Change Your Image
arobertwebb
Reviews
Napoleon (2023)
Misleading title...
A film simply called 'Napoleon' might reasonably be expected to cover the full breadth and depth of the man, his life, his huge achievements and failures, his place in history, etc... but this is like the edited highlights on football's Match of the Day, those 'highlights' being more concerned with the prurient aspects of Boney's sexual obsession with Josephine than historical detail and depth.
A better title might have been 'Napoleon & Josephine', or 'Carry On Up The Derrière'.
So... 'Gladiator' it ain't, which is a shame.
Perhaps it needed the story to be told over three or more episodes, like Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings'.
History buffs will certainly be disappointed at the lack of certain major military battles which Napoleon fought, including their context and their historic impact... but Austerlitz seemed to be done well (though I have no idea if it's accurate).
Overall, the film is dark, moody, furtive, mumbled and whispered, so is it art or simply historical voyeurism?
Can't recommend it greatly unless you get off on richly-furnished costume drama featuring an occasional bit of bonking contrasted with the odd, gory battle scene.
Lawman (1971)
Michael Winner - I should have known!
Watched on TV in 2024 because of what appeared to be a good cast... Lancaster, Duvall, Ryan, etc... but it soon became clear that the direction was abysmal. The number of sudden zoom closeups and pullbacks at the wrong time, cliched scenes, melodramatic set pieces and cornball music soundtrack... but I persevered and didn't check the credits until it was all over.
Then I saw that Winner directed it, and it all figured.
How that buffoon ever got into film directing beats me.
Worth a viewing because of the cast and perhaps as one example of why westerns lost popularity for a while, until the likes of Clint Eastwood's directorial offerings, Costner's 'Dances With Wolves', etc., came along later... and 'Lonesome Dove', 'Open Range', later still.
The wider support acting cast are all familiar from various Eastwood movies, so lots of familiar faces to be seen, which gives the viewer some comfort and confidence in things, despite Winner's clumsy direction.
A Good Marriage (2014)
Dire...
Just shown on 'Legend' channel in UK (a CBS thing?), where the offering is mostly oldish B movies.
Although made in 2014, it has the quality and feel of a bad 1970s production, with a slow, boring plot, unconvincing acting, as well as poor dialogue and sound quality.
Haven't read the book (novella?), so I have no idea if it does justice to Stephen King's original work, but the whole thing is badly directed and I can't imagine how it ever got made.
Does the excellent Mr King's name always ensure that a film does well at the box office? If so, films like this will only serve to damage his reputation.
The Deadly Affair (1967)
View it in the context of its time...
The book by le Carré was very good, but of course in the 2020s it seems slow and plodding by comparison to current works in the spy / thriller genres.
The same goes for the film, which is quite true to the author's original work, but please take into account the times in which it was set. The world was very 'grey' and relatively primitive compared to now... I'm old enough to remember them!
James Mason is always incredibly good and watchable, as are many of the cast... Harry Andrews, Simone Signoret, Maximilian Schell, Kenneth Haigh...
If you remember the 1950s - 1960s, you'll get where this movie is coming from, but anyone under 40 or 50 probably won't.
Steiner - Das Eiserne Kreuz, 2. Teil (1979)
The famous cast members must have needed the money
Looks and sounds very dated now, first of all, in terms of its basic film quality and background music. 1979 is around the same time as movies like Apocalypse Now and A Bridge Too Far, for example, both of which have much better all-round production quality when compared to this turkey.
The leading character played by Burton, with his plummy Shakespearian English stage actor's voice, is totally miscast as a battle-hardened (probably working class) German sergeant. That's the main jarring note of the whole thing.
Robert Mitchum does what Robert Mitchum does, as we've seen him in a hundred other war movies. He drawls his way through the film with the usual world-weary cynicism and hangdog expression.
Obligatory Hollywood German officer, Kurt Jurgens, looks like he's wearing an old uniform borrowed from someone much smaller and slimmer, and who didn't possess either a decent steam iron or an aide with one. Comic, as Kurt is usually so immaculate.
The plot is weak, the dialogue dull and the cinematography unremarkable.
One of the most forgettable films I am ever likely to see.