Reviews

After the briefest introduction to the Tom Hanks character we are dropped into the action which does not relent to the end of the film. Dodging and hunting the unseen enemy of U-Boats was never an easy task but when you have responsibility for guarding a fleet of weapons-free merchant ships full of the life blood of food for besieged Britain and troop carriers full of virgin soldiers the jeopardy is ratcheted up to unbearably tense levels. Tom Hanks is superb playing the besieged captain and subtly portrays the vulnerabilities of his character in his role, new to the crew and captaincy, learning on the fly and making impossibly difficult trades with fortune. He is hardly off screen. Stephen Graham is also great as the wily, hard nosed number one. The burden of responsibility for the lives of the crewmen and soldiers is very well portrayed and it is this that is the engine of the intense tension. It's well worth watching but low on complexity, being exclusively a military procedural, but the time just flies by and by the end you may have some insights on the subject of responsibility.

This film is about how a deadly infectious pandemic impacts the lives of four young people who would have had good lives had not they been faced with this terrible challenge. The central characters decide to travel to a holiday destination that two brothers went to during their childhood for reasons that don't seem entirely rational, but this is not a surprise given their circumstances. On the way they are forced to confront difficult choices to the point of realising that if they are to survive other survivors who may or may not be infected may have to die (in other words they may have to kill them). The film makers maintain the tension very well despite a slightly slow pace and grim subject but the real strength of the film is the superb acting which was needed to grip the audience because the structure of the film offers few surprises. Having said that I do think that a longer perspective on a pandemic situation, a very real possibility, could have made a more interesting film.

This is what is generally called a family film, one that can be watched and enjoyed by all ages. It does this pretty well overall and the two central characters develop nicely over the plot, with Sumrak, a hardened career criminal, learning how to look after children and fall in love (he has been in prison since he was 16 years old), and Koltsov mending a tarnished reputation as a former police officer after being unjustly imprisoned. It is not as sentimental as a western film with a similar plot would have been but it also does not have as many laughs in it as I think there should have been. The acting is fine and the action sequences are well done but ultimately its aim is to tug at the heartstrings.

This movie has as its central character the weirdest copper in the history of film. We observe him more or less constantly for the full 148 mins laconically investigating a murder in the area which his force is responsible for (a small police station in a rural area) and being the gooseberry to the couple who live next door on various excursions (the seaside, a restaurant, etc.). He is always withdrawn and introverted but is he crushed by guilt or merely childlike? Is he obsessed by the couple next door (who seem to be noisily shagging at all hours of the day) or are they just a breakwater for his loneliness? This ambiguity is the films real achievement: De Winter is a tabula rasa on which any prejudice (of the viewer I mean) can be projected. The film certainly is one that either you will love or hate judging by the previous reviews - check out "What the hell is this?", "150 minutes of suffering, only for stubborn art movie fans with a high boredom threshold level" and "Is life really this boring?". I very much enjoyed the film mainly for Emanuelle Schotte who is fascinating to watch as he ambles aimlessly through his character's empty life.

Fascinating documentary on a very enigmatic figure that I had heard only scraps about before this film. As I understood it he was famous for being a chess champion who disappeared suddenly never to be heard of again but this is a totally mistaken view of the character. There is no doubt in my mind after seeing this film that he cared only for chess and took refuse in it to escape a neglected upbringing. Whilst he would have been famous in chess circles at any time, his involvement with a world championship challenge with Boris Spassky was used by the media of the time to project a cold war confrontation onto the chess board. This is the real story of Bobby Fischer. The fame that followed him was a result of this media interest with chess being (almost unthinkably) broadcast live on network television and even leading the to personal involvement of Kissinger at one point. Fischer's mind could not handle this constant unremitting attention and, a solitary man at the best of times, he began to lose grip on reality. This film presents an amazing amount of TV footage of Fischer from his earliest years up the time near his death, together with interviews with those close to him, and stitches it all into a gripping narrative of a dashing, brilliant but finally haunted man.

