Film Reviews by JD

A lot of recent fossil finds allow a computer graphic simulation of life 100,000,000 years ago. Of course there are some gaps in our knowledge and of course there has been some guess work about certain details but if you allow some poetic license it is amazing what is known. John Hurt is a great actor but I didn't rate him as an interesting natural history narrator, especially when each episode has an identical 5 minute introduction, it starts to grate a little. There are a lot of new species identified since I last read about dinosaurs. At times keeping up can be hard going. The finer details interested me most.

The world of wildlife photography. Who cannot fail to appreciate the days of patience even with the aid of high tech? These shots are the next level. Looking into the eye of a tiger cub is just gorgeous. Being within a few feet of a tiger kill is heart stopping. There is so much good footage that the story is as complete as you could expect. To follow the growth of these wild carnivores from blind bundle to their first kill is intensely moving.

To view the brutality of the Rwandan civil war from the point of view of a hotel manager is an unusual choice. I imagine that this manager was so philanthropic as to inspire an indebted person to write about his triumph through adversity. Some of it is incredibly selfless almost unbelievably, and some is romantic slush which seems to be an inevitable Hollywood add-in, some of the acting is unconvincing but ultimately it is a huge guilt trip to most of us who do nothing about anything, no matter how awful, unless it affects us directly. It is unfortunately as much a part of human nature as hating someone for a petty (and not even a real)difference. Recommended to explore the selfishness of the human psyche.

The recent Holmes films have been thrilling and dramatic but so loosely based on the book as to deserve another title. This has the feel of the book. Swirling fogs and impeccable English with an elegance lacking in the newer versions. It doesn't centre on detective skill to my chagrin, more on the storyline which is complex enough to stay interesting with a pleasant twist.

The overall feel of the film is good. The stresses of the war, the difficult marriages, the very boisterous monastic school and the polarised views towards the Jews in France. The acting however, even from the adults, is unconvincing and uninteresting. The strength of this film is not, as advertised, with the perspective of childhood but of Semitism in France, for which I would recommend it.

This has everything. Slapstick scenes with military grade explosives (is that better than mining grade or for that matter terrorist grade) oceans 10 type crime planning, romantic comedy and a complex plot which is a little tricky to follow. So why 3 stars, (at the time of typing the average rating was 2)? Not sure, it just doesn't hang together well; possibly too many genres in one space, possibly the juxtaposition of humour and cold violence. It is a formula Hollywood production (hero does incredible thing and meets girl who doesn't like him at first but then does) but is saved from sickly sweet banality by a good whodunnit middle section.

This is definitely one to watch without reading Doyle first. This jingoistic outpouring must have seemed fair at the time but is now a little transparent. Rathbone has played a much more subtle Holmes who is intelligent without being a Hollywood style super-hero. Any more and he would be flying. Bruce is also a bit hammy, he plays so dumb you wonder how he made it through medical school. Good but I preferred Rathbone's earlier portrayals.

The evidence is sketchy but the research impressive. You cannot fail to be transported to another era and appreciate the source from which the plays arose. Details of Elizabethan history, many of which I had heard before, became fresh and vital. All the known facts are filled in by perspective of circumstance. Even with a passing interest in Shakespeare you must watch this.

The extreme age of these sketches is so fantastic you cannot fail to be impressed. Cavemen capable of such lifelike drawings are so far from other non-human apes that I reconsidered their abilities. The film, the interviews and the commentary are dreadful. The modern man apparently more stupid than the caveman.

There cannot be many over the age of 35 who have not seen this. Sophia Loren has a spectacular figure but is not so well endowed with acting skills. Sellers impersonation of an Indian doctor is always going to be funny and Alister Sims is my favourite dry comedian. Dated but a must see classic.

Fighting dogs feature heavily in this brutal and violent Mexican film. I did not find it palatable. Several scenes of dogs killing one another and then of men killing dogs is disgustingly gory. The other scenes are no more pleasant. Only for extreme violence seeking viewers.

This comedy has indisputably French qualities difficult to define but instantly recognisable. A chaotic circus of artistic and original but gentle stupidity. There is a real sense of comic wonder as they enter a cavern full of usable junk through a door on the side of a rubbish heap. A bit like Lewis Carroll only funnier. There are some short scenes of enchanting puppetry. But sometimes it feels a bit like a freak show and it certainly lacks acting talent.

Mel Gibson is involved in all of my top 3 films (Gallipoli, Hamlet and Apocoliptica). I was expecting something good and was not disappointed by his acting of a suicidal alcoholic who becomes a teetotal schizophrenic. Not an easy acting task and could not have been done better. Jodie Foster is an actress I hold in a similar amount of awe. Her task however was a lot easier and to be frank could have been bettered. The direction was very average and spoiled a subtle exposition of a fragile mind, with an atmosphere of squeaky clean, suburban, leafy crassness.

Although the main plot is the bringing together of 2 very different men whose characters eventually cross into the others; much of the film is just an analysis of their personalities. I found it quite sad, and any comedy (as it is advertised) is very dark. I liked the unusualness of the ideas and the characters are extremely intriguing. Do all French films have a mistress in? Maybe it is a requirement. This one was a bored mistress. If you like the idea of French Pathos, strongly recommended.

In the Oceans series and Bourne trilogy Damon is a little wooden. This it seems is a complete misunderstanding of mine as this character is brilliantly played. An immensely complex mix of mad, devious and naive. Moving mainly from meaning well to barking... I was blown away with how easy it was to feel the change in the character even in its most intricate shifts. The film is otherwise quite average. The direction in particular is uninteresting and vague. The conclusion relies too much on printed epilogue.