Film Reviews by JD

It is not clear why this rebellious Goth falls for a camp, neurotic middle aged man. Unfortunate because this is the central and unremitting tenet of the film. This relationship is not particularly interesting and for the most part unbelievable, even though it is not that unusual. Some of the minor parts are very poorly acted. Very "Hollywood" in every regard.

This is the original idea of D W T Ss. It is totally French. French plot (revolves around mistresses and elegance) French comedy (farce) and French style of cinematography (difficult to define but easy to recognise). It is much better than the later American version but the focus on ridiculing a socially inept man is still awkward viewing.Otherwise brilliant.

I am racking my brain for a successful one man sketch and stand-up show. It is done in the 2 Ronnies style of alternating stage with prerecorded material, but the sketches have recurrent themes like Little Britain / Fast Show which I personally find wearing. I think Phil Cool did something like it with equal consequence. It is a shame because I think Omid is a brilliant stand up comedian(an average straight actor in my opinion) who warms an audience to him enough to get away with some fairly brutal humour. I was hoping for lots of this. There are definitely rays of brilliance but large mists of Little Britain like tedium.

This is not mainstream cinema it is intense cult. A slightly weird plot of manipulation and counter (possibly subconscious) manipulation. The acting is absolutely first class, Winslet and Keitel play very difficult roles of intensely hating and loving opponents. The character of Ruth's mother is brilliant; she has a stress it must be difficult to imitate, but it comes over so well you will reach for your inhaler.

The complexity of the interaction between Ruth and her adversary could not have been attempted by any lesser actors.

Most of this is what what might be described as goof-ball, some is unconvincing fight sequences between "David and Goliath". It might appeal to 15 year olds with an admiration for Rob Scneider. I caught myself laughing at the spectacle of a colossal body builder doing the pectoral dance, most of it however is poorly acted, utterly unconvincing and really not funny.

This is a great film. It is a welcome relief from violence / shoot out / romance which features in my opinion too frequently. It explores the pettiness of village rumour, the difficulties of a family of multiple fathers and the superficial attitude of people to physical stigmata. The plot is very real and does not have satisfying strands. There are no baddies (except everybody). Good films are basically about worthwhile stories, empathically acted and directed. This is such a film.

There are moments of uncharacteristic overacting by Gibson but he otherwise plays a delusional paranoid well. The plot borrows an idea from The Bourne series or may be it's the other way around but is generally original and interesting, with twists and turns which are unpredictable enough to keep the viewer involved. I found it thoroughly entertaining and would recommend it as a good Friday night film

This really didn't do it for me. This film seemed to be an analysis of attitudes to money of New York Jews. It was hysterical in parts and just plain unpleasant in others. It followed Williams path to bankruptcy with predictable certainty. His acting seemed unsteady and if intentional was clever in the way it made watching uncomfortable. Some scenes seemed even more dated than 1986. It's easy to do a comfortable film this wasn't easy to watch but I didn't feel it was worth it.

A sterling cast from which Gibson shines, but all are outstanding. The Japanese cast is also brilliant. This is definitely a feel good war action film but with the refinement of being based on historical fact and having a good plot. The action scenes are exciting and personal, the romantic element not too incongruous.

There are some truly great things about this film and some weaknesses. The romantic plot is pretty obvious and not particularly intriguing. There are two layers to the tale the second layer (the present) is even more telescoped. There did not seem to be any chemistry between the main characters and the pivotal scenes were overplayed. The strengths are the feel of the film. It has a wonderfully genuine early 20th century American "smell". I think Clint plays the emotional moments better than Streep, though I did not empathise with the characters. The awards in my opinion should have gone to the cinematography department not Streep.

Clint plays a complex character (for a cowboy film that is). He had been a serial killer in his youth to put Shipman in the shade. His wife however had changed his personality into a humble and reclusive farmer. For the good of his children however he goes back to his old ways to get some money.

Not an endearing person you might think, but of course Clint is not only the goodie but imparts a strong visual odour of heroism. Richard Harris plays the English loser whose legend is discredited and who is kicked into the dirt by the sheriff (an American type-cast in my opinion).

Nevertheless I definitely walked away at the end of the film a foot taller. It is not clever but it feels good.

The essence is that our reluctant ace pilot hero (Clint) has to kidnap a highly advanced Russian air plane. Some of the Iron Curtain / KGB elements of the plot are dated. There is a strong Bond feeling about some scenes. The almost comic monologue as the pilot skims along at Mach 5. One is waiting for the corny pun at the end of the scene. The differences include no Gant girl, only 2 explosions and no arch villain. For these I think I prefer Firefox. The fight scenes and close misses are gripping and I recommend this old action thriller.

Eastwood and Costner are an awesome counterbalance. Their performances are exceptional even for them. The plot is original and in several places unexpected. The weaknesses for me were that some of the acting is mediocre and the plot, which is occasionally a little disjointed, moves generally at a slow pace. I enjoyed some of the slapstick humour (caravan detaches from car and overtakes it) but preferred the darker humour (assassin makes a grave error and is for his efforts punched in the face then kneed in the plums). It is not a work of art but very enjoyable.

The other reviewers currently have all scored 4 stars and pointed out the good acting. I agree about the acting. Moreover the conflict between honour and reason is well portrayed. It is however very dull. Surprising for a war action film. The Japanese dialogue with subtitles doesn't bother me. It is more subtle a problem. I think that the act of defending a small island against overwhelming odds would be more dramatic if played by hysterical Americans than by stoic Japanese. I know this sounds corny but it is difficult to keep track of which character is which when they have oriental faces and unfamiliar names.

I had never heard of Modigliani before this film and have since Wikipediaed him. A fascinating and tragic life well worth capturing in film. Andy Garcia plays him as an outrageously confident man, more appealing for it. Omid plays Picasso. I suspect their rivalry is invented for dramatic effect. Most of the rest of the plot however is genuine and covers most of the dramatic moments. This is in my opinion the fault of the film. By telling the story of his lifetime it dilutes the impact of each part. A whistle stop tour rather than an emotional journey. Some of the cafe scenes are poorly acted, some of the domestic disputes are awesome.