Film reviews part 18 (in order of viewing)

Happening (2021). 12.8.23. Despite the potent subject matter, this was unoriginal, both as a story and a film (it was quite sketchy and matter-of-fact). I compare it unfavourably to Saturday Night and Sunday Morning which was actually made in the 1960s (the time this is set). 7/10

Gentlemen prefer blondes (1953). 17.8.23. Yet another old film with the same pattern: a really impressive – borderline brilliant - first half and a largely silly, unimaginative, throwaway second half. Jane Russell is outstanding throughout. 7½/10

Pride (2014). 23&24.8.23. Very much in the spirit of The Full Monty and Brassed Off (and probably some other UK film iterations of that period and later), this is completely formulaic with absolutely no surprises in terms of script or direction. It’s still highly competent and highly watchable though. 7/10

Pillow talk (1959). 25.8.23. Despite a thin plot, this gentle comedy maintains interest and fun throughout: it never drags and doesn’t become the usual silly farce towards the end. Rock Hudson as the leading man is superb. 8½/10

Beyond sunrise (1995) (watched 20.9.23) and Beyond sunset (2004) (watched 21.9.23). I marginally preferred the second film to the first. The characters looked just too perfect and the dialogue seemed too smooth in the first (he was less attractive in the second but she just as beautiful, and the contrast between the characters in the second was much more pronounced). Both films though are special and need at least one repeat viewing to absorb the supposed profundity of the dialogue. 8/10 (sunrise) and 8½/10 (sunset)

The worst person in the world (2021). 24 / 25.9.23. The film’s greatest asset is the central performance by Renate Reinsve which is utterly mesmerising. (Her co-star Anders Danielsen Lie seems equally skilled.) Add a nuanced delicate script and flawless direction and you have got a near-perfect film had there not been the blemish of the very incongruous final scene which was puzzling and disappointing - its arty nature at odds with the rest of the film - but I understand it a little more on reflection. The narration simultaneous with the action worked. (Looking on Wikipedia after writing the above, I see that critics were critical of the unimaginative and two-dimensional character of Julie, and that criticism does seem valid despite Reinsve’s astonishing portrayal.) 8½/10

Past lives (2023). CINEMA. 3.10.23. This currently has rave reviews, and while it is certainly somewhat captivating, believable, nuanced, even effortlessly tear-inducing on occasion, there is nothing that makes it truly great. 8/10

Rocks (2019). 20&21.10.23. Another film using amateur actors which is more convincing than most using professional ones! Impeccably directed and performed, and without being either preachy or contrived. 8½/10

Mean streets (1973). 13 & 14.11.23. Fascinating to see a very young De Niro and Harvey Keitel, but the film’s rawness is its most noteworthy quality. 6½/10 [After reading the Wikipedia entry, I realise I seem to be very much in a minority with this review.]

Sisters (1972). 17.11.23. A good, solid start, but unfortunately this short film loses its way in the middle and becomes increasingly camp and 70s-dated (in a bad way). 6½/10

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

Good vibrations (2013). 30.7.23. Watched half.

Ghost Busters (1984). 26.8.23. Watched 2/3 and scrolled through rest.

The piano (1993). 6.9.23. Watched half.

Manhunter (1986). 24.9.23. Watched 25 minutes.

Us (2019). 8.11.23. Watched half.

Film reviews part 17 (in order of viewing)

Shadowlands (1993). 10&12.5.23. Very nonchalantly directed – admirably so - this would have been better if it had somehow managed to explicitly show the progression of the depth of feeling between the first wedding and the second (in a characteristically nuanced way of course). The absence of this means the viewer is not as invested in the love as they might have been, and is quite a major flaw to an otherwise gently agreeable production. 7½/10

I’m your man (2021). 18.3.23. Mildly amusing, laid-back film, with some nice touches and plot developments. An easy watch. 7/10

