Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

'The Promised Land' (1975) is a historical drama directed by Andrzej Wajda, the famous Polish director. The film focuses on the Polish city of Lodz, which was industrializing very fast in the late 19th century, on the back of a boom in the manufacturing of textiles: Lodz had become, to Poland, what Manchester was to England. The movie focuses on 3 young men who are friends and want to get rich: they want to set up a factory of their own. One is an ethnic Pole, an aristocrat; the 2nd one is an ethnic German; and the 3rd one is a Jew. In that way, the film re-creates the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nature of Polish society at the time when, alongside ethnic Poles, there were large German and Jewish minorities. Lodz is in central Poland and was under Russian (Tsarist) rule at the time, which explains the fact the Ruble is the currency in use.

Karol Borowiecki is a young Polish nobleman; he is an engineer. He is ambitious and ruthless in his career pursuits, and is also uninterested in the aristocratic traditions vested in his financially struggling family. His dream is to set up his own factory with the help of his 2 friends - Max Baum, an ethnic German whose father still runs an old-style textile factory operating with handlooms , and Moritz Welt, a Jewish businessman. The film narrates the 3 friends' progress towards achieving their goal, and the obstacles they have to overcome along the way.

The film, which is nearly 2 hrs 45 mins long, is a kind of historical epic drama, and it follows a linear path, in a manner that is primarily descriptive, with striking set pieces along the way. The movie is good at re-creating the atmosphere in Lodz at the time - a boom town in the grip of unbridled capitalist development, where lavish wealth co-exists with dire poverty. There is an undertone of moral disapproval right through the movie, in this respect: the rich, in the main, are greedy, selfish and predatory characters, exploiting the wretched working masses, who live in filth and squalor. This moralistic stance - justified as it may be in view of the context at the time - appears to be rooted in Roman Catholicism (the Christian notion of sin) as well as Socialism (the class struggle). The film was made when Poland was a Communist country and this angle, no doubt, would have appealed to the authorities, as the movie, in essence, denounces capitalism as an evil system.

Where the film is more problematical is in the way that it depicts the various characters, always relating their reactions and attitudes to their ethnic background. Karol is the epitome of the dashing Polish nobleman, supremely self-confident, also with women. Max is quieter as well as hard-working, with an interest in engineering and machines - your typical German, in other words! As for Moritz, he is the caricature of the Jewish wheeler-dealer who only cares about making money quickly. In fairness, a lot of the industrialists, bankers and financiers in Lodz at the time were ethnic Germans and Jews, not ethnic Poles, and the story touches upon this aspect, in fact: Karol may not be welcome, as an ethnic Pole who represents a threat to the established textile companies. Still, the film is built around stereotypes - and, in view of the history of Poland from the 1920s until the 1950s more particularly, this may be deemed rather troubling.

In terms of the film, the problem with those simplistic stereotypes (and there are many others in the movie, such as the dim-witted Polish peasant!) is that it makes it difficult for the viewer to fully engage with the characters, somehow. So, it is a very good film, but not a nuanced masterpiece in my opinion.

In 1975, in New York, Carlito Brigante (Al Pacino) is released on a technicality after serving 5 years in jail, out of a 35-year prison sentence. His lawyer, Dave Kleinfeld (Sean Penn), who is also a close friend, has been instrumental in getting Carlito out of jail. When he comes out of prison, Carlito vows never to go back to his earlier life of crime, despite the incredulity of his former contacts in the Puerto Rican community and the drug-trafficking world. Carlito also attempts to get back in touch with Gail (Penelope Ann Miller), a ballet dancer who also performs in strip clubs to make ends meet. The story develops from there.

The film is about redemption or, rather, what happens when a hardened criminal (Carlito) tries to redeem himself and move away from crime, despite all those individuals from his past around him who, directly or not, are still involved in a range of criminal activities. The film is also about lost love and what happens when a man tries to resume a relationship he had with a woman (here, Gail), before he was thrown into jail. These themes are not that original in themselves: they are found in the film 'Heat', for instance.

All the same, this is an excellent thriller and, in many ways, a great classic of the genre. I do not agree that the story is implausible. Overall, it is quite convincing, and the chemistry between Al Pacino and Penelope Ann Miller feels quite real: each one, in his (or her) own way, is lost and drifting, between his (or her) dreams and the harsh reality around them, and each one seeks in the other the help that he (or she) needs in order to escape from their surroundings. The movie is also very good at creating an atmosphere - that of New York, its nightclubs, its gangsters, and so on. Finally, there are some memorable scenes that will stay with you, and I do not want to say any more in order not to spoil the story.

