Film Reviews by MR

This film version doesn't do it for me, although everyone tries exhaustingly hard, and there are a lot of really funny moments and jokes. I would imagine that live on stage it could be truly hysterical. I don't think any of the cast has mastered the exact slightly arch style that's needed for farce - they all just seem desperate.

Must admit I've never seen any Horrible Histories on TV, but the actors sounded impressive in this one, and I love Lee Mack and Rupert Graves, so I thought I'd have a look. I thought it just not at all funny, and loathed the musical sections. If children are likely to enjoy it, then it's a harmless piece of work, because there was a lot of interesting Roman history thrown in.

The film grows on you. Story is good, framing of shots is fantastic, and so is Mifune. It is worth watching once, then watching again with the commentary which is included in the extras, as there is interesting information about Kurosawa's liking of the wide screen format.

Fine cast, but basically rather silly, anachronistic film. However if you are interested in Hugh Grant, his performance as Chopin is worth a look - chilly, remote, upright - thought it was quite impressive.

Agree with the other reviewer, super actors, music hall, police procedural, everyone smoking all the time - what more could you want. Very sharp and very enjoyable. I also agree about the other films, and would suggest 'Les Diaboliques', extremely good.

I go along with the one and two star reviews, as far as the overall quality of the film goes, it really isn't funny, but you might find it worth watching for the quality of the acting, especially Simon Russell Beale, who deserves to be seen.

Very exciting, you know pretty quickly why it's going to unravel, but it is a terrific watch, and the moments when various unexpected problems turn up are clever. You notice the camera often dwells on Elisha Cook's face - think the director must have loved it, which isn't surprising, he's an intense actor, always the loser.

Entirely fascinating, especially if you love your black and white films, and especially noirs. Some terrific insights about the 'look' of certain films and how film stars insisted on being filmed. Would happily watch it right through again.

I agree with the above, the film has haunted me for days. There is perhaps an artificial feel about the use of old Paris settings, but the topic is very interesting and ultimately tragic; pretty special acting too by everyone involved.

Those are both from the imdb reviews - I tend to the latter. It's complicated, full of flashbacks, very stylish - and that applies to all the characters and to the settings, implausible, but moderately entertaining as you got into what was going on. The acting had to be weirdly neutral to keep the mood going, so why would you care about any of the characters.

Thought it was very unengaging, and didn't manage to watch it to the end. If you haven't seen it try something like Blue Jasmine to restore your faith in Woody Allen.

Strange story about superstition, alcoholism and the persistence of one member of the Salvation Army in Sweden! Rather strongly acted by the male and female leads I thought, lots of interesting tricksy double exposures to create the impression of ghosts and the ghostly carriage, I thought it held interest throughout and was worth the experience. Hard to read the English subtitles when the Swedish ones were so much more prominent though.

Expected to enjoy this, but the direction was really rather ponderous, lots of exaggerated close-ups of faces, unclear verse speaking, and dreadful sound. But has to be worth watching for the magisterial performance of John Gielgud.