Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

This is the story of a fairly ordinary American businessman with a loving wife and family, who ends up in jail in the company of hardened criminals. In order to survive, he soon emulates the other inmates, resorting to violence when he needs to.

There are implausible details in the story, more particularly towards the end, in my view, but it is a very good film that will stay with you, because of the depiction of prison life -- the violence, the gangs, and the code of honour among inmates. You realise what the culture in prisons is and how they operate: it's like a punch in the face and a kick in the stomach. It comes across as very realistic, in terms of US prisons, at any rate (but I suspect conditions are similar in many British prisons, where we hear the level of violence is growing all the time).

So, I recommend this movie, if you have the stomach for this kind of storyline, which is dark but compelling.

It is a good film that shows more particularly how the Nazis were gradually able to take over and the population, in the main, chose to collaborate. The hero is a remarkable character in many ways and the movie gives a good and accurate account of his life. The film lacks dramatic tension at times, in my view, and therefore is not a masterpiece, but it is a very good film.

This movie is very interesting on many levels: it is a psychological thriller and an action movie, as well as a period film, focusing on Korean resistance to the Japanese in occupied Korea, during the inter-war period (just before WWII).

But it is also quite subtle: the main character, the police officer, is a complex individual. Is he a traitor? Is he a hero? Who is he loyal to?

I recommend this captivating film.

This is a good film, and very much a 1960s British film, in its style, atmosphere, concerns, etc. But it is not a masterpiece. There is something a little bit annoying about it, somehow, in my opinion. It is a bit slow at times. There is something circular about it. At the end of the day, not that much happens: boy meets girl, problems arise, accidents happen, professors at university lust after young women, and so on. I enjoyed it but I don't think it is quite as great a classic as some people would have us believe. I still recommend it.

This is very odd and rather unique film. On one level, it feels unfinished and gives you clues but no clear meaning or ending. One could argue the characters are not all developed and meaningful. It is frustrating and confusing. You would want it to be more linear and also there seems to be 2 plots, not one, and the link between the 2 is not clear at all, and the idea that some of it may be a dream only helps up to a point.

On the other hand, it is visually and musically amazing and mind-blowing, because the director is, in his own way, an artist and a genius. There is menace and mystery, mixed with a thriller-type sub-plot and enigma. Mostly, what fascinates is the rapport between the 2 heroines, who are stunningly beautiful. This turns the movie into some sort of dark, mysterious erotic thriller.

On balance, I recommend it, and it will make you wonder for days afterwards what this or that scene meant, and so on: not so many films do. And, after all, real life is a bit like that: we rarely have a linear plot we are able to follow...

Two Portuguese Jesuits based in 17th-century Macau set off for Japan, in an attempt to find C Ferreira, a fellow Portuguese Jesuit who is said to have recanted his faith, which they do not believe is possible. In their quest for C Ferreira, they encounter much-persecuted Christian communities in various villages.

This is a long, unusual film. It is a bit slow and it will help if you have an interest in Christianity and/or in the history of Japan -- more particularly, the history of Christian communities in pre-modern Japan. Having said this, it is also a very interesting movie in its own way.

Ultimately, it is a philosophical tale rather than anything else: it asks questions such as -- what does it mean to have one's faith tested? What does it mean to betray one's ideas and convictions? When is it justified to give up one's principles? Are you a traitor if you do? And to whom? What is the truth and its value in a completely different culture that has a completely different approach to ethical values and ideas? Can you give up your convictions, and yet continue to be true to them and to yourself?

All these questions are deep and difficult and, in an interesting way, the film looks at them, through the prism of the 2 Jesuits parachuted in the middle of a repressive pre-modern Japan.

This is a very good film, with a dark, brooding atmosphere -- a social drama that is also a thriller, re-creating very well the atmosphere in a poor working-class district of Boston.

However, I found one specific aspect of the movie implausible. This does not really affect the quality of the film but prevents it from 'working' 100%. Without divulging the ending and the plot, I can only say that I was left unconvinced, at the very end, by the resolution that we are presented with in relation to the central mystery at the heart of the film.

I would still recommend this film for its tension, suspense, atmosphere, and acting.