In my view, an excellent thriller.

Carmen is in her fifties. She is a housewife from a well-to-do middle-class family from the capital of Chile, Santiago. Her husband enjoys a successful career; he is a doctor.

In the winter of 1976, 3 years after the military coup led by Augusto Pinochet, which has established a sinister and ruthless military dictatorship in the country, Carmen travels to her summer house: she intends to oversee some renovation work and enjoy a break by the seaside. That is when, inadvertently, she gets involved in the politics of the period. The film develops from there.

Carmen (Aline Kuppenheim) is the central character of the story: the film follows her, in her family circle and among her friends and acquaintances, also in her dealings with her staff and with suppliers and contractors. She is not interested in politics. Her bourgeois lifestyle has insulated her from the events of the past 3 years in Chile. Where the film is very good, it is in somehow creating an oppressive atmosphere through the depiction of seemingly minor incidents and little details. Beneath the veneer of complete normality, we realise, little by little, together with Carmen, that a tragedy is unfolding - a sinister tragedy combining extreme violence and ruthless repression with relentless propaganda and constant surveillance. Nowhere is safe. No one can be trusted. The henchmen of the military regime seem to be everywhere, watching you, listening to your telephone calls, following you...

It is a good movie because of its ability to transport us back to the Chile of the dictatorship, in the 1970s and 1980s. However, relatively little happens and the story feels claustrophobic in the extreme - intentionally, of course. So, an interesting piece of tense but low-key cinema: do not expect any fireworks as such.

This is a faithful adaptation of the novel, 'Pride and Prejudice', by Jane Austen. It takes place in England in the late 18th century. The story is centred on the Bennet family: Mr and Mrs Bennet and their 5 daughters – Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Kitty, and Lydia. They live on a relatively modest estate in rural England. Jane and Elizabeth are the eldest of the 5 girls. For their parents, the obsession is to find them suitable husbands, as they need to be provided for. (Women of that social status, at the time, are not expected or trained to work, essentially.)

The story focuses primarily on the interaction between Jane Bennet (Rosamund Pike) and Charles Bingley (Simon Woods), a wealthy bachelor, on the one hand, and that between Elizabeth (Lizzy) Bennet (Keira Knightley) and Bingley's friend, Mr Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen), on the other. As the plot unfolds, the key characters are Lizzy Bennet and Mr Darcy, and how their dealings with each other evolve over time. Mr Darcy is a somewhat snobbish and awkward character, who can be aloof and exceedingly reserved: this aspect of his character is at the heart of the novel, and is prominent in the movie too.

Overall, this is a beautifully made period film. Matthew Macfadyen looks rather miserable and almost dull at times but, after all, Mr Darcy, in the novel, is hardly the life and soul of the party. The movie, in the last analysis, works thanks to the excellent performance by Keira Knightley: in the way that the film unfolds, it really is Lizzy Bennet's story and we see the chain of events through her eyes. In practice, she is the central, dominant character and, in fact, the narrator.

The film is never dreary or boring (it could easily have been, at 2 hours, and being the adaptation of such a novel...): on the contrary, it fizzes with energy and humour, making the most of the twists and turns of the story. The movie is well worth watching, more particularly if you like period films of this kind and are a fan of Jane Austen's.

Carter "Doc" McCoy (Steve McQueen) is eventually granted parole from a Texas prison where he was serving a 10-year sentence for armed robbery. His wife Carol (Ali MacGraw) has stood by him all along, and has helped secure his early release. McCoy has had to make a deal with Jack Beynon, an influential member of the parole board and a powerful businessman in San Antonio. Beynon has facilitated Doc's parole on the condition that McCoy should plan and participate in a bank robbery with two gangsters chosen by Beynon. The story develops from there.

The film is a tense and violent action thriller of the kind you would expect from director Sam Peckinpah; the film's music is very effective in enhancing the suspense. The 2 lead actors - Steve McQueen and Ali MacGraw - are convincing and the chemistry between them seems strong. There are unexpected twists and turns in the story that focus the attention of the viewer. The movie, however, is not particularly profound in any way: it remains, from start to finish, somehow, a spectacle - the archetypal get-away, underpinned by an implicit and romantic fascination with guns and violence. Still, overall, although not quite as good as what I expected, it is an excellent film.

Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) is a highly regarded surveillance expert based in San Francisco; he specializes in wiretapping services. We are in the analogue world but, as the movie shows in great detail, electronic surveillance was already highly advanced, very effective and scarily intrusive in the 1970s (and one dreads to think the extent of it, today, in the internet age, as denounced by, among others, Edward Snowden). Harry Caul and his team work for a range of clients, usually in the private sector. They are given an assignment and carry it out, without asking too many questions. Caul prides himself on his professionalism and focuses on the technical aspects of the job; he appears to have no scruples or, rather, no interest in the actual nature of the cases he is asked to put together, or in the reasons his clients have for seeking the information that Caul gives them.

Caul and his team are hired by a mysterious corporate client to eavesdrop on a couple, seen walking around Union Square, in San Francisco. Despite the ambient noise, Caul works on the various tapes to the point where he has a clear recording of the couple's conversation. The meaning is ambiguous but Caul soon feels that his work may be used in a way that could have tragic consequences. The story develops from there.

Harry Caul is, really, a dull character and a loner (played very well by Gene Hackman). There is a strong technical angle to the movie, as the practical and technological conditions of the surveillance work are described in some detail. In spite of all this, the film is a gripping thriller. And, unlike many such movies, the story gets more interesting, more intriguing and more powerful as it develops, to reach its climax in the last 30 minutes of the film. Highly recommended.

This French film deals with the nature of police work, focusing on a team of detectives working for the Judicial Police department (the equivalent of CID in Britain) of the city of Grenoble, in south-eastern France. A young woman has been murdered in terrible circumstances, and the police officers try to establish who the murderer may be. In the process, they dig deep into the past of Clara, the victim, and her complicated sentimental life.

As we are told right at the beginning of the movie, about 80% of homicides in France are solved by the police, i.e. the culprit is identified and arrested, but, in 20% of cases, no one is ever charged. The film describes such a case. In other words, the detectives will not manage to pin the murder on any of the suspects known to them. From this premise, the film develops its narrative.

This is not a conventional thriller. There are no fireworks. It is more in the tradition of social realism, but focused on police work, here. The police officers, in their various ways, are quite ordinary. And yet the film is fascinating in what it shows and examines. The investigation draws us into the story as if we were the detectives conducting the police work: each time they question a suspect, we cannot help but think that he is the one, and they will be able to corner him, to expose him. In this sense, the film is supremely well and very skilfully crafted.

The underlying, burning questions are never far from the surface of the events, tragic or not: how do you cope with pure evil when you are confronted with it? How does it affect those who have had to deal with it as part of their job? The lead officer, Yohan (Bastien Bouillon), is remarkably uncharismatic, to the point of being almost dull, but this is probably deliberate on the part of the director: he does not say much, and yet he sees and understands everything, taking it all on the chin, unable or unwilling to turn the impact of reality on him into words.

Overall, a very good film.

At the start of the film, we are in the city of Munich, in 1864. Ludwig II (Helmut Berger) is only 18 when he is crowned King of Bavaria. The young monarch is more interested in the arts and in culture than in anything else. He provides composer Richard Wagner with lavish support, encouraging the musician to settle down in Munich. The movie develops from there, covering the entire reign of Ludwig II, who soon develops a keen and costly interest in architecture, having extravagant castles built all over Bavaria.

Overall, the movie is structured in a predictable way, as the narrative follows the chronology of the king's reign and his life. Ludwig II, who was born in 1846, reigned from 1864 until his death in 1886. This was also a period of transition in German history, with Prussia asserting growing control over the fate of the German states, at the expense of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The film is historically accurate in most respects, it would appear, in terms of how it presents the chain of events, the king's character, etc. ; everyone speaks Italian, however, which is odd in a way, as the story takes place in Bavaria, mainly.

It is a good film (in Italian with English subtitles), a kind of romantic, epic biography, given the fact its central character is a tormented young man fascinated with Wagnerian myths and Wagner's musical genius. The film is also fairly slow, albeit never boring, and probably overlong (at nearly 4 hours). There is something a bit ponderous and predictable about the portrayal of Ludwig, the mad king, even though Luchino Visconti is never simplistic in the way he approaches his complex and tragic subject. One thing that surprised me is the fact that L Visconti, overall, does not really make the most of the aesthetic and spectacular potential of the backdrop to the king's story, namely those castles and palaces he had built all over his kingdom. Given how extravagant and Disney-like some of them are, we get a glimpse of them, but I feel that much more could have been made of those settings.

