Film Reviews by JK

This is possibly the saddest film I have ever seen; so underplayed and poignant. Both John Voight and Dustin Hoffman are superb and could not be bettered - so please, don't try a remake with any of today's actors.

This was an over-long 'Elephant-in-the-room' scenario where the elephant (for obvious reasons), wasn't shown just vaguely described. It felt as if it began in the middle, meandered around for a long time then ended still in the middle.

That said - the film highlighted an important social issue and given that several of the protagonists are apparently still alive there wasn't a lot of wriggle room in the legal/defamation sense.

The one stand out episode for me was the reporter doorstepping a priest who willingly admitted to child abuse as if it was the most natural thing to do. In a couple of sentences it explained the priest/child dynamic - A priest is God's representative on earth therefore must be obeyed message which this priest clearly saw nothing wrong with and adhered to.

A film that truly deserves the title 'classic'. Superbly written, beautifully acted and as relevant today (2020) as it was 40 years ago.

There is not one redundant line in the whole film and aside from Peter Finch 'going off on one' as the main theme, the soliloquies of several of the other characters (most notably the wronged wife) were stunning in their delivery.

Every word was clear - i.e. they were not speaking from the inside of an especially hirsute Yak (as so many film today are). There was no bloody awful and inappropriate music (piano arpeggios) drowning out what was being said. The atmosphere was provided by the excellent acting.

I'd love to know what PV has got against Stephen Fry? His review was fine until he (or she) got to that bit.

I had no expectations of this film but found the sheer 'ordinaryness' of it drawing me in to reach the conclusion. So little happens and yet so much - a whole lifetime in one day.

This film is a true classic. What an absolute joy to be able to hear every word the actors say with such clarity. It was music to the ears as opposed to today's mumblings in Dolby Stereo where you need subtitles to understand the gist of what is being said even in what is supposed to be your own language.

The script is as sharp and sparkling today as it was in the 40's/50's when Ealing Comedies were at their peak.

Were Dennis Price and Joan Greenwood really that thin though?

I spent half the film trying to work out if the 'angel' (Cary Grant) was in fact the conscience of the Bishop (David Niven)? Actually, it really didn't matter as it didn't detract from the fact this is/was a sweet film which left me feeling refreshed and not like I had been put through a mangle - as so many films of today do. Oh - and the hats were wonderful! What was most puzzling was where they located the house that Mrs What's-her-name, the snooty benefactress whose heart was eventually softened by the angelic harp playing - (certainly NOT by Mr Grant) lived. Did people really live in those places in 1947?

For me, the most important point the film raised was that not all Germans were Nazis. Sadistic bullies can come from any race.

It was all pleasant enough and without dwelling too much on the plight of either the 'slaves' brought in to construct the 'pill boxes' and the occupied Guernsey residents who were all but forgotten on mainland Britain it packed an historic punch.

The leads were rather wishy-washy but it was eminently watchable.

I know this is regarded by many as a 'classic' Coen Brothers film but it just didn't do it for me. Why is anyone's guess: I adore Jeff Bridges, like John Goodman enormously and found Julianne Moore convincing but despite these excellent ingredients they didn't gel together. Like so many films today, if your joke set up isn't working (i.e. it's not funny) then pep it up with a stream of shouting and swearing thus alerting watchers that 'something hilarious is going to happen any day now...' I am not averse to swearing (watch Pebbles the cockatoo on Youtube) but there is a limit before it just becomes background noise, therefore wasted.

We watched this as a selected movie in our film club and most of the others found it 'wonderful/the funniest film they had ever seen etc.' so maybe my humour by-pass worked.

The set ups and jokes are laboured: Who would have guessed that JG would throw the wrong case out of the car window tee-hee.....

God knows how much this must have cost to make; The locations, sets, CGI, all -star cast, everyone trying desperately to be funny yet somehow it just isn't. Every joke was laboured. Jason Stathan doing a pastiche of his Transporter films could have been witty but instead became tedious, and all the characters resorting to saying 'fuck' every ten seconds for effect made me think "Really? Is that all you can come up with to try and wring some humour from this very, very long film - the end of which was pretty obvious after the first minute?"

I'd not read or heard anything about this film so came to it completely unbiased. Echoing what (almost all) of the other CP reviewers have said, it is simply beautiful. There is no need for shouting, swearing, action chases, CGI, convoluted 'plot', scenes of torture or people having sex etc. it merely needed two extremely good actors, barely saying anything to each other throughout, to convey the close bond and heartbreaking prospect of the necessity to live their own chosen lives.

This film never ceases to send shivers down my spine. Clunky, dated and a bit hammy at times, the silhouette of a picket fence and that haunting voice singing an old Southern hymn is more foreboding than any CGI horror with crashing orchestration.

It's difficult to believe this film was produced 60 years ago. It's timeless - and long, but it draws you in bit by bit, compelling you to sympathise with the sadness of a character who knows the end of an era has come but still cannot accept it until the very end.

Watching this film is a bit like watching Russell Brand - very smarty-pants clever but deeply distasteful. It ticks all the boxes in terms of sublime setting, lighting, costumes, make up etc. etc. but then you would hope so given how much it cost to make. Every shot is perfectly framed. Every frame could be a Rembrandt or Vermeer painting.

The three women are all brilliant but not necessarily Oscar worthy. If you had absolutely nothing to do all day and were in constant pain you'd be snappy and contrary.

It demonstrated Court corruption and the ridiculousness of political debate really well but aside from a few smile-provoking quips it was hardly the 'comedy' it was cracked up to be in the run up to its release and subsequent hoo-ha about it's ten Oscar nominations. All the funny bits are in the trailer.

On another level it is terribly sad and the sheer tedium of Court life would drive anyone to murderous thoughts but it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. And speaking of mouths - how come the incredibly realistic bodily functions, blood, gore, fat etc. were depicted perfectly for the period but everyone had brilliantly white teeth, given that they all appeared to live on cake?

It's a 'Marmite' movie - either you will love or hate it.....that's why I've given it an average star score. 'Just can't make up my mind.

Bits of this film were okay but the racism sub plot just confused things. I couldn't work out why and to whom the main character owed money in the first place when he clearly didn't need it? Usual 'everyone mumbling' meant it was easy to lose the thread.

Worst aspect of all - there are absolutely no trees in suburban USA!

This does keep you engaged and interested and there is a poignancy about how the great fashion haut courture houses began to fall from fashion with the onset of the 1960's and how people deal with change (or not).

The power shift was also subtle and well thought out,stretching throughout the film.