Film Reviews by JD

The subject matter will appeal to few, the impact of royalty on music from Henry V onward. It is a serious historical account. This is not mainstream stuff, but to have it presented by an ugly old man with a slight speech defect whose interviewing skills are as poor as the worst (eg Jonathan Ross), constantly interrupting interesting and knowledgeable experts with his own dreary opinion, is to make this account even less accessible. Merely wearing a pink cravat and marbled spectacles is not eccentric enough to stop him being irksome. The content and the musical examples, for those who like the history of music, is however very interesting.

I suspect there will be 3 main groups of people interested in this film, sci-fi fanatics (know the plot seen the other versions), those who know blade runner is a classic and wanted to see what the fuss was about, and those who saw it was highly rated and thought it looked good. I am in the 2nd group and having read the other reviews would agree that it is a visual feast especially given its 1982 vintage. This justifies its place in the should see category. I was not blown away with the acting and didn't get drawn into the characters but as a ground breaking sci-fi it is up there with Alien.

5 stars may seem a bit much for an 11 hour history lesson on the second world war but this is the best history lesson I've had. Having read books that send you to sleep and accounts with a strong bias or focussing on one aspect this is completely different. You may not have the stamina to watch on a single week-end but I promise you it is 11 hours that will keep you going. Why did Stalin change sides? What drove the Italians to invade Ethiopia? Why did the Americans take so long to join the Allies again? The footage is not for the faint hearted but the terrible, soulless, immoral acts of intense violence need to be remembered so that they are less often repeated.

This 1973 classic has some of the failings of its time (telescopic / music hall acting from some of the supporting actors) but Edward Fox's acting is sublime. Tony Britton's Brummie accent is so bad that it is either pathetic or a poor attempt at humour. He really should not have tried. The Jackal is able to kill people with a single blow or 3 second pressure to the neck (only convincing to those who have never played a contact sport). The Frederick Forsyth plot is closely followed and is extremely gripping. The drama intense. Its failings are soon forgotten. Highly recommended.

The pace is slow, the plot simple, the photography absolutely stunning. Good black and white such as this give a texture to the picture which I find better than any high definition colour. Alec G is of course great, Sid James plays a very straight character, pre slap stick. It is about a burglary but it is more than the plot and certainly more than the action which by modern standards is poor. A great film for a rainy Saturday.

Although there are some scenes with Hoffman running in a park, he is neither very good at it nor is there much point to it. The plot is much more about Hoffman's character caught unwittingly in a horrible mistake. His brother is an agent and a particularly unpleasant dentist is after him. I was a little surprised how highly vaunted this film has become. It is not brilliant, Hoffman's acting is a bit strange sometimes but you soon get caught up in it.

Anthony Perkins plays a man with two personalities so brilliantly it seems to have been his downfall. Why was such a talented actor never seen again? Life is not fair. For me the acting beats the direction easily although without the Hitchcock badge it would not be as well known. The stabbing scenes are totally unimpressive and the amazingly famous shower scene not at all horrific. Norman Bates however is just so believably mad he deserves the fame credited to the the film.

Although I admired the quality of the direction of this film and the beautiful photography, I did not really enjoy the film. It is about gangsters in Brighton, gang wars and brutal, sadistic and cold blooded murderers. The acting is patchy, Attenborough is unbelievably menacing and uncaring. He just does not look as bad as he should. I was expecting a film of a literary masterpiece. This was too ordinary and grim. On the positive side I agree with a previous reviewer about the accuracy of the period. Very nostalgic.

This is generally a silent comedy though there are a few written story board type conversations and some speech when synchronisation is not critical such as the radio. There is a scene when Chaplin accidentally finds some cocaine and thinking it is a food additive rubs it on his gums and then knocks unconscious some prison inmates in a drug fuelled frenzy. I don't think that the censor board would be keen on that now. The slap stick is good, the romance a bit clichéd, the comedy mediocre.

There are a lot of insights and wonderful observations of childhood in Tom Hanks' portrayal of this 13 year old boy. His acting is amazing. Some of the other actors lag behind a bit. Overall a great film for anyone but aimed at families.

Just being scruffy, goofy, shy and cross-eyed is amusing only for 5 seconds. After 5 minutes it becomes tiring. I could only stand it for 10 minutes. This might have been funny 52 years ago but even then only for some. Directing and playing the main character (always in shot) must be great for an ego-maniac, but he clearly wasn't that critical of himself.

The main plot is the most gentle of English comedies. An inward smile for some quiet moments of pathos. This main plot is the interaction between 2 early middle aged men walking through country side in the Summer. Both are underachievers but in an accepting way. There are other plots which don't work so well. A very tolerant partner, a divorce, rival clubs and a club that is full of nerds. The acting is generally outstanding, the atmosphere/cinematography excellent, the plot average, the direction shaky.

I think Harrison Ford is hugely over-rated as an actor. Asa Butterfield however is a brilliant child actor and carries the plot. This is a boy super hero film and as such aimed at boys, not my demographic but still enjoyed it.

Citizen Kane is the most highly rated film by reviewers/critics ever. For a film made in 1941 it certainly stands against the course of time. A good film but I suspect its appeal is limited and I am slightly surprised to be the first viewer reviewer. It is a thinly veiled biography of a newspaper tycoon that got Wells into some trouble. Ahead of its time but that was 75 years ago. A must see classic for all film buffs.

For me Grumio steals the show, Ryan Sampson seems to have an easy part to act, the grumpy slave but he has that comic timing which I kills me. Another reviewer compares plebs with inbetweeners. While the target demographic (that is to say 15 - 20) is similar, the level of acting skill is not. I, by the way am not in this age group but have the capacity to regress at will. Plebs is 2 leagues better. The script is not the best part of it I'll agree but the comedy timing is Rolex.