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

Film reviews part 13 (in order of viewing)

Only you (2018). 13&14.8.22. A simple plot but perfectly scripted and executed, although the cinematography is a little claustrophobic. 8/10

The mule (2018). 18&20.8.22. Good, entertaining, old-fashioned, formulaic thriller. 8/10

The Florida Project (2017). 22.8.22. A ‘must-see’ film, in documentary style, with incredible performances and a thought-provoking theme (children living with an awful mother and no money, but with unlimited freedom and, apparently, a very real joy). And the fashionable ‘premature ending’ works in this case. 8½/10

Around the world in 80 days (1956). 25-27.8.22. Sumptuous entertainment with numerous things to recommend it. OK, the story is pretty ridiculous at times but the acting is understated – Passepartout as played by Cantinflas is a revelation! – and the tone is light, with subtle, winning humour, and no scene outstaying its welcome. The imaginative end credits are an extra credit to the film. All it lacks really is the element of realism and, hence, genuine emotional involvement. 8½/10

The edge of Seventeen (2016). Exact watching date unknown. One of a million such teen comedies but smarter and generally more unpredictable than most. Spot-on acting from the actors playing the girl, the brother and the teacher. 7½/10

Who you think I am (2019). Exact watching date unknown. Engaging throughout and literate, but unoriginal and never really emotionally involving. 7/10

North by Northwest (1959). Exact watching date unknown. A good start, but it was soon apparent that this was in the same domain as a James Bond melodrama with all its ridiculous wisecracks, contrivances and coincidences. So if you like James Bond or are in the mood for some escapist candy you will probably like this. But judging this dated film as a serious, realistic thriller – and it seems I am very much in the minority here - I give it 6½/10.

Monos (2019). Exact watching date unknown. Trendy film-making with lots of pretty images and a semblance of a story. But meandering direction, sparse dialogue and characters not fleshed out make this very tepid. 6/10

Eastern Promises (2007). Exact watching date unknown. I predicted the main twist - which must mean it really is predictable! - but the film is involving and good quality, if a little more focused on plot and excitement than fleshing out the characters. The bathhouse fight is surely one of the most engaging in film. (Having subsequently read the Wikipedia article, that last comment seems to be the opinion of several other reviewers as well.) 7½/10

(Last black man in San Francisco (2019). 6.10.22. Watched 31 minutes. Really didn’t get on with it at all.)

Film reviews part 12 (in order of viewing)

Ghost (1990). 20&21.6.22. Dated in terms of directorial style - e.g. the self-conscious Unchained Melody scenes - and also script, this is still good enough for a wet afternoon’s entertainment. 7½/10

The mother (2003). 23-25.6.22. Compelling, taut drama about middle-aged loneliness. 8/10

She wore a yellow ribbon (1949). 9&10.7.22. Watched under half (was v unremarkable).

Westworld (1973). 24.7.22. Silly nonsense, but just about watchable. 5½/10

Dark Victory (1939). 25&26.7.22. The film suffers from melodramatic elements, common in films at that time: e.g. much more development was needed for the falling in love storyline, and the scenes showing Julie’s instability were rather crudely done (again typical of such a film). The dialogue in the opening scenes was also much too fast, which would have been fine if it was more engaging. The attempt at pathos at the end of the film though was quite successful and very welcome, despite being expected. 7/10

Election (1999). 27.7.22. This oozes gentle charm and timeless cosy humour which almost always hits the mark. Similar in many respects to American Beauty (also a 1999 film) but not quite as special. 8½/10

Now, Voyager (1942). 31.7 to 2.8.22. Quite a high-quality script and very good acting from Bette Davis, but let down by a somewhat mundane, and occasionally sloppy, production. For instance, as with Dark Victory above, the romance development could have been much better handled (the scenes on the boat are the least involving and those with the taxi driver are embarrassing!); and the end of the film is contrived and drags. 7/10

Carousel (1956). 4.8.22 to 6.8.22. One of the better Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals, although nowhere near the quality of The King & I or the Sound of Music either in terms of story or music. But the dialogue and lyrics are fresh and snappy, and the song “You’ll never walk alone” is a R&H classic: head and shoulders above all the rest. Overall entirely watchable. 7/10

