Film Reviews by SN

This film has not dated well. Its full on clunky. Hitchcock does a relatively decent job in directing a story that is unfortunately lacklustre, with a ropey script and awful acting.

To its credit it does have the usual Hitchcock tropes of exaggerated internal sets for outdoor scenes, the hero gets the girl, people clinging on to ledges for dear life and famous landmarks which make an appearance at the climax of the film. This time the honour went to The Statue of Liberty.

Apparently, the film did poorly at the box office when it released, and I can see why. The evil doers are all lame. The police and authorities come across as nitwits and the two heroes are not very charismatic. Robert Cummings in this film cannot act. There is a scene when he is just beaming along as an old kind blind man elaborates on the virtues of the American justice system. It comes across as dumb today and probably idiotic back then.

The biggest issue is the script. Some lines are so cringeworthy bad, they come across as unintentionally funny. I laughed out three times because I could not believe what I was hearing. At one point I kept on thinking of Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, it was that bad.

To think this film was made at the same time the Nazis were tearing Europe apart is utterly baffling. The film is a missed opportunity of seismic portions. The most damning thing to say was that it was neither inspiring, or thrilling, and this is coming from a person who adores Hitchcock’s work, post 1940s.

One viewing was more than enough. Sorry Hitch!

The film feels like a blend of Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout (1971) and Luchino Visconti's Death In Venice (also 1971). The amazing cinematography by Russell Boyd is mixed with some beautiful classical music by Mozart and Beethoven, panpipes by Zamfir and an original score by David Appleyard. The music is perfect. I do like the fact a lot of films like these from the 70s used classical music instead of bland original scores.

Picnic in Hanging Rock will not be for everyone. The film can be described as slow, but I found the pacing to be just right because like Walkabout and Death in Venice, it tells a story through dreamlike imagery. The imaginative direction by Peter Weir creates a sense of other worldliness. The story straddles reality and an ethereal feeling of magic or spiritism. I like the fact you are trying to figure out what is going on as the characters on the screen.

I read that the ambiguous ending left many frustrated or annoyed, but the story really is not about the missing girls per-se, it is about the after-effects of their disappearance. The film is about how people deal with the consequence of a seismic event.

The casting is excellent. I especially enjoyed watching Rachel Roberts as the crusty Mrs Appleyard, Anne-Louise Lambert as the esoteric Miranda, Margaret Nelson as spooky Sarah, Wyn Roberts as Sgt Bumpher and Christine Schuler as Edith, a girl we have all met once in our life. They are all superb.

It is a haunting film and a credit to the Australian film industry.

OK this is not for everyone, but if you are looking for something similar to John Wick in terms of on-screen violence and fight choreography in a fun way, you cannot go wrong with this film. The plot is pretty simple but there is a lot of joy in watching bad people losing fight after fight. Vince Vaughn is perfect for this role as he manages to convey wit, pathos and most important of all, bulk, to his character. The film has also had more out loud laughs than most "modern" comedies.

I thoroughly enjoyed it

At first, this film feels a little scattershot. The theme of the film is the spirit of Nashville itself and how music and entertainment are used by politicians to curry favour with the electorate. Over 20 characters are connected to each other just by the fact they live and work around the same places but there is no meaningful depth to their interaction. They are just people getting on with their lives. It all coalesces at the end when they are all together at a political rally.

What makes this film exceptional is that the film stays with you long after the credits roll. Altman was trying to say a lot about American culture and human beings. What makes us tick, what we look to our music stars and what we project on them for inspiration when these people are just as broken. The ending of the film is perfect. Not being a fan of Country and Western I was shocked by how good and meaningful the music is. I recommend you turn the volume up when you watch it to get the most from the music. The Blu Ray quality is exceptional.

This is a masterful film because it says so much and lets you do all the work in understanding the subtext.

SPOILERS

There are many films set in a dystopian future and although Little Murders is not supposed to be science fiction what the film has to say about society is pretty compelling. This is my understanding:

• Alfred Chamberlain was happy went he felt nothing. The minute he decided to open up society (literally) shot him down and he was forced to become numb.

