Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

A married couple, David and Jo Henninger (Ralph Fiennes and Jessica Chastain, excellent), travel to Morocco. The relationship between the 2 of them is tense and unhappy. They rent a car to cross the desert to a luxurious villa where an old friend of David's is organizing a party for a select group of guests, who are into drugs (cocaine), heavy drinking and sex. On the way, David accidentally hits and kills a young local teenager, who seemed to have wanted to stop the car in order to sell some souvenirs to the couple. The movie develops from there. David, more particularly, is caught up in a chain of events that will challenge and test him.

There is something strangely neo-colonial in the setting of the film, which feels almost like the 1930s or 1940s rather than the 21st century: privileged upper-class British, European and American 'creatives' and others gathering in a sumptuous villa, served by the local Moroccan staff. There is also a whiff of depravity about the guests and the gay couple hosting them - a motley crew who are, mostly, as you would expect, jaded, blasé, sarcastic, hedonistic and cynical.

And yet, thanks to the story line, through David's experience, the film does attempt to explore the nature of the interaction between the Westerners and the Moroccans, who are not, therefore, reduced to the status of bystanders in their own country, as often in this kind of story. The result is an unsettling film. It is not devoid of clichés, and yet it is interesting and thought-provoking. Overall, a good film, thanks also to the extremely good acting of the 2 lead characters, David and his wife.

In 1938, a Jewish couple from Germany, Juliane Köhler as Jettel Redlich and her husband, Merab Ninidze as Walter Redlich, flee Nazi Germany and settle down in colonial Kenya, on a farm, together with their daughter, Lea Kurka as Regina (younger: another actress plays the part of Regina, when she is in her teens, later in the film). The Redlich family, in Germany, were assimilated Jews, who considered themselves to be German first and foremost; they were totally integrated into German society. They belonged to the well-to-do bourgeoisie. Walter was a lawyer. Before most, he understood that, with the Nazis in power, anti-Jewish persecutions could only get worse and the only option left was to emigrate.

In Kenya, Walter has secured a job to run a farm in the middle of the bush, for its British owner. Nearby, there is a village. They have a cook, Kenyan actor Sidede Onyulo as Owuor. Their living conditions are primitive, especially as compared to the high standard of living and privileged lifestyle they enjoyed in Germany. They are having to adapt to their diminished circumstances, which is not easy. Worrying news from Europe and the outbreak of war soon make the situation even more distressing and difficult for the couple.

Much of the film is about Jettel and Walter, and how their relationship is tested by the situation. The actors whose performance is most impressive are Regina, when she is a little girl, and Owuor: somehow, they totally dominate the story, in my opinion, and Owuor, more particularly, has remarkable and powerful screen presence. The movie, ultimately, is about Kenya in the 1940s. The German couple have many dealings with the local Africans: there is not at all the usual barrier between Blacks and Whites that one sees in films about colonial-era Africa, and Kenya more particularly. The real star of the film is the country and its rugged beauty: Kenya and African culture, and this is explored in an interesting, sensitive and realistic manner.

The film, however, lacks pace: it is quite slow, following a kind of demonstrative, conventional narrative. It feels a bit stilted and detached at times - notwithstanding exceptional acting on the part of Owuor and Regina - perhaps because it is in German (with subtitles), or perhaps because of the somewhat stiff, Germanic way that emotions are expressed. I found it difficult to get emotionally involved in the story and its characters, finding Jettel slightly annoying in her reactions, at times, in fact. Nevertheless, it is a good movie, and a beautiful as well as an interesting film, which I certainly recommend.

The movie has been described as an epic historical drama. I expected it to be centred on the Russian Revolution of October 1917, which resulted in the Bolsheviks, led by V Lenin and L Trotsky, seizing power in Russia. (Soon, they re-named themselves 'Communists'.) In actual fact, the film really is about 2 people and their complex love affair: Jack Reed (Warren Beatty) and Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton). A 3rd character plays an important part, and that is the playwright, Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson), who is a friend of J Reed's.

All the characters in the film existed and the movie seems fairly accurate historically to me. J Reed was a left-wing activist and trade-union militant, as well as a journalist, who went to Russia at the time of the October 1917 Revolution and got swept away on a wave of enthusiasm for the Communist movement (he tried to organize a Communist Party in the USA too). L Bryant was a strong-willed, very independent woman and a left-wing feminist as well as an artist and journalist. She supported J Reed's political views.

The 1st part of the film is about their initial encounter and how they subsequently fall in love, and the stormy relationship that develops between them. (They were in favour of 'free love' and open relationships, apparently.) Incidentally, W Beatty was dating D Keaton during the shooting of the film, from what I have read. The 2nd part of the film centres on J Reed's trips to Russia and his stays there. L Bryant follows him to Russia.

