Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

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?

In 1954 London, Reynolds Woodcock, a fashion designer, creates dresses for members of high society. His fashion house is successful and run by him with the crucial support of Cyril, his sister. When he meets a plain waitress in a restaurant, out in the countryside, he turns her into his main model, then starts a relationship with her.

The film is about that relationship, between him and her (Alma). It is a very good period film and an interesting sentimental tale of 2 people who get to know each other and, gradually, find a meaningful way that they can communicate. The acting is very good and so is the re-creation of London in the 1950s.

The film is slow-moving and, in some ways, very little happens, beyond the meanders of the 2 characters' relationship and the ups and downs of the fashion house's business. There is something oppressive and claustrophobic about the story because Reynolds, the central character, basically is a control freak who is obsessive in everything he does. He can be possessive and abusive, in his own way.

So, overall, a movie I would recommend, but a somewhat strange experience in more ways than one, starting with the looks of the Germanic-sounding lead actress, Alma, who is expressive and magnetic, but not conventionally pretty, to say the least, in my view.

This hyper-realistic French film is relatively short (90 mins) but as hard-hitting as a movie of this kind can be. It is the very ordinary story of an ordinary couple that has split up, and there are 2 kids caught up in between the wife and the husband. They have ordinary jobs in an ordinary-looking French town.

And yet the film manages to create an overwhelming sense of tension and gradually rising fear that is memorable. All the actors are excellent. In some ways, yes, it is a dull story to begin with about an ordinary family falling apart, but you can feel the pain and the sorrow, and the suspense will eventually grip you beyond anything you expected. I thoroughly recommend it.

On the DVD, there is a bonus short film of 30 mins that was supposed to come before the feature film, but you can watch it afterwards. The director should have included it as a preamble to the story, in fact: it, too, is very good. If you watch it first, the feature film makes even more sense.

Walter Fane, a bacteriologist, marries Kitty Garstin (Naomi Watts) and they move to China (Shanghai), where Walter has been posted to work in a government lab, studying infectious diseases. The marriage is soon in trouble, when Kitty starts an affair with a British official in Shanghai...

The film is well-made and the acting is generally good, but the film is almost too slick and too polished to feel 'real' and 'raw'. There is something missing, somehow, which prevents the movie from being a truly great film. But it is still a very good period film that I would recommend if you like that kind of historical love drama.

It is based on a very good novel by S Maugham, which I have read. What bothered me is that the dynamics of the relationship between Dr Fane and his wife have been altered in the film adaptation, and considerably so. In the movie, and without giving too much away, to a certain extent, Dr Fane is the central character, or he is at least as important as Kitty. In the novel, everything revolves around Kitty, primarily. The way that their relationship evolves is very different from what is portrayed in the film.

S Maugham is actually far more radical and much harsher in his portrayal of human nature and sentimental relationships: there are no concessions to 'good taste' and common sensitivities in the novel. The film, probably to please a wider public, drifts towards a more conventional form of romance, somehow, even though the setting is dramatic and even tragic in other ways. Ultimately, the novel's angle is more interesting than the simpler take on the characters put forward in the film. And the novel was written in the 1920s!

On balance, I would recommend the film, but I would advise you to read the book first, if you don't know it. And you will see the difference between a satisfying work of fiction (the movie) and great art (the novel).

Battle for Sevastopol is a 2015 biographical war film about Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a young Soviet woman who joined the Red Army to fight the Nazi invasion of the USSR during WWII. The movie revolves around the events of the siege of Odessa and the siege of Sevastopol. Against the backdrop of the war, the heroine gets involved romantically with various men.

L Pavlichenko became a very successful sniper, killing over 300 enemy soldiers during the war. She is one of the top Russian/ Soviet snipers of all times and, allegedly, the female sniper with the highest kill number of all times.

The movie is well-made in the Russian tradition. It is a good war movie and there is humour, here and there. There is, however, something a little bit predictable about the story (but it is in fact a true story...), which has, perhaps, more to do with the way the film is shot. It's hard to say what it is, but there is something that is missing, which could have turned what is a good war movie into an unforgettable war epic.

Also, living conditions in Stalin's USSR cannot have been as comfortable as shown in the film, I would have thought, more particularly when it comes to food supplies, which appear plentiful!

Still, it is a good film that I would recommend. And the central character was certainly an extraordinary person.

This film is an arch-love story. In the ruins of post-war Poland, Wiktor and Zula fall deeply, obsessively and destructively in love. As performing musicians/ artists forced to work for the Communist propaganda machine (as members of a folk troupe), they dream of escaping to the West. One day, they spot their chance to make a break for freedom in France.

On one level, there is something predictable in the way that the love story between the 2 central characters develops. On another, the film is full of surprises and the lead actress is simply amazing and stunning, in terms of her presence and sensuality on screen. Somehow, the use of black & white enhances her charm and beauty, and gives the film more depth and elegance.

My problem is with the 2nd half of the film, which I do not find entirely plausible in terms of the storyline. I cannot go into details because it would be a spoiler. But I simply cannot see the 2 characters reacting in this kind of way in real life, also given the broader political and social-economic context at the time (the 1950s).

It is still a beautiful and intensely romantic film that I would certainly recommend, which you are unlikely to forget.

This is a very well-made political thriller. In November 1979, Iranian activists storm the US Embassy in Tehran in retaliation for President Jimmy Carter’s giving the Shah asylum in the US during the Iranian Revolution. While c.55 of the embassy staff are taken hostage, 6 avoid capture by sheltering in the Canadian ambassador’s home. After 3 months, a CIA agent is sent over to organise their ‘ex-filtration'.

