Film Reviews by CV

This film is just over three hours long and you feel it. The story of Nero is presented as a Greek tragedy, his hubris being his allegiance to a slave-girl romance in tension with his desire to change the world for good by seizing power. The film relies too much on the romance, which all looks too modern in style, and the dialogue is ever soporifically banal. There is one character, a veteran senator, who attempts profundity with lines such as "All liars believe what they say - until they've said it." That's as good as it gets.

With a big smile the producer said he wanted to make a film that was not the usual BBC Period Drama. So we were presented with an unbelievable exclusively Lesbian sex story that had the flimsiest connection with real history with only nominal reference to what was happening politically outside the queen's court. Too silly to be serious and too bad-taste to be funny. Surely the challenge for a producer IS to make actual history interesting and captivating and not make your own imaginary sexed-up history instead. All three female characters rapidly became tedious, revolting and despicable in their own particular selfish and ambitious ways. And the modernistic dialogue with all its expletives - colourful language of the time was much more imaginative - clashed with the effort of providing lavish period costume. One star only for artistic presentation, none for content.

I was pleasantly surprised that Cinemaparadiso had this film as I had recently read the original novel hidden away in the "Classics" section of the local library. The dominant theme is that of class prejudice where a government minister falls in love with a young lady of dubious background. She had been born out of wedlock and was adopted by her mother's subsequent husband who ran a brothel "downstairs". The girl is educated and is innocent of her step-father's double occupation. The family falls on hard times and Fanny has to make her way relying on family friends and a long-standing friend, Lucy, who has becomes a dancer and actor. Made during the war, the film does well and is a good Sunday afternoon watch. Note a young James Mason as a villain and a very young Stewart Grainger in their early careers.

Incidentally, the novel is told by an elderly Fanny who has retired in a French Pension, looking back over her life. There is much that is poignant in the novel, more detail of the brothel activities and characters who are staunch, generous and kind despite their lowly circumstances.

I suppose you would call this film an acted documentary and it is fascinating to see acted scenes spliced with interviews with the actual characters recounting their wartime experiences many years later. It is a testament to both the bravery and ingenuity of a group of Jewish students who change their identity and live a precarious existence constantly evading detection by the Gestapo authorities and trusting Jewish-sympathising Germans who also put their lives on the line. Even though the various personae live to tell the tale, as it were, there is still nail-biting tension in the acted scenes. Germans who defied the Nazi regime must be the greatest heroes of the war as they must have felt everyone was their enemy and had everything to lose. How good it is to have this document so well made by the people themselves.

My feelings about this film are similar to those of Alphaville below: I wonder if film actors of today have lost the benefit of the once requisite experience of theatre and have passed their drama exams by just the experience of film settings with microphones about their person which minimises their need to project - not just in vocal terms but in also in terms of characterisation. Why go to the length of getting costumes right when the dialogue and way of behaving doesn't match the period either. Interpreting the novel of 'Frankenstein' in this way was interesting as it was not what I have understood the received interpretation to be.

It was truly wonderful to see a film about a mathematician I had only heard about in lectures where even in these his ascent to greatness was referred to as phenomenal. Jeremy Irons is true to form as the crusty bachelor Cambridge don Dr Hardy with Dev Patel the wonderkind from India. There were so many themes in this film which would make it so appealing to almost anyone and it certainly has an emotional impact despite the low-key stiff-upper lip portrayal of post-Edwardian England. For me it raised questions about the supremacy of proof-bound serialist thinking of the west where Ramanujan's inspiration came from a holistic view of nature perhaps more typical of the east. An obvious theme was also the overcoming of racial prejudice where you would think that genius recognising genius would transcend national boundaries. Praise must go to Littlewood and the softening of Hardy to promote Ramanujan's colossal contribution to modern mathematics.

I'm afraid I was quite disappointed with this account of Robert the Bruce. The action starts where Bruce is a fugitive having disbanded his forces after defeat from the English. There is a price put on his head and former comrades turn traitor and attempt to hunt him down. After one attempt to take him, where he incurs an arrow wound, taking brief refuge in a cave with a spider, he is rescued by a family, who still remain loyal to the King, who live in a remote cottage and keep a low profile. After this point the film seems to borrow a Hollywood formula where the family of mother and children nurse the wounded Bruce back to health and together fight a heroic "battle" against the "baddie" traitors at the end in the manner of the Unionist soldiers defending the fort against an overwhelming force of marauding Indians. I waited in vain for the Battle of Bannockburn - it was mentioned briefly at the end. There was no sense that this was vital history for Scotland and if the film was made in view of a second referendum for independence the moment was lost with a rather family-adventure style film to plead the cause.

For all its splendid costume and lighting this is quite disappointing. Mozart looks more like Boy George, even the hair colouring is wrong. Some of the dialogue sounds like two Darleks with their batteries running low.

