of this third Cary Grant film I happen to be reviewing is of top-notch quality, and indeed the 14-minute opening scene in the newspaper office is perhaps the finest, freshest start to a film I have ever seen. The rapid-fire, razor-sharp contemporary dialogue may surprise the modern viewer who has cliched ideas about black and white films - but perversely nothing like it exists in films today. This is wonderful wonderful stuff. Similarly the following scene in the restaurant and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the following few scenes with (i) Walter / Bruce and (ii) the pressmen / Hildy / Molly Malloy. The reporters' change in attitude when Molly leaves the press room after telling the reporters what she thinks of them is worthy of particular note, so subtly is it portrayed: not one word is spoken yet we know what they are thinking.

So that covers the first 40 minutes of this 90 minute film. And then, just as with the last two Cary Grant films reviewed, it all goes a bit pear-shaped: the prisoner escapes, we have bullets, the pace increases the wit decreases (a little), and the host of minor characters (bureaucrats) and related subplots introduced hereabouts just don't work in (what was at least) such a tight little film concentrating on the interaction between three solid characters. Too madcap which makes it ironically a tad boring and dated (again ironically given the freshness of the script and the very undated quality of the first two scenes). Sergent Bilko (1950s admittedly) comes to mind. The significant plot contrivance resulting in the murderer being locked up in a trunk is another notable flaw.

Unfortunately the film does not recover its initial excellence and stays relatively mediocre until the end - though it is still more watchable than when Arsenic and Old Lace goes off the rails, and Grant and Rosalind Russell are superb throughout, the latter especially, and I'm pleased the latter's character made the choice she did at the end, an ending which doubtless upset many people, not least conservatives.

Review of IMDb Top 250 Films - Howl's Moving Castle (2004)

I intend to conduct a review of the top 250 films on the IMDb database. At a rate of two per month this will still take forever as the list constantly changes. I don't claim to be a very knowledgeable or intellectual film critic but have tremendous confidence in my ability to discern good direction, script and acting, and to expose films which have enjoyed / endured an undeserved reputation in my perhaps arrogant opinion. There may be a few minor spoilers in my reviews.

Howl's Moving Castle - Rating: 2.5 out of 6

After I waste time seeing a crap film I don't like to waste more time writing a full and considered review so this will be short.

Effectively this animation is a poor man's Shrek capitalising on a glorious opening, some gorgeous music, some star names, and of course special effects (I understand the moving castle animation is supposed to be 'awe-inspiring'). Until Sophie moves into the castle the film is just wonderful: it looks beautiful, it has a simple uncluttered story, we love Sophie, we sympathise with her during her transformation by the Wicked Witch of the Wastes, and how poignant are her insights into old people's lives....if it would have carried on like that what a film it could have been! But then it turns into an illiterate mess (I exaggerate not), with its highly unoriginal cosmopolitan fire demon voiced by Billy Crystal (compare with Eddy Murphy's hilarious donkey in Shrek), similarly cliched little boy and a groaning chain of fudgy, muddled situations straight out of a dream but with none of the emotional engagement. And as with all the worst action movies the heroes win due to coincidence or some random supernatural power we find out about only in the critical life or death situation! And as for the villains, how or why exactly were they villains and why the change in the WWW's character after she 'moves in' to the Castle? There was a vague anti-war message which came out of the blue at the end and didn't fit in with the rest of the film and no other 'message' to the viewer of any sort.

This would have received a rating of 2 out of 6 or even lower were it not for the opening ten minutes. Avoid!

Review of IMDb Top 250 Films - Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)

I intend to conduct a review of the top 250 films on the IMDb database. At a rate of two per month this will still take forever as the list constantly changes. I don't claim to be a very knowledgeable or intellectual film critic but have tremendous confidence in my ability to discern good direction, script and acting, and to expose films which have enjoyed / endured an undeserved reputation in my perhaps arrogant opinion. There may be a few minor spoilers in my reviews.

Arsenic and Old Lace - Rating: 4.25 out of 6

This film is slightly superior to the similar-styled comedy Bringing Up Baby for which I gave 4 out of 6, yet it does not merit, and I would feel uncomfortable giving it, a rating of 4.5 out of 6.

This is unfortunate because the first 75% of the film is very entertaining indeed with a wealth of highly memorable characters, notably the spinster Brewster sisters. The initial setting up of the characters up to and including the twist involving the sisters is a joy, a classic in fact, with a wickedly witty script and superb comic acting and timing. The several minutes where Cary Grant's Mortimer Brewster questions the sisters about their little secret is the highlight of the film, belly-laughingly and timelessly funny (Josephine Hull's Aunt Abby in particular adds immeasurably to the humour here) although the sisters' incredulity at Brewster's (incredulous!) reaction seems a little silly and more unbelievable than the secret itself! It is a precursor of the silliness to come.