Overall, a good movie and a well-made classic, where Romy Schneider as Empress Elisabeth of Austria (or Sissi) shines through with her radiant beauty (but her part is a fairly minor one in the film, unfortunately).

In 1893, in Tierra del Fuego, in the very south of Chile, Alexander MacLennan, a Scotsman who served in the British Army, oversees the fencing-off of the land for his employer, José Menéndez, a wealthy landowner who owns thousands of sheep. MacLennan is a very rough and violent man, and he plays the part of enforcer for his employer.

Menéndez asks the Scotsman to lead an expedition across the whole of his estate, all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, on the Argentinian side of Tierra del Fuego. The aim will be to demarcate and reclaim the land. Menéndez makes it clear that, if MacLennan encounters any groups of Amerindians native to the region, they should be eliminated, as he considers that they are a threat to his sheep-raising business (he claims they kill and eat the sheep belonging to European settlers). The Scotsman sets off in the company of Bill, an American cowboy from Texas working for José Menéndez, and Segundo, who is mixed-blood (mestizo) and has been selected by MacLennan because he is a good shot.

The movie develops from there. In many respects, it is an odd, unconventional and unique film you are unlikely to ever forget, once you have seen it. There is something haunting and dark about it. That is, no doubt, linked to the eerie, bleak, mournful and wild landscapes of Tierra del Fuego (I assume it was filmed on location): endless moorland interspersed with forests, snow-capped mountains in the distance and, in places, moon-like scenery of utter desolation. You feel the vastness of this empty, or near-empty, wilderness, its power and its mystery. The music, also, is captivating and hard-hitting. All of this makes the narrative mesmerizing.

In other ways, the film is perhaps a bit frustrating, as not that much actually happens most of the time: there is something slow and deliberative about the pace of the story. And yet, there are several high points along the way, and the end of the movie, which I do not want to spoil for readers of this review, is as unexpected as it is masterful.

The film depicts, more than anything else, an atmosphere - an atmosphere of fear, menace and violence in the midst of this primeval natural world. The underlying theme, of course, is that of the white man purporting to bring Western civilisation, religion and values to the aboriginal population of Tierra del Fuego, deemed to be 'savages'. However, as the film shows, things are not that simple, and the 'savages' may not be those the settlers despise and slaughter so readily.

Overall, a weird and haunting film that I would recommend, but which may not be everyone's cup of tea.

In County Cork, in Ireland under British rule, in 1920, Damien O'Donovan (Cillian Murphy) has decided to leave his native village in order to practise medicine in a hospital in London. For his part, his brother Teddy is involved in Ireland's struggle for independence from Britain: he is the commander of the local flying column of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Events decide Damien to join his brother, Teddy, and the film shows their involvement in armed operations against the British security forces. The film shows what happened when, after the Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921), which established the Irish Free State as a British Dominion and led to the partition of Ireland, some of the anti-British fighters accepted it, while others rejected it: the Irish war of independence turned into a civil war (1922-1923) in Ireland itself.

The movie is very much a historical drama following a linear narrative. Ken Loach being who he is, the film intends to show that the British occupation of Ireland was a savage and ruthless colonial enterprise - and no doubt, in many ways, it was: the ultra-violent paramilitary forces, such as the Black and Tans, are shown in action in the film. The story is told from the standpoint of the IRA fighters. This is fine, but the movie does feel a bit demonstrative, didactic and predictable at times: somehow, it lacks originality. However, it is a convincing and well-made film. It seems to capture the atmosphere in Ireland in the 1920s very well. I enjoyed watching the movie, even though it may not be the masterpiece that some people claim it is. Somehow, the film is interesting and feels necessary.

In the Battle of Myeongnyang, in October 1597, the navy of the Korean Kingdom of Joseon (named after a dynasty that reigned over the country from 1392 to 1897), under the command of Admiral Yi Sun-sin, fought an utterly desperate and truly heroic battle against the numerically superior invading Japanese naval force in the Myeongnyang Strait, off the southwest corner of the Korean Peninsula. Admiral Yi Sun-sin (1545-1598) is considered a national hero in South Korea: there is a large statue of him along one of the avenues crossing central Seoul. He is to the Koreans what Joan of Arc is to the French or Admiral H Nelson is to the British: the country's saviour.

The background to the naval battle is Japan's invasion of Korea in the late 16th century, known as the Imjin War (1592-1598), in the course of which Japanese forces went on the rampage up and down the Korean Peninsula, slaughtering the locals and pillaging along the way. The Koreans enlisted the support of the Ming Chinese (named after the Ming dynasty, in power in China at the time) to manage to repulse the Japanese army and navy - a fact that gets a brief mention in the film and is not central to the story.