This is based on a true story. The acting is excellent -- R Crowe is impressive in this difficult part, confirming what I have always thought, i.e. that he is a very good actor. It is the harrowing story of a mathematical genius, in the USA, in the 1950s, who gets caught up in defence-related work and has to cope with his demons, helped in this by his wife.

I don't want to say any more so as not to give the story away, although, if you know the biography of the scientist it is about, you would obviously know what happened and when, since the movie is a faithful adaptation of his life's story. An unusual film, quite subtle and scary in some ways: highly recommended.

One of the best films I have ever seen. It is very deep in that German kind of way, but also captivating and intriguing. If our physical appearance changes, are we the same or are we different? Can others recognise us? If they loved us before, can they love us now? What if they never loved us, even before? What does it mean to be someone (or someone else)?

It shows post-WWII Germany in a state of deep shock and trauma, and how they dealt with the Nazis among them. Who betrayed whom becomes clear as the plot unfolds.

The acting is very good and the film is never boring, even though you can read it on many, many levels, including the purely historical one.

This is an interesting -- captivating, even -- film, but it is also a weird movie in more ways than one. I wouldn't describe it as a thriller because it doesn't fit into that genre as such, although there is a mystery at the heart of the plot. The film is quite slow and too long, and yet it is fascinating, because there are so many ways that you can interpret the opaque story.

The central character who lives on his father's farm is, somehow, a bit gormless. But it's possible to identify with him and his sense of bewilderment at what goes on around him. On the other hand, there is something frustrating about the story because some obvious questions that ought to be asked are not touched upon, hence we are not provided with answers (which is deliberate on the part of the director, of course). What I mean is that it is rather implausible that any of those key questions wouldn't have been asked and the person or persons involved wouldn't have been put on the spot as part of that questioning, in any real-life situation approaching that described in the film. (I cannot say any more, to avoid spoiling it.)

Then again, the film is totally unconventional and does not pretend to be realistic as such. It is an atmospheric and oniric sentimental drama inching its way slowly towards some kind of thriller, South Korean style.

This is an interesting and moving film, which shows how a family of misfits survive on the fringes of Japanese society, resorting to casual work, low-level scams and shoplifting on a grand scale. The first 70% of the movie tells us about the life of this unusual family unit; it is perhaps a bit too long, but the acting is very good and the story is convincing. In the last 30% of the movie, things become perhaps more captivating, as many of the family's secrets are revealed.

Whereas, in the initial part of the film, we see society through the eyes of the misfits at the heart of the film, and we see them through their own eyes, in the latter part of the film, the perspective is harshly reversed, as we see them through the eyes of society at large and the 'system'.

I would certainly recommend the film, if you like this kind of social-realist movie. I've been to Japan twice -- a country that is very modern, very clean, and very safe, where there is very little crime -- but this film shows another side of Japanese society...

In 1987, Jordan Belfort (L Di Caprio) starts his career as a stockbroker on Wall Street. Having lost his job following Black Monday, he begins to work for a boiler-room brokerage firm on Long Island specialising in ‘penny stocks’. He is soon running his own, booming business, which makes him very rich; he has also become addicted to sex, prostitutes, and illegal drugs while indulging in non-stop partying.

Although a bit too long (over 2 hrs 45 mins), the film is very good and entertaining, with many hilariously funny scenes. It is a convincing depiction of the drug-fuelled world of stockbroking, at any rate at the time. L Di Caprio puts in a remarkably good performance as the sex-crazed spiv who is addicted to drugs, success and money.

The only thing that is missing from the movie is any sort of reflection as to the damage done to investors by such unscrupulous brokerage firms -- more particularly those dealing in so-called penny stocks, targeted at low-income investors. Then again, it is not that kind of film.

During the American Revolution (1776), Benjamin Martin, a veteran of the French & Indian War and a widower with 7 children, is called to Charleston to vote in the South Carolina General Assembly on the matter of a levy supporting the (American) Continental Army. Initially opposed to war against the British, B Martin is soon drawn into the fight. He helps set up a South Carolina militia force that goes on to attack British forces across the region.