• Being celebrated in the media for taking photos of shit is pretty self-explanatory.

• Donald Sutherland's Rev Dupas understands that the institution of marriage is a facade and is an institution done out of habit than necessity, but also knows he is powerless to do anything about it, so resigns himself to saying "everything is fine" in the process of getting beaten up.

• The unawareness of Alfred's upbringing and his emotional state by his parents while being wholly aware of philosophy and books (which brings them greater happiness) is a criticism of the bourgois failure to connect and to try to explain away problems with thinking.

• The fact that the Alfred, Carol and Kenny became delightfully happy when they gave in to the craziness instead of trying to make sense of it says a lot about finding identity and being part of a tribe even though they know it is amoral.

• The heavy breather who turned out to be a quite a nice guy is just a great example of the duplicity in all of us.

• The train ride when everyone ignores victims or pretend its not happening is a testament to looking the other way because its not worth getting involved. The genuis bit when Alfred himself ignored another victim on the stairs and did not help him spoke volumes.

All of this from a first viewing. The first half was a bit of a slog as the world building needed time. It needed 20 minutes chopped off - maybe the scene with Judge Stern could be axed.

It is actually quite a clever film and has a lot to say.

huh !

OK this is not for everyone but if you are old enough to remember when you had to kick your cathode ray tube TV to get Channel 4 when it launched or if you are obsessed with cricket, than you probably have seen this film. As a kid this movie spoke to me in volumes. Girls you see come from another universe and this film was a guide. Most of my friends as well as myself were Alan Duckworth and WE all knew a Philip - you know one of those good looking brain boxes who win at everything (yes I am looking at you headboy Stephen Kingston !). We all feel in love with the prettiest girl who wouldn't give us the time of day. Yes this film was my mirror growing up. To this day I still think I am over doing it.

6/10

This was never going to be easy.

Making a sequel to The Shining is a tall order, even when it comes from the pen of Stephen King. Personally I prefer Kubrick's version of the story than King's and obviously that is what the director of this movie, Mike Flanagan, thought as well. Unlike Kubrick who used his mastery of camera angles, lighting, set design and tight script, none of that is here. In fact the film shines (pun intended) when the final act gets to the Overlook hotel and you once again appreciate the craftsmanship that went into that production. Flanagan's direction is very matter of the fact and modern and flat. So flat that almost the entire film is devoid of scariness. Where The Shining built on a sense of anxiety, none of that is in play with this film. In fact the very last act of the film is borderline comical but not in a haha intentional way. It's a bit stupid.

To its credit the film is very engaging and between King and Flanagan they have managed to extend the universe of The Shining with some logical extensions. I was never bored as I was never scarred. This film does not take away anything from The Shining but at the same token I do not think it really adds anything to it either.

Put it this way I do not see film studies or books or YouTube videos analyzing Doctor Sleep forty years from now as we see with The Shining. This film is OK verging on good but all it does is shines (there I did it again) a spot on why The Shining is so good.

Saying that the main performances from McGregor, Ferguson and Curran (who is excellent as a child actor) are all very good.

hat a massive disappointment. This film is great. This is amazing. That is all I heard about it when it hit the theatres but having literally just seen it - I cannot believe I was watching the same film.

On the positive - some of the chase scene are good and some of the deaths sequences are glory. The plot is relatively decent if you do not think about it too much. I would put it on par with Mad Max 3.

On the negative - the accents are all over place (Charlie Theron does not even bother to even try to sound Australian), Hardy just mumbles his lines and over-acts when he does deliver them, the CGI looked pretty awful, the electric sand storm was plain stupid, the stunts were super-human and none of this felt like a desperate apocalyptic land the second and third film built on. I agree it is nice to see practical effects and real car crashes but I cared nothing for any of the characters, so I could not care less who crashed, who died or who survived

After watching this all I want to do is show the wife Mad Max 2 and how to do a proper Mad Max film. When that was a classic this film felt totally of this time. All gusto and no character development. All speed and no destination. All action and no desperation.