Eighth grade (2018). 26.5.23. Mesmerising and meticulous character and situational study, the awkward reality of it all making it a hard or jarring watch at times. Although this is about a teenage girl and her relationships, it is not a teen-flick; instead it is geared towards and can be appreciated by intelligent people of all ages. Extra kudos for a thoughtful ending. 8½/10

So long, my son (2019). 28&29.5.23. It might take a while for many or most Westerners to get to know the characters (and their names!) but this three-hour, low-key epic – clearly a labour of love – is well worth persevering with. There is not much explicit drama but the fundamental cohesion, pathos, exceptional acting (notably from Mei Yong) and alternating timeline ensure it is always far from boring. 8/10

Are you there God, it’s me Margaret (2023). CINEMA (twice!). 1.6.23 and 5.6.23. I liked this very much the first time (when on my own), but even more so the second time (with my girlfriend). Gentle, amiable, undemanding....and very often delightful. All the cast are winning, but Abby Ryder Fortson’s performance as Margaret is very special indeed. 8½/10 (comments and grade revised slightly after second viewing).

Do the right thing (1989). 10&11.6.23. What seemed like a fun and cosy, slightly corny watch became anything but that near the end. Intellectuals can doubtless talk about this film for ages, but even if you don’t analyse themes this is an excellent cinematic experience. 8/10

Clueless (1995). 13,14 and 17.6.23. I was aware of this film’s somewhat iconic status so thought it would be better. It has been superseded by funnier, sharper and smarter high-school films, so it feels dated and something like a prototype. Still, quite good fun, and the Emma allusions are a very worthy gimmick. 7/10

How to marry a millionaire (1953). 22&23.6.23. Lots of mildly-moderately amusing stuff here, with the occasional belly-laugh – such as when Bacall’s character refers to Bogart: Bacall’s real-life husband. There is further richness in the excellent (groundbreaking?) colour cinematography and what was, presumably, bang up-to-date dialogue. But all three women’s performances seem a little off (or maybe the casting was wrong?), and this contributes to the overall charm not being quite sufficient to make this really great. 7½/10

The Pink Panther (1963). 27.6.23. Somewhat broad comedy – you need to be in the mood for farce! - with a surprisingly understated Peter Sellers playing Clouseau (did he ham it up in the later PP films? I shall see....) and set in the most glamorous locations in Europe in a very glamorous era. The result is a chocolate-box visual feast (and aural feast – some beautiful music). And finally, the opening credits are perhaps the most beguiling of all time. 8/10

A shot in the dark (1964). 15.7.23. This was weaker than the first in the Pink Panther film series in every way: even Sellers’ slapstick seemed a little tired and this was just the second in the series. It substituted the elegance of the first film with even broader comedy so that it became more of a Carry-On-type experience.7/10

I also watched about half of the below films but did not get into them sufficiently to continue watching:

Personal history of David Copperfield (2019). 14.5.23. 

The magnificent seven (1960). 18&19.6.23. 

Film reviews part 16 (in order of viewing)

To Leslie (2022). 23.3.23. A thoroughly convincing slice of Americana with excellent performances all-round. A brilliant directorial debut. 8½/10

Pain and Glory (2019). 22 / 23.3.23. This is one for European-film-loving intellectuals, who are likely to see all sorts of allusions. For laymen like me, it was still very watchable apart from the final third – two dull contrivances which resolved the tension in Salvador’s character, but at the expense of entertainment. 6/10

Chariots of fire (1981). 26 / 27.3.23. Intelligent, mature, original, and possessing considerable flair, let down occasionally by some dialogue and situations seeming a touch two-dimensional. 8½/10

Clemency (2019). 28.3.23. Just ok. A touch worthy and ponderous. 7/10

Young offenders (2016). 30.3.23. Fresh, exciting and very funny. Not high art but a great film! 8½/10

Wildlife (2018). 1 / 2.4.23. Low-key, two-dimensional, claustrophobic drama. Good for one watch. 7/10