The movie is, overall, an accurate depiction of what happened during the Battle of Myeongnyang, and it feels very raw and very authentic. The music draws you into the story. The reconstitution of the fleets of warships is impressive and the battle scenes are beyond spectacular. The outfits of the senior officers - more particularly the Japanese - are sumptuous, but there is no attempt to gloss over the horrors of naval warfare. I found it easy to follow the story (then again, I do know South Korea, which I travelled around in late 2023), and the uniforms and outfits of the soldiers in the Japanese and in the Korean armed forces are different, which helps to differentiate the 2 sides. Overall, it is an excellent film, full of suspense and drama - one of the best of its kind that I have ever seen.

This is an intriguing film which could be a play: it has 5 characters and all the action takes place in one location - the beautiful villa of a famous writer and his wife. The movie is about the interaction between the 4 main characters, assisted by the near-silent and enigmatic butler, who is the 5th character - the person who sees everything but says nothing.

Liam Sommers (Daryl McCormack) is a PhD student at the University of Oxford. Through a tuition agency, he lands a job teaching a teenager, Bertie Sinclair, whose aim is to sit the entrance exam in order to gain admission to Oxford. Liam is to coach him, the focus being on English literature and exam techniques. Over the summer, while coaching Bertie, Liam is to stay on the estate, as it is far from the nearest town. He is given comfortable living quarters in a small house on the estate. Bertie's father is JM Sinclair (Richard E Grant), a famous and successful writer whom Liam worships. Bertie's mother is the writer's French wife, Hélène Sinclair (July Delpy). Tensions between the 3 adults and the teenager soon surface. Liam learns that Bertie's brother, Felix, committed suicide by drowning - in the beautiful pond situated in front of the family mansion. Felix's death casts its long shadow over the entire family.

The film is a psychological thriller that wants you to believe that it is very, very clever. It did remind me of 'The Swimming-Pool', the 1969 French masterpiece of the genre with Alain Delon. 'The Lesson' is good, but it is nowhere nearly as good as the French classic. Something, somehow is missing: there is a lack of emotional relevance and dramatic tension, despite the director's best efforts. The acting is good overall (R E Grant is more than convincing), but various aspects are rather implausible and what is more problematical is that the story develops slowly and predictably until the climax, at the end, i.e. the last 20 to 25 minutes. That climax, I found very good and very well put together, but it takes too long getting there, somehow. So, I enjoyed the movie but it is not, in my view, quite as good as what some reviewers have pretended.

J Robert Oppenheimer (1904 –1967) was an American theoretical physicist. He was appointed director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, in New Mexico, during World War II. J R Oppenheimer was put in charge of the secretive and strategic Manhattan Project, whose key aim was to develop an atom bomb that could be used against the Axis powers, more particularly Germany (as the Germans were known to be working on a similar project of their own). As a result, J R Oppenheimer is often referred to as the "father of the atomic bomb". Interestingly, he knew Albert Einstein who, for his part, refused to take part in any programme aiming to develop nuclear weapons.

The film is, in essence, a biographical drama centred on the life of J R Oppenheimer, from his stint at the University of Cambridge to the mid-1950s. The story is focused on Los Alamos and the development of the atomic bomb, which went on to be used against Japan with devastating effect. The more personal and sentimental side of J R Oppenheimer's life is also told, and the film is, overall, historically accurate.

On the plus side, it is a very interesting story because J R Oppenheimer was, undoubtedly, a very interesting, complex and fascinating character - a genius who played a major part in the history of humanity, through his role at El Alamos. The movie is well directed by Christopher Nolan and Cillian Murphy's acting (as the lead character) is very good. His interaction (and tussle) with the military man overseeing the project, General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon), is also interesting and will hold your attention.

However, there are a few issues with the film, in my opinion. First of all, it is very long - too long - at over 2 hrs 45 mins. Two hours would most probably have been enough. The story unfolds at a fairly slow pace. It is always interesting, but it is also a little bit laborious, more particularly in the third part of the film, when it turns into one of those typically American courtroom dramas. Was this amount of procedural and legalistic detail necessary? What is more, the style of the movie is somewhat conventional, and I mean by this the way in which the story is told. Despite the frequent and jerky changes of place and time, not helped by resorting to black & white shots as opposed to colour ones - after a while, it gets confusing and the colour-coding does not help the viewer to distinguish between flashbacks and real-time story telling - the story feels linear and, to a degree, predictable.