The facts are well-known and the script takes liberties with them, more particularly in a way that glorifies the CIA and the Americans (of course), while playing down the role of the Canadians, and misrepresenting the attitude of the British and NZ Embassies, which did offer to help and provide some assistance.

Having said this, it is a very good film, which re-creates the cauldron-like atmosphere in revolutionary Tehran very well, and is very good at creating a huge sense of tension and suspense. B Affleck is competent in the way he plays his part, although rather wooden and expressionless. Then again, I watched the interview with the real-life CIA agent (see bonus on the DVD) and he is even more devoid of any facial expressions than B Affleck is in the film!

Overall, I would say it is a very good film and would recommend it.

This is quite a unique film in that it is a lengthy documentary, shot up to a point like a fiction movie, showing a unit of Danish soldiers (infantry) in the front line, against the Taliban, in Afghanistan, at the height of the involvement of NATO troops in Helmand Province, where British troops took so many casualties and fought so bravely.

On the plus side, it is a documentary like none other. It is amazing how close to the fighting the film crew are, and that they were allowed to film totally freely, from what we can see, to the point where the Danish soldiers discuss operations in a completely uncensored and raw way (with certain consequences down the line, as it happens). Nothing like this would ever be allowed in and by the British Army, I believe. You get to experience the war for what it is: a mixture of extreme boredom and extreme danger, with acts of heroism thrown in when duty calls, and all the ambiguity of modern warfare.

On the minus side, the film, being so factual and realistic -- because it is reality, to a large extent -- is strangely un-cinematic, and often lacks tension. This is probably what war really is like: 10% action and suspense, and 90% preparation, training, waiting around, and boredom. It affects the film, somehow. By the end of the unit's tour of duty, little has actually happened, but for the inevitable casualties (mostly IEDs), and the odd shoot-out.

Having said all this, I would recommend the film if one wants to have an idea of what really goes on in Afghanistan and what modern soldiering in far-away theatres such as the Middle East really is like. It may encourage potential recruits to join the army, or it may not, as the case may be...

An American university student in Paris, who is fanatical about films, meets a peculiar brother and sister (Eva Green), who are twins and fellow film enthusiasts. The twins have a very close, claustrophobic relationship. The 3 of them become entangled in an erotic triangle. The film is set against the backdrop of the 1968 Paris student riots. The film constantly makes references to various movies of the classical and New Wave cinema.

On one level, the film is interesting and there are echoes of the director's earlier works (such as 'Last Tango in Paris'). The erotic trio is intriguing. Eva Green is remarkably seductive and sexy in her acting, attitude and personality. The reconstitution of the Paris of the 1960s is very well done.

On another level, the movie is somewhat annoying because the central characters, the twins, are irritating and immature: they are typical French, privileged, middle-class students who pretend to be non-conformist revolutionaries. They hate all things that are 'bourgeois' but cannot see that they, themselves, are pure products of the arty, intellectual bourgeois class, French style. The young American is, in fact, far more mature and far more perceptive, but in awe of the twins -- more particularly Eva Green's character. (No doubt this portrayal is largely deliberate on the part of the director, but the characters are nevertheless annoying!)

There is something a bit contrived about the constant references to old movies: it is understandable in a film about film enthusiasts, but it adds to the artificiality of the narrative -- with the theme of the film that includes another film (or various other films), while reality reflects the fiction of the movies, rather than the opposite.

So, it is a good film of a peculiar genre, worth watching, but not quite a masterpiece.

This is a slightly unusual film. It is a Scandinavian war movie about Afghanistan. This is not that common.

There is some fighting in it, but not so much. Quickly, the movie goes into a different mode, asking uncomfortable questions: what is a just war? What is a good decision in such extreme situations? Who is guilty and who isn't? What would you have done? There are no easy answers. There are bad ones, and very bad ones.

The film is a bit slow and a bit ponderous, once removed from the battlefield, but the tension is ever-present and feels real.

This is not a Hollywood spectacular. It feels more like a documentary. For this very reason, I would certainly recommend it. It will change your perception of war and army life, unless you are familiar with both.

This good feature film focuses on the Russian mafia. It is quite well made and everything should work to make it really good but, somehow, it fails to hit the mark. It is hard to know why. All the ingredients are there but it is not as good as it could be. And yet the plot is strong.

One reviewer said it feels more like 'a TV film', and that's perhaps what it is. Of all the characters, the only one that really grabs one's attention is Dima (Stellan Skarsgård), the Russian mobster who fears for his life. The violence is often suggested rather than shown, which could have worked but seems, somehow, to deprive the film of those moments of high drama one would expect.

Somehow, it is quite a cerebral film.

So, it is worth seeing, but could just as well be missed.

This movie is about a brothel c.1895/ 1900 in Paris. It is a high-end establishment run by a Madame. The film is very descriptive and perhaps a bit slow, showing us the life of the girls, with their clients and when not working.

What is interesting is that it is very much a women's society, despite the fact they are all there, ostensibly, to serve the selfish needs of men (and rich men). But the film is made from the point of view of the women, which gives it an interesting angle.

The movie is not a masterpiece, however. Somehow, it is a bit slow and demonstrative. Also, the pop music occasionally used to accompany the story grates, in my view. And the very last shots at the end of the movie are tagged on as an ideological statement rather than anything else.