Death is only a vague looming fear for most of us but for Daibo Kobayashi it becomes an everyday fact of life after he replies to a newspaper advertisement for staff in "Departures". His education is often hilarious if sometimes grotesque as he learns from his boss how to prepare a corpse for cremation, a job in days gone by done by the family of the bereaved, but these days performed by contracted professionals in the family home and in front of them and their guests with great ceremony and dignity. The job is not highly regarded, however, and he is seen as rather ghoulish by others (including his own wife!) but this only reflects their anxiety of saying a final farewell, movingly brought home when he is repeatedly given heartfelt thanks on leaving after having completed the job, and the relief of his clients becomes apparent. In a full 2 hours that never becomes dull his personal life, his artistic life and his professional life are kept in a dynamic and entertaining tension before the preparation of the corpse of his estranged father becomes a synthesis of all three in the last act of intimacy possible between father and son.

This film is basically a two actor piece with Firth playing the prince who is horror struck at the sense of duty to millions and history in the making which is bearing down upon him, and Rush as the kind yet damaged first world war veteran and failed actor whose initial concern in speech therapy was to help those fellow veterans whose speech had been affected by the stress of war. Both are defined by their voices with Rush being overlooked for acting roles because of his Australian accent ("only RP here old boy") and Firth forced to engage in public speaking out of duty to office despite everyone knowing and dreading his terrible stammer. The scenes with both of them bouncing off each other are riveting. The other characters and scenes seem only there to facilitate this face off between the two. How Colin Firth can be considered the lead actor and Geoffrey Rush a supporting actor is surely a profound injustice to the latter: it must be a close run thing as to which is on the screen most.

Gasp as she breaks a nail! Thrill as she stubs her toe! Rush to the bathroom as she gets a scratch on her back! Portman's character is unbearable. Can it really be possible that someone this insular ever went to an audition, let alone performed in front of an audience in any capacity? I cannot think so. There are many nice moments in this film, like the scenes with Winowna Ryder in them, and I have no complaints about the acting, yet why make a psychological thriller about a character with no psychology to speak of? I found it impossible to care about this insufferable twit of a woman. It seems to me that Aaronovsy's histrionic characters, like the dancer/ wrestler/ drug addict/ maths genius who goes out in a blaze of glory, are merely there to compensate for an inability to tell a story well enough to keep us interested.

This is a film more notable for its portrait of a town and the performance of Jeff Bridges than it is for its story, which, when you stop to think about it, is pretty thin. The acting is good all round and some of the photography is beautifully evocative of the epic landscape except for the epilogue which seems to be shot on DV and was a lame ending anyway. But the film belongs to Jeff Bridges. Matt Damon is a useless appendage and Hailee Steinfeld, the ostensible centre of the film, acts very well but her character seems to learn nothing about herself, a fault of the story no doubt but frustrating all the same. The town is interesting to see in its detail and in its political structure, however, once we leave the town we are supposed to enter a mythic landscape but this is scuppered by the paucity of the story. The only epic constituent of the film is the character Jeff Bridges plays and his performance is the only real reason to watch the film. Barely recognisable under the beard, Bridges is the seen-it-all Rooster Cogburn is a lawman with no respect for the law, a cold blooded killer who risks his own life to save others, a showman who keeps to himself and a stranger to himself and his past. It would have been a much more fun to watch his story than this one.

The acting kept me watching this film and the images were interesting, but it is all completely defused by the fact that the story was downright silly. Douglas Adams' invention of the pig that wants to be eaten was a good joke but this film seeks to take the same principle to present truisms as profound insight. "Life is short" is about as profound as saying the sky is up there and the ground is down there. I have not read the novel (and nor will I after seeing this tripe) but I have read 'Remains of the Day' which was made into a good film. Maybe he has run out of ideas and has to scrape up plots from Hollywood blockbusters like 'The Island'.

