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.