Airport (1970). 29.4.23. Radio Times apparently gives this three stars (as a rule, I only review films given 4* or 5* by the RT – see my “film reviews recommence” post of 4 November 2021) but this was a film I wanted to watch. The first half is low-key but superlative entertainment: intelligent, non-clichéd dialogue so different from most modern films, and so many plotlines (yet it never seems crammed). The sincerity of the action in the second half is spoilt for audiences who have seen the Airplane spoof films, things are perhaps just a little rushed towards the end, and Burt Lancaster doesn’t quite do it for me personally (he comes across a little stagey). But as far as I’m concerned – and many would disagree - this beautiful film is almost as good entertainment as you can get, and I would argue especially interesting for open-minded and unprejudiced modern audiences who might not have seen films with this sort of style and sophistication. Postscript: after reading the Wikipedia entry re “Critical response”, I seem to be very much in the minority about this film, but that’s ok and the reviews are contemporary; it deserves a reappraisal. 9/10

School for Scoundrels (1960). 29&30.4.23. I caught this film by accident. As with Airport, the RT gave it just three stars, and again as with Airport I think they got it very wrong! This is an absolute hoot from start to finish. 9/10

Disobedience (2017). 6.5.23. After the joy of Airport and School for Scoundrels this perfectly adequate, write-by-numbers film felt unimaginative and unoriginal, although I’m sure many critics have declared the opposite. The sex scene stood out for being gratuitous / unnecessary: we had already seen them passionately kiss! [I see it was directed by the same man as A Fantastic Woman, which I didn’t think much of either – see review above.] 7/10

The unlikely pilgrimage of Harold Fry (2023). CINEMA. 10.5.23. The “profound” and allegorical aspects were a turn-off and I didn’t like how the film skimmed over the practical aspects, e.g. where he ate and how he came by accommodation; and also all the people following him didn’t ring true. But the central performances were fantastic, as you’d expect, and there was more than enough to make it enjoyable. I somewhat agree with Peter Bradshaw’s Guardian review, as quoted in Wikipedia: "Whilst it was “impeccably acted, sincerely intended and often beautifully shot” there was something “unsatisfying” in the “solemn, self-conscious fantasy””. 7½/10

I also watched about half of the below films but did not get into them sufficiently to continue watching:

Children of men (2006). 10.4.23. 

Mean girls (2004). 8&9.5.23. 

 

Film reviews part 15 (in order of viewing)

King of kings (1961). 9&10.1.23. The Jesus story is eternally interesting - but this leaden, uninvolving and charmless production, reliant mainly on its mystical narrative, sweeping scenes and catchy theme music, is mediocre. 6/10

Scott of the Antarctic (1948). 3.2.23. Rather a laborious slog, like the journey to the Pole itself. The ‘good-oh’ matey dialogue and related brisk, almost cursory, stereotypically male directorial style might mean this is no film for most women, and certainly it feels more like a lifeless early ‘50s WW2 film than one attempting to accurately portray male banter from 1910. The gradual mental and physical deterioration of the men, though, was executed nicely. 5/10

King of thieves (2018). 9.2.23. This was just too patchy, which is unfortunate as the characterisation was excellent (except the young Basil guy), and much of the bantering dialogue was also top quality. I agree with the Rotten Tomatoes consensus as stated on Wikipedia: “King of Thieves unites an incredible cast for a heist movie brimming with potential -- most of which, sadly, evaporates long before the end credits have started to roll." 6/10

Balloon (2018). 15.2.23. Very promising up to the time the family went to Berlin, but then it just became a – confusing at times - race between the good guys and bad guys. 7/10

Emma (1996). 18.2.23. Light and lively for most of it, although the addition of Jane and Frank (and associated intrigue) made the second half a touch clunky / oppressive, even tedious, which in turn exposed the shallowness of the plotline. (After writing the above, I saw that the Wikipedia article states that Frank’s portrayer, Ewan McGregor, says he wasn’t very good in it, and yes he was probably miscast, but it’s more that the character himself was a hindrance, I think; and/or perhaps the way he was directed / edited could have been better.) 7½/10

Tar (2022). CINEMA. 23.2.23. This might be more entertaining and fulfilling on second watch, as there is so much thrown at us and it is impossible to grasp the full import of it all after just one watch (a bit like, for instance, Gosford Park). But the essential points are easily comprehensible and made with style; and indeed both style and substance pervade the entire production (although I don’t like the surreal, allegorical, unexplained and unexplainable scenes). 8/10 (with a proviso that this might be increased to 8½ on another viewing).