The sad thing is that by the 2/3 point I was thoroughly bored. In a Mad Max film. Bored :o

Rubbish. For me it was more disappointing than Guardians Of The Galaxy because with that film I had low expectations which were not filled. This one made me feel I wasted an evening.

Saw this with the misses as I really wanted to see what the fuss was all about and to see if it really is that bad. It is.

What surprised me the most was not the absolute drivel of a plot or a absurd nature of the script but just how damn boring the whole thing was. Really it is quite dull. I yawned 3 times in the closing hour. Even the misses who at first was all giggly and laughing at the screen for the first half hour was utterly silent and turned off in the second half when it went all S&M and bondage crap. It was not even kinky. We just watched some rich dude gently beat some pretty upper middle class white virgin in her early 20s (but who looked like 26). So this was what middle aged woman crave ?. This is the best that they want ?. This and Strictly I suppose.

The whole aspect of it was utterly unrealistic. We have a billionaire playboy who does zero work (it would be nice to put some background story of how he made his millions - nope.)

We have a sub plot about some Mexican dude who also fancies the virgin 20 year old but that sub plot went nowhere. In his second scene he makes a pass to the girl and then he got whacked by the billionaire and then went off sulking some where never to be seen again. You would thought some sort of dramatic scene would take place, like a stand off, but again - nope. So sub plot was not even a plot. It was really just 2 scenes that served....well nothing really. Just scenes. To waste time.

This billionaire then wants this 20 year old virgin to sign a contract so that he can do a bit of S&M on her. She falls in love (maybe because he is her first and you know the first cut is the deepest) and cannot understand why he is so fucked up. He does not want to tell. She walks out. That is it. That is the film. It just ends. Not with a cliff hanger but her just leaving....on a billionaire...who lightly slapped her...oh yeah and spanked her a little. So a 20 year old colleague student, who works in a shop, walks out on a billionaire who buys her things, like first editions, a laptop and really expensive car because he spanked her bottom 6 times. She walked out on a billionaire because he would not "respect her". Did we (the audience) care. Nope. No 2 f***s were given.

Everybody in this film was thin, good looking and either rich or very well off. Like everyone. Even the butler. And all the extras. All the people in the nightclub - they were good looking. All the colleague students - yep they were pretty as well. Everyone was good looking. It went beyond Hollyoaks, it was like watching a world where eulogy succeeded.

The story had no tension. Not even sexual tension. It was like watching a high class soft porn movie when all see is the occasional bum and tits. Jesus in a world when HBO and Starz give us simulated sex that outclasses this you begin to wonder - why the appeal ?.

If it can awarded zero it would get that but since 1 is the lowest star, it will get a 1 only because I got to see Dakota Johnson's bum, and that, at least will make up somewhat for the wasted evening.

I can see why the book was a hit on the Kindle, to save the embarrassment of someone admitting they have read this absolute garbage.

Good but not excellent. Although the film addresses what happened in the latter days of William Turner I found it missed a lot of the soul and passion that his artwork generates. The emotion that inspired his artwork, the ideas that went into creating them are totally absent in this film. What we get instead is a pedestrian insight into his life without understanding what possessed him, what drove him on. His paintings, Slaveship, The Fighting 'Téméraire and Rain, Steam and Speed are some of the most praised pieces of art because of their emotive subtext as opposed to their literal interpretation. None of that is covered by this film. It seems he paints because he can. No artists paints because they can, they paint to tell a story, express emotion, incite feeling. In this film we see nothing as to why he paints.

The acting, cinematography, direction and sets are all excellent, but without that passion it just feels a little lifeless. To give an example, Amadeus, imo, is a better film because even with the entire sub-plot of Salieri passing off Mozart's Requiem as his own work being untrue, that film addressed why Mozart loved music and why his personality got the better of his genius. Mr Turner skips that to show a methodical portrait of his latter life. What could have been great just ended up as a disappointment