Film Reviews by JD

There is a contemporary Douglas Adams feel to this plot which has a distinctive eccentic English Midland quality. While the main focus is on the central 2 characters the context is a sci-fi meets feng shui. It is however a little overstated for a British black comedy . The plot is interesting and quirky and probably better than the acting. Worth watching for its originality.

A 60ish year old Italian batchelor man lives with his mother, is unemployed but drinks good wine all day. 2 other old women stay for 2 days. Not much of a plot. It is nicely shot in an old village but a bit dreamy and pointless.

When I remembered seeing this 20 years ago I thought it was a timeless classic. It is a classic, but the acting, particularly from Lemmon, is cringeingly bad. The Chicago mob are unlikely to have been RADA. Tony Curtis and Marilyn however shine through this dross to make it worth rewatching.

You felt that the acting was so good there must have been a rapport between the actors which exactly matched the characters. Some of the minor actors ham it up a bit but this is 1968. Surprised it was in colour. Cushing is a brilliant Holmes. The special effects are a little dated but the plot is excellently paced, I enjoyed every second.

It was the same in the good the bad and the ugly, the sound of the voice was not synchronised with the facial movement. Surely it would be a simple thing to fix. It is less than a second out throughout the film. Many great actors have played Sherlock. Does it invite comparison? I think so. Christopher Lee has a certain charisma but lacks mystery. For a 1962 film the filming is (apart from the synch) pretty good and acting fine. Moriarty is a bit theatrical. The plot is compelling and overall worth a watch.

The worst thing about this film is Jim Broadbent's Irish accent, the best his acting of someone who hasn't slept for a while. It is exhausting to watch. This is the funniest genuinely violent film I have seen. Some nasty scenes of clubbing with baseball bats and some tender ones, but mainly comedy in violence. A brutal gangster who refers to a pack of fighting dog handlers with a grudge as insouciant made me smile (and reach for my dictionary).

This has to be watched in a calm, tranquil and gentle mood. If you allow yourself to be taken into the heart of this Welsh village and its slow rural ways it is a serene experience. If you are at all agitated and wishing for something riveting and punchy, do not start this film. Even in a relatively appropriate frame of mind I found the life of a rural mobile library driver tedious and uncharismatic. There were a number of farm scenes which were strangely moving. The birth of a piglet for example.

The recent remake got bad reviews so I haven't seen it, but these same reviews praised this classic. I saw this one some time ago and it has lost nothing for rewatching (except the final twist). Walter Matthau is a great lead and the plot is utterly brilliant. I don't rate many films as 5 star but this has got everything: drama, suspense and humour.

This subtitled B&W film depicts the Hungarian war with the Cossacks. There is a central character whose journey is followed as he is captured and released and runs and hides. It is difficult to know who is from which faction and why they seem indifferent to his freedom. Not a captivating or interesting account. The cinematography is rather beautiful but not enough to recommend the film.

Great for teenagers. Like superbad. It is really funny with just moderate violence (I'm told). Seth Rogan was the best actor.

For a film-making political activist Michael Moore is impressively scientific in his research. This scathing attack on U.S. health care enlightened me on a number of points in an interesting manner without resorting to the usual tricks of the dramatic filmaker (eg clips from interviews of C list celebs) and punchy politics such as how much each member of congress was bribed by the pharmaceutical companies to vote in their favour (shame on you Bush, $800,000, your worth more than that for a bribe). I wish he would do an exposure of corrupt practices in the NHS. I implore anyone reading this to do such a good investigation into how British politicians line their greedy pockets from health care.

I confess I didn't watch much. Soldiers are told to take off their boots and walk to different places with no feeling for why or what the outcome of it is likely to be. This happens a number of times. I could not get interested in it at all. Would suit a historian interested in the 1919 Soviet period.

This is a modern opera.

Surely this is such an important point that it should be written prominently on the case or mentioned in the review. Not a word is spoken. The unaccompanied music is contemporary, not particularly my thing.

If this is what you are expecting; and it is quite as arty as you would expect given that, it is quite a reasonable film. I wasn't expecting that so the shock lasted a while.

Most of the film is set in a slum hospital. I'm not sure why it was so grotesque.

This is disjointed, poorly acted and unemotional. The cinematography and editing is amateur. It is difficult to feel any involvement with any of the characters who are all wooden beyond belief. Plenty of historical-political references without helping the viewer to understand the meaning or significance of them. Dreary.

I think the objective is to be shocking. The film starts with a scruffy man washing his penis in an ice covered water trough. There are scenes of eating competitions followed by profuse vomiting and a massively obese man being attacked and disembowelled by an obese cat. It is disgusting but not shocking and certainly not worth watching.