Film Reviews by JD

This format really suited me. 3 members in the cast with constantly changing dynamics in a few small environments. There is great movement to the plot which is based on a kidnapping which in itself is dramatic enough. I wish more films were done like this.

A street documentary about a group disabled mainly by polio. Quite how poor they are is blurred. They associate with the destitute and homeless some of whom sleep in the open on cardboard. Most of them use recumbent bicycles but are mainly pushed by hired boys. Anyway the leader is an excellent singer and they have a brilliant bass guitarist in their number. They do however have some pretty poor hangers on who in my opinion spoil the sound. There is a wonderful rhythm and feel to their music and it is worth watching just for the few performances of great songs.

How on earth do they film this stuff? There is the view of an eagle chasing a hare as if you are riding the eagle on its shoulders. The scene of an eagle attacking a monkey is so close up that you almost feel like you are for it. The quality of wildlife cinematography is unsurpassed. Each strafe is seen from both the view of the victim and the raptor. Incredible. 50 mins is a little long though.

I do not watch much main stream stuff so often get to write the first review. I felt certain that this was so far off piste that I would spoil the clear white page with my opinion. But no, 3 previous reviews! What is it about this film is it that viewers feel compelled to opine. It is ultra low budget and the mock game show is comic in its cheap tackyness. I was made to feel guilty thinking like this however when it is clear that the participants have lives which are far cheaper. It is essentially about Argentinian peasant dreams and ambitions. Very gentle, very touching. You will want to write about it when you've watched it.

Depardieu plays a very simple role in both senses. So stupidly stupid as to be unbelievable, uninteresting and vaguely annoying. This is possibly intentional but not humorous. Reno's character on the other hand is far more complex. He is supposed to be the bad guy but for me steals the show as the more humorous and believable. This is a comedy trying too hard to be funny. There are some scenes which could have been done a lot better like the drunk driving a crane, the opportunity was lost. Comedy is such a fine line. This is just on the wrong side.

If you are the sort of minority interest viewer who is not put off by the fact that this is subtitled, family viewing and filmed in 1949, then this is just for you. Witty, light-hearted innocent and wonderfully evocative of a holiday in rural France. By 'ek you can smell the sun on t' olive tree. The postman character is slap stick, but in a manner quite different to Keaton/Chaplin. Much more personable, and distinctly French. Although it is entirely suitable viewing for any age the humour would be lost on viewers between 8 and 20.

I have watched most natural history series and this is one of the worst. The narration is uninteresting and the scrolling text sequences are both difficult to read and patronising. I suspect most people have heard of global warming but this addresses it like a new discovery. I was therefore surprised that it was made relatively recently. The film clips are stuck together haphazardly with little attempt at a theme.

Having watched the British version and enjoyed it immensely (possibly the best series ever) I wondered what this remake would offer. The main difference is that this is set in New York and so most of the references to the American 1973 culture are lost on me. Some things like the twin towers have less emotional impact on me than a reference to a Watney's party 4. That said it is, dare I say it, better acted, most particularly Harvey Keitel who is immense. As the plot is all about suspense and anticipation knowing the outcome spoils it a bit but not hugely. Highly recommended for anyone who is familiar with '70s NY.

Basil Rathbone is sublime, Nigel Bruce is good but a little theatrical, some of the minor actors are pretty poor. The overall effect is uplifting and makes you want to go and solve some crimes straight away. I think my English is improved for it too. I believe it is a shame there is so little like this now, heroes now have to be superheroes who can fly. I do not think this is better. There is plenty of scope for escapism in a character like Sherlock.

This is about a Mancunian Jossa Hughes, only Johnny is not just frustrated but deeply unpleasant and has no redeeming features. I don't think it is good film making to have losers in a desolate background going nowhere. The people Johnny meets are all losers and lead vacuous lives. This realism is not entertaining or thought provoking, it is just sad. I pity people whose lives are like this, but why should I want to watch them? The Hollywood formula of: hero meets heroine whose indifference turns to love while lots of lovable characters do interesting things in interesting places; is a winning one, which is boring because it is a cliché, but the opposite is not necessarily good.

Made in 1942 but do not expect scratched or faded celluloid. Black and White but the lighting, sound and resolution are superb (proper HD), the acting precise and the pace of the plot perfect. Sometimes there is a tendency towards the theatrical, the fights are obviously staged and the outdoor scenes look a bit too indoor, but this was made 3 generations ago. Even so, Basil Rathbone is still the best Sherlock Holmes ever, and the production, for all its technical faults, is wonderfully atmospheric.

I had not appreciated how unfashionable the Western genre was until I watched this. Why? Well it is all about bravado and mysogamy, dusty horses and whiskey. There are superheroes and desired dames, is it so different from Bond or so many others? I think it that the Wild West is not a reality easy to identify with. I haven't watched a Western for a long while and although this is a good one I won't watch another for a while.

Some of the humour is pretty bawdy and Viz-like most is built on mild tension and just great fun. The cast are absolutely brilliant and Mitchell in particular could have read a telephone directory and still made me laugh. Sophisticated? No. Well done? yes.

How often have I seen a film after the trailer and feel misled? (Rhetorical).

The trailer showed a typically Carey-like, slap-stick slip on vegetable oil with the hint that he was a no good fraudster. It is in fact more complex than this, but more importantly not in the same genre. I was shocked that it was about Jim Carey's character discovering he was homosexual. There are then scenes of homosexual sex and the main theme is then gay love. The humour is therefore far from slap-stick; much more subtle and arising from this context, not from slipping on a floor. I think a 15 certificate is a bit light. I would not agree with "non-stop laughs" or "hilarious" but would agree with "outrageously funny".

All the main characters act brilliantly well. The film is described as shocking. Well the opening scene is pretty gruesome and depressing but the rest is heartening even joyous. Rarely good to have a lot of child actors in a film but only the younger, minor characters are poor. The plot is slightly unbelievable (especially the scenes of her manipulating adult men, this deception was too sophisticated for her, I felt) and the theme of the song "Elisa" being an important narrative for the rest of the plot seemed a bit quirky. But, generally a powerful, well delivered story.