Film Reviews by JD

Humour has changed a lot since 1975, but Wilder/Feldman is a mixture made in silly paradise. Mad, silly but not zany, not goofball and not grossout. A much more wonderful even surreal stupidity. With a nostalgic grin on my bouch I loved every kangaroo dance, every slap on the head to jog the memory and every fight on horse drawn carriage with a 6 foot glove.

This growing genre of multi-layered crime drama is seldom done badly. The Danes seem to be the best at it but the French are not far behind. Are they really as patriotic as they seem in films? A little bit worrying. This is a sub-titled film but personally this doesn't bother me, in fact I often forget whether films were subtitled or not.The main layer of the film is a whodunnit of a murder. Other layers include romance between detectives, tension between friends, high-level corruption and divorce. Some layers more interesting than others. Some bits are contrived. Overall though it is an 8 episode all-in-one view. You will not want to stop.

I am genuinely surprised to be the first to review this. The channel 'Gold' was built on the Only Fools series and after De-boy falling through the bar hatch and the chandelier falling, the batman and robin sketch is surely the most famous. This is comedy gold. Some of the acting notably Tessa Peak jones is aweful, truly outstandingly aweful, but in contrast some of the caricatures are iconic. Boycie and Trigger will be remembered long after Tessa's acting disaster.

I am the first to review this. How come? I suspect there has been overexposure of the Only Fools and Horses series on channel Gold. OFH is comedy that was built to last and if you have not seen them or if you haven't seen them for over 10 years it is absolutely worth a watch. Happy, sad, silly and sometimes all three. Could Trigger be any thicker? Could Boycie gloat any more? A classic.

The direction is clearly unclear. Characters speak at the same time, quickly and indiciferably. This adds to the intensity of the film but does mean that, particularly with the American dialects, you have to put on sub-titles. The plot is never laid out plainly making a clever plot unfathomable, it didn't need to be so obtuse, it is pretty hard going at its core. Otherwise good in all important ways.

This film is very specifically aimed at the Cannes film festival film critics. It is soooh arty. Lots of disinterested sex, drowned dogs, camera man filming camera man filming camera man, the plot is poor (in essence the higher the floor you live on the posher you are, floors warring with floors). Not pretty, not brilliant, not entertaining. I didn't get to the end.

As I type there are four reviewers who give 1 star ratings and 2 with 5 none with 3. So what is it that polarises opinion? It seems to be that it USA-centric with a dull and pointless plot with plot holes. On the positive side it has a lot of astrophysics in it.

I have already seen this film at the cinema. Space films generally do well on a big screen, but I was still engrossed at home. Although I enjoyed the physics (time and gravity as transmittable dimensions) and noticed the plot was a little thin, the thing that sustains me through a film is good acting which conveys a desire to find out what happens to the characters. All the actors even Michael Caine (well generally) and especially Damon and McConaughy are captivating. After watching this I was so impressed with the direction that I looked at other Nolan productions (previously I have only done this after Greengrass after Captain Mark Phillips).

The DVD is rated at PG, the Blu-Ray is 5 minutes longer and is 15 rated. I am intrigued as to whether the edited 5 minutes are the reason for the difference. There is some indifferent kissing and possibly the most benign death by shooting I have ever seen in the Blu-ray version. Not really 15 stuff. The reason for heavy censoring in my opinion is the cruelly mercenary motivation of Phyllis Dietrichson brilliantly played by Barbara Stanwyck. The moral code of a praying mantis. I would not show any child this attitude to life for fear of lessons learned. This 1944 black and white American drama will not be to many people's taste. I am not at all surprised however that the previous reviews have been gushing. If this is a genre for you it is a truly classic film.

The entry in Cinema P gives Spacey as the first actor. I was hoping to get the full force of his acting, unfortunately just his voice as a robot. Sam Rockwell (Bell) plays pretty much the only actor in this film well. 97 minutes of 1 actor is impressively pulled off by virtue of his acting and a great plot. The first scene is the set up for the futuristic plot. It describes in documentary/news format why Sam's character is on the moon. I think it could have been incorporated into the plot more subtly. Similarly the last scene describing the outcome was a little unsubtle. The rest is claustrophobically in a space station with the slow development of Bell, the unravelling of plot and the interesting view of human nature in terms of massive commercial investment and dispensibilty of life. I wish Spacey and Rockwell castings had been swapped. The budget should have been a bit bigger but the story is very moving and refreshingly different.

In the 1970s Thor Heyerdahl's heroic crossing of the eastern Pacific on a balsa raft was common knowledge and often mentioned. I have not heard of it since. This film might appeal to youths with a sense of adventure or 50s + who remember some fuss about it many years ago. There are some heart stopping moments of drama during their crossing and a real sense of desperate tension as they float in the massive ocean. Not a blockbuster by any stetch of the imagination but good clean fun. Shame it was given a 15 rating I think that was a bit harsh, it has cut off some of the most appreciative spectators.

I would like to start with Arthur Christiansen, who was the editor of the Daily Express until 1957 (4 years before the film was released). He may have been a good journalist but he is a dreadful actor. If you tried to act badly it would probably not be as impressively awful. Unfortunately the painfully bad acting ran through the cast with the lead actor Edward Judd (who is he) making a ham of it. The only actor with any credibility was Janet Munro (who later sadly died at the age of 38). Even Leo McKern was not as good as usual. John Barron plays a minor role very well (later to become CJ in Reginald Perrin).

With the negative points out of the way, a great sci-fi with a nice plot based on the effect of knocking the earth out of its previous orbit. It is a beautiful film in every sense with inventive cinematography.

I try not to award 5 stars for good films unless they are really memorable. This is Hopkins at his very best. The dynamic between his character Charles Morse and Robert Green is complex and very intriguing. There are fight scenes with a grizzly bear that will take your breath away. The Canadian wilderness is awesome.

There is definitely a cringe value to over-privileged actors playing under-privileged characters mockingly, of being proud of Grimsby with a hint of irony and having a large family in the sense of "the Meaning of Life" of having a different set of moral standards. The tone of the comedy is set by these themes. The title of the film and the cover gave me no reason to be optimistic about the film. I did not like Sasha Coen's previous characters apart from Ali G except when he knocked some irritating politician off their pedestal. There are so many moments in this film which made me laugh, I won't spoil them but it is very slap-stick. If you watch You've been framed habitually you'll know the level of humour. Each poor taste moment of under-privileged derision, is balanced in other parts of the film by 2 chuckles.

The 3 main actors Alicia Vikander, Brenton Thwaites and Ewan McGregor have a very complex and dynamic relationship requiring great acting. They pull it off brilliantly. There is tension and meaning in each glance. The complex story of trust and betrayal is beautifully crafted. If there is a criticism it is the violence. Quite a lot and very brutal. I always find it strange that one glimpse of breast causes the censors as much distress as watching a man stab himself to death in the neck with a sharpened toothbrush. I think this should be 18 rated for violence but there you are. Anyway apart from violence awesome story, direction, everything.

A very dramatic account of the brutalities in Yugoslavia as it was splitting up. Lots of mangled bleeding bodies. A group of journalists as the main group carrying the story. A touching moment when one journalist brings one child home. Gory, brutal, violent and ultimately not a great film, why? I think it is the camera work and direction. It is difficult to feel involved. It becomes a bit of old news footage.