I was not aware of this series when it was first broadcast in 1975 but I was very impressed with it seeing it decades later and there was no need for an apology for the mechanical quality of production. Despite its twee-sounding title, the series follows the careers, including their, at times rather incestuous romantic relationships, of members of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood which include men and associated women who excelled in often more than one art form. They set out to oppose the current academic dogma of contemporary art and instead champion truth and nature which meant painting scenes conveying emotion with realistic detail of background settings so that the picture does not lead the viewer to read in further hidden and arcane meanings: everything is as you see it.

The series excels in having a group of highly-talented and committed actors playing the parts with such distinction and convincing aging process: no one personality dominates although I personally liked the humanity and eccentricity of William Morris. There is still the influence of theatre in the acting style: everything is orated and made big with gesture and movement though the set itself may look a bit flimsy at times. One reviewer elsewhere has lauded the enthusiasm and skill of actors in the 70s and there are many other classic historical series that still maintain the sense of live theatre in this way. No basking in opulently expensive settings, fantastic costumes and mumbling of two-word phrases in this era! The dialogue is typically rich in expression with much insight into the technical and aesthetic ambitions of the various artists.

I hope to be able to buy the series at some point.

George Orwell, and I think, Ernest Hemmingway, volunteered themselves to back the Spanish Republican cause in this Spanish civil war and so I liked the viewpoint that this film took, emphasising that the issues of democracy were of international concern. This film was made in 1995 but the issues are of no less concern than they are now where our own democracy is threatened with authoritarian government. The film takes pains to bring out complications in the campaign where the POUM are dedicated to doing the war in their own way but are compromised by more professional Soviet-backed groups who have ulterior motives for being involved.

There is a great naturalistic feel where the director seems to let his actors "play the action out" in their own way and the dialogue is very naturalistic too with occasional stutterings and word-stumblings. The film is also a "play within a play" which also helps to apply the themes to our own day where a grandaughter finds the letters of pictures of her grandfather's interesting past.

Contrary to the reviews I have just read, I quite appreciated this leisurely documentary style portrayal of Che Guevara. I found the detailed incidents: the interaction with individuals of the public and the comradely relationship with his fellow revolutionaries quite informative and gave rounding to the character of the man. The drama held my attention throughout and the switch to black and white sequences for newsreel scenes was very effective. The film is also in Spanish, as the director says, to avoid the irony of revolutionaries speaking the same language of the imperialists they are opposing! The director has deliberately omitted details of Guevara's private life which also kept the film distinctive from Hollywood forms. I'm looking forward to Part 2.

The first two sequences of the film are quite extraordinary: no music except the amplified natural sounds of a squeaky wind-fan, dripping water and a door slam create a nerve-jangling opening to this epic Western. The next sequence, seemingly unrelated to the first, is also nerve-jarring in effect, also created by the stopping and starting of natural sounds, in this case the interrupted chirrupping of cicadas. After this the drama unfolds and the audience has to work out how the characters relate to one another as their paths constantly cross throughout: who are directly involved in the main action and who are incidental. My mind was still putting in place the earlier events way after the film had ended.

I chose the film as I wanted literally a change of scenery from my recent choices and if you have a large screen it will be all the more impressive. There are both amazing panoramic visions of Monument Valley and disturbing close-ups of the characters. Henry Fonda is cross-cast but my favourite performance was that of Charles Bronson who seems omnipresent, hovering, always observing what's going on. He has no name and has a cypher existence until the ending.

After the film had ended I looked at the extras and there was a running commentary on the film in its entirety. I was quite happy to watch it all again where the direction and photography was discussed as the film was running but time prevented.

I was surprized there were no reviews here already for this film where my Film Guide had praised it to the skies. The images linger long after the film has ended.

Supposed to be based on a factual event in the Korean War but relentless and bloody action scenes seem to stretch credulity. Liam Neesom makes the most of his MacArthur role with laconic quotations and meaningful puffs of his pipe.

The music is superb, especially the beautiful and passionate madrigal-like choruses, and Rossi attains the greatness of Monteverdi in the ever lyrical arioso portions. The production is highly imaginative in a contemporary setting and the acting and singing is inspiring. The roles are very colourfully characterised involving cross-dressing for both female and male roles. Finally, the orchestral playing is exquisite and features a whole range of instruments and dancing styles

I chose this film as I had recently visited the National Museum in Helsinki on holiday. There was a special section in it on the modern history of Finland where the Winter War had followed a civil war during the end of World War I. The Winter War, of 105 days if I remember, saw the heroic thwarting of Soviet Russia's invasion by a much smaller army of Finnish soldiers and much less equipped.

The film follows the fortunes of a family and and associated friends based on actual recorded material from letters and memoires. The film, after the initial volunteering, is all trench action and long distance shots of explosions and carnage. After a while I began to feel the show of carnage and variety of death was more consciously for technical show and designed more to shock rather than tell a more objective account. It does become rather tedious and repetitive and wished there had been more political and military background information. There are some scenes of leave which do relieve the action but perhaps not enough.