The film is good but I would not call it a masterpiece. It is probably overlong (2 DVDs and a total of >3 hours), as it covers a lot of ground, but it does so well, putting forward an interesting narrative. What is odd is that testimonies by individuals who knew J Reed and L Bryant are inserted in the middle of the narrative, in the form of very short interviews, at various points in the movie, interrupting the film: I do not think I have ever seen that done before, and thought it was totally unnecessary - like some kind of running commentary. The interviewees are not named, not even in the bonus material, which is also strange.

Among them is Henry Miller, with his long, angular face: his remarks are sharp and insightful. If all the interviews had been collected and put together, with proper editing, it could, in fact, have constituted a very interesting documentary on the topic of the October 1917 Revolution in Russia. It is a shame it was not done. (To see the film in full, you need to watch both DVDs; the 'bonus material' is on the 2nd DVD.)

As much as a historical film about the rise of the Communist movement and the Russian Revolution of October 1917, it is a romantic love story about a couple struggling to make their relationship work - namely J Reed and L Bryant. In a way, the sub-text of the movie could be: 'How to make things work?' And this would apply to individual endeavours (here, a sentimental relationship) as well as collective enterprises (the nature of a Communist revolution and regime is assessed and discussed in the film). It is an interesting, insightful film and I would recommend it.

This is an unusual movie in that it is in several parts (5 in all) covering the history of the 'conquest' of the Wild West from 1839 to 1889, a 50-year period that encompasses the American Civil War. The common thread is the story of 2 sisters, Eve Prescott and her sister Lilith (Debbie Reynolds). The all-star cast includes James Stewart as Linus Rawlings, a trapper and 'mountain man' (in Part 1), Cleve Van Valen (Gregory Peck) as a professional gambler, Zeb as the son of Eve Prescott (George Peppard), ruthless railroad man Mike King (Richard Widmark), and a few more, including a cameo appearance by John Wayne as a US Army senior officer during the Civil War.

Each of the 5 stories is, in a way, a film in its own right. The movie itself is divided into 2 overall parts (there are 2 DVDs, in fact). Unusually, the various parts of the movie were directed by different directors (Henry Hathaway, John Ford...). The various parts of the film are of unequal quality and merit. The 1st part is weak in some ways, in my view, if only because James Stewart is not quite young enough to play the character that he plays in a convincing manner. The section about the Civil War (John Ford) is not very good at all and lacks coherence. Overall, the parts of the movie directed by Henry Hathaway are the best, and the 2nd half of the movie is better, in my view. George Peppard is good in the role he plays, sustaining all that section of the movie centred on the expansion of the railways across the West. What is probably the most memorable and spectacular scene relates to the railroads and is in Part 5, towards the end. If only for that section, the film is worth seeing. (I do not want to say any more so as not to spoil the plot for those reading this review who do not know the story yet.)

Despite its lack of unity and its uneven quality, it is a very good, epic western like none other, accompanied by an amazing score. All amateurs of westerns will enjoy watching it. I first saw it as a teenager, many decades ago, and enjoyed seeing it again on DVD over New Year.

This is a very good crime movie starring Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, Sean Connery as Jim Malone (the police officer who assists him), and Robert De Niro as Al Capone. It is set in 1930s Chicago, when Prohibition had created limitless opportunities for organised crime. In the film, Eliot Ness makes it his mission to take down Al Capone, whose crime syndicate has managed to infiltrate and corrupt almost every level of society and its institutions, in the city, including the police force, the judiciary and the mayor's office.

The film is fast-paced: rather than a cerebral detective story, it soon develops into an action film. De Niro, as Al Capone, is remarkable: a mixture of toxic charm and bloodthirsty ruthlessness, who arouses fear in all those around him. There are, however, some flaws in the movie. Some are minor ones, such as Sean Connery's strong Scottish accent (he is supposed to be Irish American). Besides, the story is not accurate from a historical point of view: Brian De Palma created a work of fiction loosely inspired by the historical events of 1930s Chicago. Also, the plot is somehow predictable and the characters are simplistically portrayed, in the main: Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness is one-dimensional in the extreme. The movie lacks depth and subtlety in many respects.

Having said all this, as a crime movie and a period film, it works very well. Two scenes are particularly memorable: the fight on the Canadian-US border between gangsters and law-enforcement officers, and the scene in the city's main railway station. The latter, filmed in slow motion, is simply breath-taking: it is a classic in and of itself. In that scene, the director shows his talent, his experience and his know-how - his genius, in fact. If only for that scene, which represents the climax of the story in many respects, the movie is very much worth seeing.

