Film reviews part 28 (in order of viewing)

Sunset boulevard (1950). 3&4.4.26. Getting Cecil B DeMille to play himself in a not insignificant role must have given the film a lot of attention and it’s certainly still worth watching, but is not head-and-shoulders above other films of its time. Norma Desmond gets quite tedious.... 7½/10

Speed (1994). 6.4.26. The ultimate thrills and spills movie, it keeps the audience on edge as well as the passengers, with a smart final third taking the action off the roads. Straight escapism and just the right side of preposterous, although personally I would not be laughing and cheering at every small challenge overcome if I’d been on the bus! 8/10

Sightseers (2012). 19.4.26. Black comedy of the Shaun of the Dead tradition, with some Nuts in May and generic road trip elements mixed in. All good fun with a few instances of gratuitous scatology and borderline bad taste. Her mother is a hoot and has the very best lines. 7½/10

Destry rides again (1939). 23.4.26. A winning Western with some great comic dialogue, although the resolution could have been cleverer and more in accordance with the hero’s principles. 7½/10

French Connection II (1975). 24&25.4.26. A little *too* raw for my liking (despite being partial to gritty 1970s thrillers). Doyle’s xenophobia was slightly ridiculous and the cold turkey scenes a bit OTT / something of a self-conscious showcase for Hackman. Because of its unpolished nature the film was occasionally difficult to follow (especially dialogue), and I didn’t like Henri, the French detective. Despite all this, the authentic atmosphere keeps the viewer hooked. The film is unusual for having absolutely no epilogue. 7/10

The school of rock (2003). 12.5.26. This is flawless for the type of film it is. The laughs come thick and fast, and it neither puts a foot wrong nor outstays its welcome. Written by the future writer of the White Lotus (Mike White), who also seems to enjoy being a rubbish actor! 9/10

Mona Lisa (1986). 13.5.26. A very eighties film which doesn’t pass muster in today’s more sophisticated age. The dialogue in particular is poor, and the storyline is tepid despite early promise. A certain vibrancy and watchability keeps it from getting a lower score. 6/10

Two-way stretch (1960). 20&21.5.26. An understated performance from Peter Sellers, a few years before his first appearance as Clouseau, helps along this very enjoyable comedy-drama, which never gets too broad or farcical. Lionel Jeffries as Kraut is also superb. 9/10

The guard (2011). 23.5.26. Fresh and original. 7½/10

My favourite cake (2024). 2.6.26. A film like a comfy pillow. Great performances from the two leads. 7½/10

Film reviews part 27 (in order of viewing)

Lollipop (2024). 20.1.26. Another very good kitchen-sink, Ken Loach-style British film with an authentic - if uninspired - script and unknown actors performing magnificently. Tegan-Mia Stanley Rhoads as the daughter Ava was especially convincing. 7½/10

Souvenir Part II (2021). 24&27.1.26. The same wonderfully naturalistic performances and dialogue as in the first film. One might need a little imagination to analyse the main theme (I’ve analysed it to my own satisfaction). I think that many people will criticise the film as boring or pretentious but I don’t think it is at all. 8½/10

Saint-Omer (2022). 29.1.26. Elegantly done and well worth watching. The courtroom scenes are never tiring despite taking up a large proportion of the film (although I generally enjoy courtroom dramas anyway). The relationship between Laurence’s mother and Rama could have been better-developed; there seemed nothing to be drawn from it. 7½/10

The adventures of Priscilla, queen of the desert (1994). 3.2.26. I found it hard to really care about these characters, none of whom was particularly likeable. Still less to care about their relationships with each other. The characters and situations they meet along the way did nothing for me either! The sheer spirit / exuberance of the film carries one along however. 6½/10

Modern times (1936). 7?.2.26. The slapstick is very slightly tiresome at times, but on the whole this semi-silent comedy is literate, clever, good fun and an easy watch. Excellent picture quality too. 7/10 (for today’s audiences).

One battle after the other (2025). CINEMA. 10.2.26. Some of the comedic elements are a little crude (in the broad sense) and, to my surprise, the film generally is more pulpy and escapist than I would have imagined from the writer / director of There will be blood (but probably that’s the type of movie he wanted to set out to do and I don’t know most of his other work). So a bit too James Bond-ish / car-chasey / mainstream-audience-pleasing for my liking and the ending scene felt a bit insipid. Overall, despite no shortage of oomph and originality, I’m a little surprised the film has been so loved by so many of the more sensible critics. Postscript: Kyle Smith of The Wall Street Journal notes that “the reach is evident but the grasp is a little shaky”. Yes. 7½/10

The taste of things (2023). 17&18.2.26. Never has watching cooking been so aesthetically pleasing. Nothing much happens but the joy comes from vicariously living in that time and with those people, all of whom are resolutely happy, good-humoured and good-natured. The human relationships are as harmonious as the ingredients in the wonderful dishes. And somehow that doesn’t seem unrealistic. I wouldn’t usually give such an ostensibly slight film such a high score, but because of its sheer charm it deserves it. Postscript: I like this quote from RogerEbert.com: “the film "achieved...a delicate balance" that "feels like a magic trick”".8/10