County lines (2019). 27.2.23. Compelling - if formulaic - with powerful performances. 8/10

After sun (2022). 28.2.23 / 1.3.23. Like Tar, this film would doubtless seem better on second viewing. It works, really, solely because of the premise of the film, which is pure pathos. 7½/10

The long Good Friday (1980). 2.3.23. After a confusing start, all becomes (reasonably) clear and evolves into a riot of preposterous pulp - but always enjoyable. Bob Hoskins seems miscast for the 'gangster of gangsters' role - not menacing enough and too theatrical; and indeed more low-key realism generally (akin to a good episode of the Sweeney maybe) would have made the film even stronger. Still, the sheer entertainment value is such that I give it 8/10

Once upon a time.....in Hollywood (2019). 9-11.3.23. A series of semi-vignettes, some more affecting than others but always interesting in themselves. As a whole though, it is pretty pointless beyond being an effective mood piece. 7/10

A fantastic woman (2017). 15.3.23. 2017 was very much the start of the Trans zeitgeist but this over-rated Oscar-winner basically consists of no more than a premise. The second half especially is very dull, with unoriginal direction / allusions. 5/10

I also watched about half of the below films but did not get into them sufficiently to continue watching:

This is Spinal Tap (1984). 6.2.23.

Master and Commander: the far side of the world (2003). 20.2.23. 

Portrait of a lady on fire (2019). 22.2.23.

Film reviews part 14 (in order of viewing)

Mughal-e-Azam (1960). 17-19.10.22. Flamboyant melodrama which is intelligent, easy to follow, and - despite the simplicity and repetition of the main plot element - strangely captivating throughout its 3-hour-plus length. A perfect “afternoon film”. 8/10

Queen and Slim (2019). 26.10.22. It is impossible of course not to sympathise with the subject matter, but the film is self-important and unoriginal, with a banal script and turgidly directed. 5½/10

Gay Divorce (1934). 4&5.11.22. Very gay indeed! A straight comedy so the plot is preposterous but that’s intentional and absolutely fine! Good / catchy 1930s songs (“The Continental” went on for 15 minutes yet didn’t seem overlong) and a few genuine laugh out loud moments from a film 88 years old. The comic turn from Erik Rhodes as Tonetti is particularly noteworthy. 8/10

The watermelon woman (1996). 16.11.22. The whole is much better than the sum of its parts. Completely unorthodox and full of effortless style and charm throughout; dated in the best possible way. 7½/10

Easy A (2010). 18.11.22. Over-smart, over-slick, and under-original. 6½/10

Two of us (2019). 26&27.11.22. Highly watchable drama, but the theme – that ubiquitous theme of the perseverance of ‘true love’ at all cost – characterisation, and dialogue were all simplistic. 7½/10

Rosie (2018). 19.12.22. I wish there was more meat on this film; too lightweight. But always watchable. 6½/10

Suburbicon (2017). 23.12.22. Patchy melodrama / black comedy (it has its moments and is a more than adequate watch, but never really gels). 7/10

A star is born (2018). 29.12.22. Naturalistic acting and dialogue; the former especially is superb. Much achieved with a thin storyline, and mawkish sentimentality seems to have been studiously avoided. This just about scrapes an eight. 8/10

The African Queen (1951). 3&4.1.23. The two great stars have a ridiculous lack of chemistry  but I wonder if that was the intention (two love-starved people thrown together, regardless of whether they were right for each other). To the audience, the film feels like what it is about - a meander down a river - but more pleasant for us than Hepburn and Bogart. There is an exuberance of colour and style, and the acting, direction and low-key dialogue are worthy of merit. 7/10