This is not a fiction movie but a documentary. Luke Holland, the late British filmmaker, interviewed over 300 elderly people - men and women from Germany and Austria - who, directly or indirectly, participated in the Third Reich, if only as witnesses (and if one considers that a witness is also a participant, more particularly if he or she witnesses atrocities and does nothing about it, insofar as anything could be done). Some of them took an active part in the Nazi regime: they were soldiers in the regular army (Wehrmacht) but, also, several were members of the elite corps of the SS, who were, in many ways, the backbone of the Nazi regime. Among the SS soldiers, some were officers and some were camp guards, guarding concentration and extermination camps where Jews and other inmates were worked to death and murdered. Others were farmers, local villagers, tradesmen, etc.

The 1st part of the film shows the level of indoctrination of the youth by the regime, which also explains what followed: from an early age, children and then teenagers (from the age of 10 or so) were enrolled in Nazi youth organisations (such as the Hitler Youth, from age 14). The aim was to brainwash them into being good Nazis and, for the boys, eager soldiers.

Of course, the key questions are asked, sooner or later, in the interviews. What did the interviewee know and what did he or she do? Did the interviewee take part in any atrocities? Did the interviewee know that atrocities were being committed all the time by the Nazi regime? Why did no one try to stop the Nazi killing machine, or hardly anyone, out of the millions of Germans who lived at the time - many of whom undoubtedly supported the regime?

This is, of course, the issue of guilt and responsibility: at what point does a witness become complicit in what he or she witnesses; and at what point does one become a perpetrator? These are tricky questions. Some of the interviewees are quite aware that they may be considered complicit in the crimes of the Third Reich, or even direct perpetrators. One in particular expresses profound shame. Others are more ambivalent. A couple are in complete denial: on the contrary, they are still "proud" to have served the Fatherland and to have been part of an elite military unit, the SS.

We hear the familiar denials, to the effect that many of the witnesses argue that they did not know what was going on (especially, in the extermination camps) and, of course, they did not take part. But it turns out many of them were involved, directly or not, like the female bookkeeper who is interviewed. It is clear that most of the interviewees, apart from the few who are in complete denial, know, deep down, that they will carry the guilt and shame for what happened to their grave. As one interviewee puts it, he would not be a "perpetrator" if he had said "no", but he never said "no": like other people, he "went along" with what was going on.

What is unusual is that Luke Holland managed to make a film about the Third Reich and the Holocaust as seen through German eyes, as he succeeded in getting elderly Germans to talk about what they saw and what they did at the time. There are some truly chilling moments, such as the scene in school, today, where you realize that some young Germans do not understand at all what happened under Nazism...

A very interesting documentary.

This is an interesting US film that covers the way in which the American print media revealed the secret plans of the US government in connection with the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and early 1970s. More particularly, the film is about leaked confidential government reports that were published in The Washington Post c.1971. So, the film covers developments in great detail at the newspaper, sending us back to an era when the press had greater power - an era before social media and the internet.

The movie is very good at re-creating the atmosphere at the time, and at explaining to us the way in which the press worked (and still works), including political and financial constraints that it operates under. Meryl Streep, as the owner of the Washington Post, is truly excellent: her subtle acting underpins the entire story and shines right through the film; it makes you realize what a great actress she is.

Having said all this, the film is somehow a little bit predictable: it is made and delivered in an old-fashioned, very traditional narrative style - rather conventional, somehow. So, it is a good, stolid movie, rather than a masterpiece, in my view. I would still recommend it and enjoyed watching it.

Armageddon Time is a typical coming-of-age social drama, set in 1980, in Queens (in New York City). The central character is a young Jewish teenager and his African-American friend, who have met at the local state school. Paul Graff, a Jewish boy, befriends Johnny, a black kid. Paul comes from a middle-class family and is close to his maternal grandfather, Aaron (Anthony Hopkins). The family is not wealthy, but far better off than Johnny's. Johnny comes from a poor, broken home; he lives with his grandmother, who is ill. Johnny gets in trouble at school: he is a disruptive pupil and the teacher picks on him, presumably out of racially motivated prejudice, because Johnny is black.

The movie is about the 2 boys' friendship, and how Paul's family responds to the situation. Reality, in its harsh and unforgiving nature, soon encroaches on the 2 boys' innocent friendship. The film is good and sensitive in every respect. However, I found it not only plausible and realistic; I also found it highly predictable. Nothing happens along the way that surprises you: it is a good film, worth watching, but hardly an earth-shattering masterpiece, contrary to what some reviewers have claimed, in my view.

Al-Azhar is both a university and a religious seminary training future imams. It is the country's most prestigious and influential Islamic institution, and probably the most highly respected Islamic institution in the Sunni world. As a result, whatever takes place at Al-Azhar is relevant to the government of Egypt and has political ramifications. The process through which the head of the university, the Grand Imam, is chosen, is fairly opaque and open to manipulation - think of the Vatican and the way that the Pope is appointed.