This is very much an American movie glorifying the fight for independence of the Americans and the British forces are portrayed as very brutal and inexcusably violent in the way they tackle the Colonials' rebellion against the Crown. (The article on the film, in Wikipedia, has a section devoted to historical exaggerations and inaccuracies.) The role of slavery is glossed over in the film: relations between (American) Whites and Blacks are presented as generally harmonious and good. (We all know that the American Revolution in no way put an end to slavery: this came about 100 years later, in the aftermath of the American Civil War.)

Having said that, it is still an excellent film and the battle scenes will take your breath away. If you are interested in history and the history of warfare, it will be a plus, but, whichever way, it is a great spectacle and the film is very well-made. I thoroughly recommend it.

My only reservation would be that it is slightly overlong at 2 hrs 40 mins. It would appear that film critics, overall, did not particularly like the film when it came out: this is unjustified in my view. It is a very good film, well acted too.

This documentary film, very well made and captivating from start to finish, is a must-see. It is about Edward Snowden and what he revealed regarding the wholesale electronic surveillance that we -- all of us -- are the target of. It focuses more particularly on the activities of the NSA spying agency in the USA (E Snowden worked for them after working for the CIA) and its British counterpart, GCHQ.

We knew about it but, when you see the film, it really hits you; it is the secrecy around it and the scale of it. After 9/11, the intelligence community started collecting data pre-emptively on a huge -- absolutely huge -- scale. The idea is to store zillions of pieces of data (including the content of emails, allegedly) and, when the moment comes, with the right algorithms, an intelligence officer can pull up 10 years of a person's phone calls, text messages, Google searches, emails, etc., thanks to data mining. In other words, the agencies do not target 'suspects' but everyone, pre-emptively, in case it may be useful later. There is no privacy. They can access almost anything and everything, including SIM cards made by a company such as Gemalto.

What is interesting is that the film claims that GCHQ does even more of this than the NSA, and is a leader in this field: good for our security, no doubt, but rather worrying in terms of the average person's privacy. The Guardian reported on E Snowden's statements and the documents he gave them, as you may remember, but was threatened with a D-notice from the government. Basically, they only divulged a tiny proportion of the documents and, then, the whole matter was suppressed in the UK, which is revealing of how things are handled in Britain. The risk is, of course, that the country may become a police state in due course. It also depends on who is in power. I can think of a few dangerous political leaders on the Right and the Left right now, in Britain, who may not play by any rules once in power...

Having seen the film, you wonder whether anything has changed: I doubt it. Of course some surveillance is needed, but where are the safeguards and the checks & balances? Another thought crossed my mind: what about E Snowden? It is clear he was not 'a traitor' and acted out of a sense of indignation at what he saw as shocking practices. On the other hand, it is claimed what he did damaged Western intelligence services. One claim is that China and Russia managed to access 1 million documents collected by E Snowden (and it may have been without his involvement as such: they may have managed to hack into a cache of data).

Also, it is impossible to imagine that Russia did not 'debrief' him. It is hard to imagine that he would have been able to stay in Russia without giving them any information at all (he has been given temporary residency rights there). Given the nature of the Russian State, there must have been a quid pro quo. One last point: what E Snowden denounces was put in place on a big scale under B Obama, who was never the squeaky-clean liberal that so many people like to believe he was.

Next time you send a text message or write an email, remember to greet the NSA/ GCHQ operative who is reading it! :-)

A scientist called Radcliffe is kidnapped from a train. Harry Palmer, a British Army sergeant, now working for an MoD outfit, is summoned by his superior, Colonel Ross, and transferred to an investigation section headed by Major Dalby. H Palmer, played by an excellent Michael Caine, is the most interesting character in the story because he is a relatively complex individual with a troubled past. The other characters, overall, are stereotypical and formulaic in their roles/ acting.

It is a good film, as low-key spy thrillers go, and it is interesting to see London in the 1960s featured extensively in the movie -- a trip down memory lane for older viewers! The story is not entirely plausible, but the suspense keeps you hooked and wanting to know what will happen next. There is still a lack of depth in the plot and the characters, somehow, so that it cannot be a masterpiece or a truly unforgettable classic, in my opinion.

Still, I certainly recommend this film, more particularly if you like spy thrillers, the cinema of the 1960s and Michael Caine. Who doesn't?