This movie is basically a revenge tragedy.The story is told through the point of view of various characters and it becomes clear that all except one have only a part of the full picture and it keeps the tension going up till the end. The acting is good all round and it is atmospherically shot on DV. It seems to me however that the story overall is unconvincing. I believed in Mtsu's icy focus but could not believe that such a focus could be directed at 13-14 year olds. I could not believe in boy B's breakdown, nor in boy A's psychological state which seems to suggest a transparently simple origin leading in one easy step to master villainy. The elements of the plot seem to be there more to keep us guessing at an intellectual level rather than to get us to engage with the characters emotionally, in fact most of the telling of the tale seems to deliberately and uselessly disengage us, except perhaps for the input of one doomed teenage girl. Certainly an interesting film and worth a watch if you like POV stories (I do) but ultimately unsatisfying.

Really rubbish effort from a team that a lot more could have been expected from. The same joke (alien acts just like us!) is constantly repeated to the precise same effect, namely muted half smile turning to groan when you realise that the 4 year olds that the joke can only be aimed at cannot see the film. The best of the film is when the Pegg and Frost are bouncing lines off each other but any of that chemistry is completely missing when the CGI blob alien on screen and Wiig is an empty vessel in this. Sean of the Dead was impeccably written and hilarious, Hot Fuzz had some good jokes in it but they seemed badly stuck together with chewing gum, and this is just desperate. Could it be that they are not being given enough time to come up with a decent script or could it be that they struck lucky with Sean? Only the next effort will tell...

This is an excellent film full of superb acting and photography of the sea light that is truly beautiful. The script is well thought out and actually makes much more sense being set after the war than before. Rose is a neglected and under appreciated 17 year old who is suddenly paid attention to by Pinkie, a would-be flash Harry trying to live up to the impossible standards of his small time gang leader/ father figure, impossible because Pinkie has no war to make himself a legend with. The implication is clear: war sorts out the ruthless from the rest of us. I thought it easy to understand why Rose would fall for Pinkie and she does not want to upset the apple cart even going so far as to get married in a registry office, a mortal sin for a catholic, just to keep him onside (I did not dare say happy). Pinkie tries hard to be the hard man but does he succeed in being as cold hearted as he would like to be towards Rose? I think he is trying too hard. Phil Davies is excellent as the washed-up (literally) crook who senses he has reached the end of the road with nothing to show for it, Helen Mirren and John Hurt are wonderful as the friends with the proverbial chequered past and the scooters are the most glamorous things in the film. I thought the climactic en worked well but I have always thought the record scene was ridiculous from the earlier version and it is here too but there would have been cries of derision if it had not been included so I am prepared to lay that one at the feet of Graham Greene, a writer so appallingly bad that I can only put his continued popularity down to some kind of Jesuit conspiracy.

This is an interesting film made watchable by the family interactions and how they change in response to oppressive circumstances. The acting is good, even the kid is totally convincing. However I was not convinced by the script which literally walls itself in. Symbols are all well and good but if credibility is compromised as a consequence of throwing symbols about then the impact is short circuited. The real achievement of this film is to address the issue of the tyranny the motor car imposes on us and our morally ambivalent relationship with it. After the credits have rolled the family probably get in to the car the father drives to work. The W.H.O. say that 1.2 million people a year are killed on the roads worldwide and that is estimated to rise to 2.3 million by 2020. If that many people were killed in plane crashes how many planes would be in the air? I think not many. The fact is that if all traffic was stopped tomorrow, our society could not function so these deaths are tolerated and facts about deaths caused become like the elephant in the living room. Incidentally 5.4 million people per year are estimated to die from smoking. Since this family smokes like a collective chimney perhaps the director has got a ready made sequel...

This is a comedy played for laughs and all you can ask of it is that it is consistently funny and it is exactly that and not very much more. Although it has some fantasy scenes that are well executed, they are taking part in the imagination of the characters and I wanted to see what was really going on as well, but perhaps the film makers knew that this would beggar belief in the outcome of the plot. Ultimately it doesn't matter because the jokes about real people speaking in fantasy parlance and fantasy characters speaking like real people is still very funny as is the concept of educating a superficial bimbo in the ways of "the force" (nerdism). This is the kind of film that I hope Hollywood picks up to be remade with some stars and a more refined script, hopefully making the Icelanders a fortune.