Reach for the sky (1956). 8.8.22 to 11.8.22. Breezy, pacy (perhaps too pacy) and very involving, although the often trite, peculiarly Home Counties dialogue is maybe more reminiscent of an earlier era in film than 1956. An early Lewis Gilbert film. 7½/10

The Miseducation of Cameron Post (2018). 11.8.22. Very good acting by Moretz and an interesting premise, but ultimately this was a wasted opportunity / a bit of a 'nothing film'. 6/10

Film reviews part 11 (in order of viewing)

Apostasy (2017). 26&27.2.22. This had a sort of ‘writing by numbers’ feel, a bit like an educational tv film: more informative than colourfully dramatic. But of course this subject matter cannot fail to be interesting, and it’s still a good way to spend a spare 1½ hours. 7/10

Lilies of the field (1963). 28.2.22. Feel-good film with no ‘baddies’ and four identical / cardboard cut-out nuns! It certainly started off promising but alas became a very insipid and twee comedy. 6½/10

Sorry we missed you (2019). 5&6.3.22. Another perfectly-crafted film by the Paul Laverty / Ken Loach team. Always utterly realistic, and yet again the entire cast of amateur actors seem more convincing than professionals! 8½/10

The spy gone north (2018). 10,11&12.3.22. I thought this might be heavy-going and overly difficult to follow but it turned out to be exciting throughout - no dragging - and for the most part just the right side of intelligible on first viewing. Kudos for a good portrayal of Kim Jong-il. 8/10

Queen of Katwe (2016). 15.3.22. I watched half of it; not quite good enough for me to want to continue watching.

If Beale Street could talk (2018). 23.3.22. A film needed to be made on this specific topic, and a very creditable one it is too, although not quite in the same class as the director’s Oscar-winning “Moonlight”. 8/10

Witches of Eastwick (1987). 29.3.22. The first half was distinctly better than the second, which was a riot of childish nonsense. 6½/10

West side story (2021). 6&7.4.22. It could perhaps never be as good as the original, but the move away from stagey to straight drama was creditable. It meant however that the songs felt slightly incongruous to the whole (although, by and large, the arrangements were excellent: a worthy complement for the original). Casting was uninspired however; the only cast member who really stood out for me was the actor playing Riff - and perhaps also Bernardo. Nice touches were the non-binary Anybodys, Rita Moreno’s character singing “somewhere” (presumably about Puerto Ricans as a whole), the prostitute quickly but subtly looking herself in a cage after the police left to avoid the potential for toxic masculinity getting out of hand, and the Jet girls having to choose between ethnic and gender identities during the Anita assault scene, quickly plumping for the latter. 8/10

The favourite (2018). 10 & 12.4.22. There was nothing wrong with this film as such, but I only watched the first half as it didn’t sufficiently maintain my interest.

Burning (2018). 18.4.22. I hoped that this well-paced, watchable thriller would come to a satisfactory resolution. I didn’t think it had, but I came to understand what the film was trying to say. There was some clumsy editing in the scenes where Jong-Su was following Ben. 7½/10

 

Film reviews part 10 (in order of viewing)

Liquorice Pizza (2021). CINEMA. 24.1.22. A rollercoaster of great scenes (with the odd miss) but the second half fell just a little flat and lacked cohesion. 8/10

Ipcress file (1965). 28&29.1.22. This thriller is gripping almost despite itself, notably the wooden acting and wooden script. It shows just how important a good story and ruthlessly efficient pacing & editing can be. John Barry’s stylish score does no harm either. 8/10

Lost daughters (2021). 29.1.22. Nuanced and affecting drama, well-made and which rings true. (The story is similar in essence to The Awakening, a book from 1897 by Kate Chopin, which I read in 2020.) The first half in particular is quite outstanding. It is interesting that the aggregate audience review score is much less than the aggregate critic review score; perhaps audiences are not en masse able to understand the potential for profound problems with motherhood? 8½/10

The Handmaiden (2016). CINEMA. 4.2.22. Continuing a surprising run of very good films! I am a sucker for altered-chronology films as, by nature, they are usually more engrossing – and this was no exception. Slightly reminiscent of the brilliant Kill Bill Volume 2 in style, this was a hugely entertaining and ultimately coherent spectacle which would doubtless be even better on repeat viewing. (Two asides: the sex scene as a sort of epilogue was very curious and maybe even unprecedented? It served no narrative purpose so must have been added purely for aesthetic / ‘arty’ reasons. And I was astonished that this was not directed or written by the same people who made the more recent “Parasite”, due to the almost identical premise of the two films.) 8½/10

After the storm (2016). 5&6.2.22. A promising start but eventually decided it wasn’t good enough to watch completely (watched just over half).

