Film Reviews by CP

... Unwatchable. Typical early 70s arthouse stuff, plotless, directionless and self-indulgent. Nice women, though.

A lovely film which moved me in its simplicity. Engaging characters and an intriguing plot. As a bonus, interesting to see the scenery in Argentina.

I found it totally charming, the more so as the actors were not professionals. It's just a story about life, enjoying the little things - sure, not a lot happens, but is that so bad?

I agree with the previous reviewer; this film is false, however, it makes sense, it is a reasonably common situation, a young men being in love with two sisters and unable to choose. The English characters were somewhat wooden, but the locations are gorgeous and, for me a bonus, the French clear and easily understood. Not a great film, but much better than watching tv!

If this is American humour of the 21st century, I'm glad I grew up in England in the 20th. If you like slapstick and obvious jokes, this is for you. I would imagine the North Koreans were hacked off because it's such a poor film as much as anything else.

Desperately dull. Was there really a plot? It seemed more like a soap. What was Michael Caine thinking of, getting involved with this drivel? Who was the scientific advisor? George W? Watched an hour but can honestly say that it's one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Neither of these films are him at his best, but they are both enjoyable if you enjoy the 'fly on the wall/lives of ordinary people' genre. I found For Days in July the more realistic of the two.

As a film, I would not give it much time; the plot is silly and the acting, despite the big names, is amateurish. If, however, like me, you grew up in the sixties, it has a certain charm, and it's always a pleasure to see how empty the streets were then, and the cars that we drove.