In a lonely place (1950). 6&7.3.26. A film about a film scriptwriter. Centred around Bogart’s charisma, it doesn’t quite come off despite some quite sharp dialogue. Gloria Grahame’s eyebrow-raising performance feels especially hackneyed. More naturalistic directing could have made this much better. Postscript: Gloria Grahame’s performance is “unanimously” praised according to Wikipedia, and the film itself highly critically acclaimed, so I’m very much in the minority here. 6½/10

American fiction (2023). 22.3.26. I didn’t like this. The writing and directing felt tepid and uninspired / clichéd despite an excellent premise. Maybe the writer was playing a joke on the critics in the same way as in the film! 6½/10

La chimera (2023). 24&25.3.26. A very charming oddity. What struck me was just how real and how 1980s the film felt. More could have been made of The Englishman and, ironically, perhaps Josh O’Connor (or at least his character) was the weakest link. 7½/10

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

10 things I hate about you (1999). 18.2.26. Watched first hour.

Film reviews part 26 (in order of viewing)

T2 Trainspotting (2017). 12.11.25. Spoilt by the constant self-conscious references to the first (classic) film, and the first half was significantly better than the second. Despite this, and the female cardboard cut-outs, there is lots to enjoy, and the collage of the primary schoolboys playing football (“A perfect day”) is inspired. 7/10

A thousand and one (2023). 19.11.25. Anchored by an electric central performance by Teyana Taylor: an unchanging character in a city rapidly “cleaning itself up” (aka undergoing a form of ethnic cleansing in which poor people / ex-cons are not tolerated). Well-paced, with a streak of originality and a lot of heart. A neat little twist near the end. Recommended. 8/10

Wagon master (1950). 25.11.25. No-frills, entertaining ‘road trip’ Western. 7/10

Suspicion (1941). 2.12.25. A light and breezy first half, then progressively more claustrophobic. Cary Grant seems completely miscast as the mysterious husband (with barely changing facial expressions, he seems more like a mannequin than a flesh and blood man, although was that Hitchcock’s intention?), and the final third seems rushed - especially the finale itself, which feels sloppy (but typical of films of that era). A fine film despite these flaws, and Joan Fontaine shines. [After writing this, I see that JF won the Best Actress Oscar for her performance.] 8/10

Curse of the cat people (1944). 10.12.25. This works - surprisingly - both as a children’s film and intelligent adults’ film. Each group would arguably get something different out of it. The child actress is delightful and upstages most of the adults. The short length helps make it punchy and involving throughout. Charm galore, and worth watching. Note: I did not watch the prequel Cat People before seeing this film, and intend to do so at a later date. 8/10

3 faces (2018). 17&18.12.25. A drama, but with the actors and director playing themselves. A sort of road trip film with a hypnotising quality. Watching the photography and hearing the dialogue really makes one want to go to Iran. 7½/10

The holdovers (2023). 22.12.25. Hollywood, yes, clichéd schmaltz at times, yes, but also awash with genuine charm, warm-heartedness and subtlety. This will be a classic Christmas film. 8/10

Sentimental value (2025). 13.1.26. CINEMA. An acting masterclass from the three leads and full of poignant, moving scenes in the most subtle and least contrived way possible. It felt a touch listless and heavy-going in the second half and the thematic whole takes a little thought to fully ‘get’ (although the latter issue is not really a flaw). I now see that the actress playing Nora played the lead role in The Worst Person in the World (which I described in my review of that film as an astonishing portrayal). 8/10 

The damned don’t cry (2022). 15.1.26. Enhanced by a brilliant performance from non-professional Aicha Tebbae, this is well worth a watch despite seeming a touch muddled at times, and a rather contrived ending. 7½/10

Marty Supreme (2025). 16.1.26. CINEMA. A very good, powerful, intense film. The 1950s New York characters and setting seemed very authentic, and Chalamet is brilliant as are the supporting cast. One or two things didn’t quite make sense to me, either because I missed a line or two due to the music overlapping the dialogue, the film simply wasn’t clear, or I’m a bit slow! The ending too could have been a bit more cleverly thought out. Overall though a fine piece of work. 8/10

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

Godland (2022). 17&18.11.25. Watched half.

Benediction (2021). 26.11.25. Watched half.

Oppenheimer (2023). 11.1.26. Watched the first 34 minutes only. It feels like an extended trailer, a dialogue of soundbites vying for attention with stupid incidental music. A similar directorial style to JFK or Dunkirk: I now see that the latter film is by the same director (I am blissfully ignorant of very modern films). It might have become more watchable, but decided to cut my losses.

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.

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 Further postscript: I watched subsequently Airport ’75 and Airport ’77, and they’re both pretty rubbish.

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.