In conclusion, it is a very good and very interesting historical drama, but it certainly is not the masterpiece that many reviewers have claimed it is. Somehow, there has been a lot of overhype, due to the nature of the Hollywood film industry and the industry's calendar. But you will enjoy it if you like this kind of movie and if you have a spare 3 hours.

The film is a science-fiction movie constructed around the concept of time travel, which combines with what is, in effect, a thriller as well as a low-key love story. This combination, in itself, makes the film interesting, all the more so as it is underpinned by excellent acting by Bruce Willis, Madeleine Stowe (whose beauty and charm reminded me of Rachel Weisz) and Brad Pitt.

The premise of the film is that a lethal virus, released in 1996, has wiped out 90% of humanity, forcing the survivors to live underground, in some kind of nightmarish, totalitarian retro-futuristic world. A radical and subversive group of activists known as the Army of the Twelve Monkeys is believed to be responsible for the intentional release of the virus. In 2035, James Cole (Bruce Willis), a prisoner held in an underground jail beneath Philadelphia, is selected by a group of officials and scientists to be sent back in time (into the past), so that he may find the original strain of the killer virus. The scientists (of 2035) expect this to help them develop a cure for the virus. In return, Cole is offered a reduced sentence.

The story develops from there, as Cole is sent back into the past, in a desperate, dangerous and surreal quest for the Army of the Twelve Monkeys. A suspension of disbelief is required for obvious reasons in the face of such as story, and yet, in our post-COVID world, the plot may not seem as far-fetched as it perhaps did when the film was made, in 1995. The movie develops in an interesting way, supported by the very good dialogues and excellent acting of the lead characters. Bruce Willis reveals himself to be, in fact, a very good actor, and Brad Pitt is impressive in the way he handles his part.

Overall, it is a riveting and remarkable film, well worth the praise it has received in many quarters. And a movie you will remember.

The film is an American romantic drama, as adapted from the novel of the same name by Milan Kundera, the famous Czech novelist. It tells the story of Tomas (Daniel Day-Lewis), a brilliant brain surgeon, and the women he meets and spends time with. In essence, Tomas is a charming, intelligent and handsome doctor, full of self-confidence, who is extremely successful with women and multiplies sexual adventures, always on the look-out for new targets. He has a steady partner, in what could be called an open relationship, who is an unconventional artist, Sabina (Lena Olin). The backdrop to the story is the political situation in Czechoslovakia at the time: the liberalization of the Communist regime leads to the Prague Spring, in 1968, when the military forces of the Warsaw Pact, led by the Soviets, invade the country in order to crack down on the Czechoslovak experience and re-instate a more repressive and conservative form of Socialism (i.e. of Communist regime).

The film is good and I enjoyed it, although it is a bit long, at 2 hours 45 mins or thereabouts. Milan Kundera himself was unhappy about it, claiming it did not reflect the story as he intended it and as he wrote it. (I cannot judge as I have not read the novel.) Personally, I somehow expected the political canvas to be more prominent; although it matters, of course, Tomas's dalliances tend to take centre-stage. To put it simply, he is some kind of Czech Casanova, to the point where some aspects of the story seem barely plausible. It is enough for Tomas to enter a room, leer at an attractive woman, tell her to "take off your clothes" (literally, just like that), and torrid sex follows instantly.

The other thing I found problematical is the use of the English language. The various characters speak with a range of accents (for instance, Juliette Binoche, unsurprisingly, sounds Franco-Slavic), and they all make an effort to sound vaguely Central European/ Czech, including D Day-Lewis, who tries to sound like a foreigner speaking English. I found this artificial. The sound of the Czech or Slovak language is absent from the film. It made it more difficult for me to relate to the story because, as it happens, I have been to Prague, and I visited Czechoslovakia under Communism on several occasions, hence know the country quite well. Other people may not find this problematical, however, and it was probably inevitable with an international production.

The underlying themes in the movie are interesting all the same: what it means to be living and working in a totalitarian state; whether sex and love differ and to what extent faithfulness is an issue in a relationship, and so on. But even those themes are not explored or analyzed in a particularly deep manner. The title of the movie (and the novel) gives it away up to a point; Tomas is the central character, and his motto could be: How to have fun in circumstances that are not always ideal, and does it matter what I do?

I would still recommend the film and it is worth watching, but I expected, somehow, something more than that.