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.