Film Reviews by JD

Set in the years of the depression this is the story of an old dying man seen from the perspective of a 12 year old boy. As stories go it is amusing in parts, in others sad. Pacino is of course awesome. The boy actor is tolerably satisfactory. Its true outstanding virtue is its imagery. The lighting is very warm and interesting, the views through interior door stained glass is both nostalgic and unusual, the detail in the furniture and interior design is beautiful and emotive. This is a very evocative film but with some pretty average acting from most of the players.

I don't think having 2 icons playing opposite one another is necessarily a great plan. It doesn't double the intensity, probably because the chemistry is not appreciable. However the bank robbing scene is awesome. A shoot out between cops and robbers has never been done better. For this scene alone it must be watched. There are however a lot of domestic scenes of very questionable entertainment merit. Tense husbands rowing with bored, undervalued wives, even when one couple are apparently compared with another is just poor cinema. I did not think the use of '90s LA legalese slang added to the atmosphere only adding to the confusion.

A very good production with amazing soloists (the sopranos tuning took a bit to settle) and strong choir. Bernstein's conducting is great, full of humour and emotion. The major criticism is the picture quality. I don't know if the lens needed a clean or whether some quality was lost in image transfer but the possibly gorgeous art festooning the building was just too blurry to see well enough.

There are lots of tense gripping scenes and strong emotion but there is also a sense of an ethereal plot, never quite believable. Each scene brilliantly shot and skilfully acted but no cohesiveness and no character to be absorbed into.

There are a lot of police corruption thrillers which makes it difficult to see this for the cracking film that it is. Al Pacino is awesome. There are a hundred red herrings each as likely as the next, but I found that made the plot tick along quickly. The plot is so thick you can either concentrate or let it take you along in a maelstrom of madness.

I thought that this would be Al Pacino doing Richard III. If you are aware that it is a documentary about making Shakespeare accessible particularly to Americans and how a serious method actor becomes involved with a play this is well worth watching. There is only about 3 minutes of Spacey which I found strange and 10 minutes of play footage which I would have preferred to know beforehand.

Al Pacino's acting has waned. It is as if he has been prised out of retirement. De Niro is considerably better but still way past his peak. The first half of the film is poor mainly because of poor acting, the plot drags the second half up to bearable.

Set in 1985 when the impact of AIDs was at its peak this film is dated in both content and style. The acting is not convincing and the style of direction is haphazard. The dreams of two people coming into one dream was strange and too unlikely. The incoherent Jewish funeral was neither funny nor dramatic, the impact of AIDs is so much less now than 28 years ago. Just not worth it.

In this Al Pacino and Colin Farrell work so well. In so many others he acts alone. Bridget Moynahan is a talent who amplifies the tension excellently. The plot is believable intense and has a great twist. Good fight scenes and interesting filming. Loved it.

Al Pacino acts ill very well. I thought Benetio was the best at this but I felt sick just watching him. His performance alone is worth watching. The other actors are OK and the plot satisfactory. There are a lot of loose ends untied at the end but life is like that.

The plot/acting is frequently unbelievable in little ways. The relationship with a dancer which has inconsistent emotion and is hugely under acted. The murder of a powerful gangster while high on cocaine lacks drama and steam. Generally trips along and maintains interest but lacks any depth of acting.

More a period/political drama than a thriller. This is Al Pacino in a light I have never seen before. An versatile and deeply disturbed performance which is utterly captivating. He looks very youthful of course and quite different. He has since been type-cast but in this early role he is outstanding. As a real life drama it also has a politically historical importance.

The filming is good with great shots of New York. The acting is OK though there was a lot of dialogue I had to rewind because I didn't get it first time, possibly an accent problem. The plot was difficult to follow but not that compelling. There are layers of political corruption, well, untrustworthy politicians who would guess it?

As fiction it would be tense enough, as fact it is exhausting. The devastating effect of whistle blowing on the whistleblower is always underestimated and I for one would never have the nerve. I deeply respect those who are courageous enough to sacrifice their own safety and happiness to expose the truth, knowing that their efforts will probably be wasted. Why would we?.. probably because someone else is willing to help and support. Inspirational.

The constant strain of being a spy deep undercover within a gangster family is awesomely maintained. Depp's performance will take a few pounds off you. Leonardo diCaprio in The Departed might have the edge over him in this genre but that film was outstanding. This film is a close second. The references to forgetaboutid reminded me too much of Hugh Grant in Mickey Blue Eyes and broke the tension. The rules of New York gangsters were sometimes comical, I doubt they are supposed to be. Where this film excels is the close and deeply personal relationship between the undercover spy and Lefty (al Pacino), a gut turner.