It is unfortunate that the film does not continue as a straight dramatic comedy. The addition of rogue brother Jonathan as the new main plotline indicates to the audience that this film is, in fact, a farce (and indeed it started out as a play). Nevertheless, it is to Raymond Massey's great credit as Jonathan and Peter Lorre as his weasly camp sidekick Dr Einstein that the middle portion of the film does not lose momentum. Peter Lorre's performance especially is superb, along with Hull's the best in the film, and were it not for Massey's mesmeric hypnotising eyes, it would be difficult to drag one's eyes away from him!

But it really is now like having Boris Karloff in the house and what was a beautifully light, funny comedy progresses - literally just after half way through the film - into a farce which gets progressively sillier and more madcap: the sisters have less opportunity for their subtle comedy play and Grant's neglect of his wife after she tells him Jonathan tried to strangle her, well, it's supposed to be funny but the "humour" is blunt, unnecessary and in keeping with the general silliness. The Teddy character too becomes a little tiresome and superfluous, and the contrast between Grant's comic performance and Massey's straight one can be a bit jarring. But, away from the plot, the second half of the film does have some great moments, the best being the aside where Grant pokes Massey's leg, and until the final 20 minutes both script and direction more than maintain our attention!

After Grant's character is captured, however, everything becomes ridiculous, everyone goes crazy and the film loses its class. The final 20 minutes in particular are all over the place, not at all worthy of what has gone before, and the addition of the inspector and then the doctor into the house during the final 10 minutes is a very big mistake, crowding the film and boring us. So the loose ends are wrapped up in a hurry and the film almost literally peters out. A shame but sadly not (apparently) untypical of many early films, such as (indeed) Bringing Up Baby!

Review of IMDb Top 250 Films - Blood Diamond (2006)

I intend to conduct a review of the top 250 films on the IMDb database. At a rate of two per month this will still take forever as the list constantly changes. I don't claim to be a very knowledgeable or intellectual film critic but have tremendous confidence in my ability to discern good direction, script and acting, and to expose films which have enjoyed / endured an undeserved reputation in my perhaps arrogant opinion. There may be a few minor spoilers in my reviews.

Blood Diamond - Rating: 4.5 out of 6

This is a perfectly-paced movie and that is its key appeal, more than the script, plot and acting, all of which are good but not noteworthy in themselves. Never too slow (for it is not that sort of film) and seldom too fast that it becomes confusing, it manages its twists and turns gracefully, keeping the audience's interest throughout. Di Caprio's accent is unconvincing and overall he is no more than 'adequate to good' in the part, outplayed by Jennifer Connelly (check out her convinced and convincing delivery of the simple line "good things are done every day"). The scenes they have together bring out the best in Di Caprio and perhaps the film despite the apparent (to me at least) lack of chemistry. Note his very interesting, three-dimensional, and more often than not dislikeable character (Archer) compared with the 'noble savage' (ok forget the savage) character (Vandy) played by Djimon Hounsou who has just one face to put on: a troubled bedrock of integrity, who has trouble conspiring with even a little white lie to save his family. Archer's extreme confidence meanwhile is almost electric, and very funny when he can't pull it off!

The film does not pull its punches with regard to the activities of the child soldiers and brutal killings. It is justified in this film, which reflects most probably the true horrors of Sierra Leone's Civil War and the 'civilised' trade in diamonds which is encouraged by it. While the photography is often beautiful and the obvious contrast is made between such beautiful landscape and such ugly violence, this contrast sometimes crosses the line of crassness and not very much is learnt of everyday Africa, which is a shame, even if not much of that existed during this war. But after all, this is a Hollywood epic and it often shows: the typically powerful but sugary ending, and shouldn't Archer and Vandy be dead after all they have been through? Also the generally above-par script occasionally suffers: Archer to Vandy the fisherman in an attempt to form some sort of relationship: "What do you catch mostly?" "Fish" is the reply, end of scene. The humour is too self-conscious and out-of-place so doesn't work. And the Colonel's apparently prophetic remark to Archer: "You will never leave Africa". No no no: it is as spurious as the contemporary Hollywood/African soundtrack.

These are minor flaws however, and are perhaps almost inevitable in a big-budget epic, intended to attract the largest possible audience and to make shedloads of money. The fact of the matter is that despite or even because of the production, this is a very good, high quality film, very well-directed in that it makes best use of an admittedly well-written and complex screenplay (the intercutting of the Western conference with the African atrocities near the start is especially powerful) and exceptionally well-edited (the perfect pace). A film which grips the audience from start to finish must almost by definition have its flaws classed as minor and be given a high rating, hence my 4.5 out of 6.

Great line: “Throughout the history of Africa, whenever a substance of value is found, the locals die in great number and in misery”.