The sisters brothers (2018). 7.2.22. The first half was good enough, with some taut plotting, potent dialogue and nice touches, e.g. the inventions of a toothbrush and flushing toilet. Unfortunately the plot petered out in the second half, and so did the other qualities. Mention should be made of Phoenix and Reilly, who were excellent throughout. 6½/10

Jules et Jim (1962). CINEMA. 11.2.22. The third Truffaut film I’ve seen recently, and notably the worst. After a sparkly, fast-paced start, leaving the audience no time to catch breath, it became (to today’s eyes) hackneyed, tedious and pretentious. Dated in all the wrong ways. Perhaps it seemed much better at the time as this was a novel / original way of making films. If it carried on the way it started this would have been excellent. 5½/10

The souvenir (2018). 15&16.2.22. With relatively few words spoken between the couple, the film manages to be one of the most genuinely evocative films about a love affair. We can absolutely feel the love, on her part if not his, which arises and evolves often from relatively mundane situations and dialogue, awkwardness.... basically just time and travel together! Despite that, and the two leads’ almost astonishingly brilliant performances, it is still not nearly as tight, accessible or ultimately satisfying as Hogg’s “Archipelago”. She seems to have a uniquely realistic style of film-making – a sort of upper middle-class kitchen sink – which is truly captivating. 8/10

Annie Hall (1977). 20.2.22. A worthy best film Oscar winner. Light, bright and colourful, it’s one-dimensional but entertaining throughout with some knock-out, belly-laugh humour. Short and very sweet. 9/10

The Searchers (1958). 21.2.22. Hearty, old-fashioned Western with depth. Rough around the edges and the dialogue is a touch fast-paced at times, but it is nonetheless always watchable with lots of nice touches. Thought-provoking as well. 7½/10 (but probably 8/10 if viewed contemporaneously).

Film reviews part 9 (in order of viewing)

Shop around the corner (1940). CINEMA. 20.12.21. Likeable enough but never really sparkles. The woman’s small revelation at the end was also unnecessary and spoilt some of the past dialogue.  7/10

Mahanagar (1963). 26-28.12.21. It would have been better if it was a bit more slick, but was always watchable. 7/10

The truth (2019). 29&30.12.21. Almost a parody of a French film, so typically French it is (despite it being written and directed by a Japanese man). It promised much, but leaving aside the acting – which was first-rate – it was decidedly unsatisfying. 5/10

The shootist (1976). 31.12.21 / 1.1.22. A very good-looking Western: gentle, uncomplicated and easy to like. 8/10

The color purple (1985). 5&6.1.22. Spielberg used a very broad brush with this, making it rather disjointed and uninvolving. I would have particularly liked to have seen more small-scale drama of the relationships between Celie and Mister, and Sophia and Harpo (all the characters aside from possibly Celie were caricatures to some degree). So despite some good individual scenes, a superlative performance from Whoopi Goldberg, and other excellent performances, this could have been so much better. 6½/10

Day for night (1973). CINEMA. 7.1.22. Busy ensemble piece: good-looking and very likeable as a whole, but none of it is unmissable. I agree with Pauline Kiel: "It has a pretty touch. But when it was over, I found myself thinking, Can this be all there is to it? The picture has no center and not much spirit." 7/10

Desperately seeking Susan (1985). 14.1.22. Lightweight entertainment. 6/10

The invisible woman (2013). 16.1.22. A restrained film of (generally) considerable quality and charm. Fiennes is excellent as Dickens. A half mark knocked off for the hurried final third. 7½/10

The 400 blows (1959). CINEMA: 19.1.22. Prototype kitchen sink drama - doubtless the reason why it was so popular at its time - but it never really catches fire and doesn’t quite get to grips with the characters. But there is still much charm in the filmmaking style and the actor who plays the boy is amazing! The message seems to be only that nothing can be done, or is being done, about naughty boys from moderately dodgy backgrounds. 7/10 

When Harry met Sally (1989). 23.1.22. Superior romcom: warm, cosy and perfectly paced! Excellent performances from the two leads, never tries to be too clever, and filled with funny scenes. 8½/10