At the start of the film, Adam, the son of a poor fisherman, is a talented student of the Koran; he is offered a place to study at Al-Azhar University, in Cairo. Shortly after his arrival, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar suddenly dies and a power struggle to replace him ensues - not only theological, but also political. The Egyptian government wants to do all it can to prevent the next Grand Imam being close to the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist movement.

Adam, the innocent boy from the fishing village, finds himself caught up in the drama of the Grand Imam's appointment, to his bewilderment. The film develops from there. It is fascinating: a masterpiece of a thriller set in the unlikely environment of an Islamic university-cum-seminary. It is a must-see.

Carl, a fashion model, and Yaya, a social-media influencer who also works as a model, are a couple. The initial scene in the movie, centred on an argument around who is going to pick up the bill, after their dinner in a posh restaurant, will make you squirm with discomfort, but is, in itself, a little masterpiece of sarcastic social observation. This is, as it were, the hors d'oeuvre in what is an original satirical drama - and a satire where food plays a significant part.

Carl and Yaya are invited on a luxury cruise aboard a superyacht in exchange for promoting the trip on social media. From that point onwards, things start going badly wrong all round. The film shows, in a critical and sarcastic light, the interaction between the various characters. The dominant themes are obvious enough, as they interplay with each other: power, wealth, greed, relations between social classes, the meaning of work, relations between the sexes, race-based prejudices that can affect the way that people interact with each other, sentimental relationships, sex, jealousy, stereotypes (also, gender-based), and the impact of the consumer society as well as social media on the behaviour of individuals.

The movie does not glorify any of the things and people it describes: quite the opposite. It is a cruel depiction of Western society, today, essentially. There is a lot of humour in the movie, but it is not easy-to-consume humour. The film touches upon many complex issues and dissects them in a very perceptive manner. It is an excellent film, in my view, which some reviewers appear to have misunderstood, in terms of its meaning. It is both profound and entertaining, which is quite rare. All the actors and actresses are very good; it is sad that the lead actress, Charibi Dean (Yaya), should have died so young, shortly after the completion of the movie.

The film is set in Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, in the 1950s. Two sisters, who are very close, Guida and Euridice, have their dreams as to what their lives are going to be. Guida, who is rebellious, falls in love with a Greek sailor. For her part, Euridice wants to become a classical pianist and to study as well as perform in Vienna, in Austria. The piano is her passion. Their family is a traditional Catholic family. The father, who is Portuguese, believes in traditional and conservative family values.

What is at the heart of the movie is, ultimately, the structure of the patriarchy in a Latin American country, 70 years ago, but similar conditions could have been found in Spain or Italy at the time - and, sometimes, still prevail up to today included. The dreams and wishes of the 2 sisters - reasonable and thought-through or not - are up against the family structure, the father's views, and the conventions of the time. Inevitably, this leads to tensions and drama.

There is no point pretending that the film is a happy tale, even though there are many happy moments depicted in it, and many uplifting characters. The weight of the social repression and the cultural norms is stifling, from start to finish. The film is never of a militant nature, however: it is a vast fresco, as it were, spanning generations, contrasting the life of the poor with the lifestyle of the middle class. Indeed, class issues and notions of social status also underpin many of the twists in the story.

It is a long film. At times, it is tough to watch. There are some startling and graphic scenes, which can be raw (also of a sexual nature), including one close-up you will not forget, I suspect (and would never expect in such a film if it were British or American!). There is a lot of humour too. The film is about life, its highs and lows, and the relationship between the 2 sisters. The story is not that original and the movie develops in a classic sort of way. But it is a beautiful - and sad - film, and a significant one. It deserves the praise it has received.

The film takes place in California in the early 1990s and is about the movie business in Hollywood. Wikipedia describes it as "a satirical black comedy". Undoubtedly, there is an element of strong satire: Robert Altman, as a leading director in America, was an insider, and he gives us a fairly devastating picture of 'creatives' and business people in Hollywood, who, ultimately, are not producing 'art' (as they would sometimes like to pretend) but products (intended to make them a lot of money and to boost their careers). Most of the characters are cynical, greedy and without scruples. On the other hand, is it a "black comedy"? I suppose it depends what one calls a "black comedy". Funny overall, it is not, in my view, although there are funny incidents and situations, and comical characters (but, after all, you get that in real life too). The other aspect of the story is that it is a thriller, but not a thriller that is developed to any degree, in my opinion. In the last analysis, it is a social drama about the American movie industry on the West Coast of the USA.

The central character is a film producer: Griffin Mill (Tim Robbins) is a Hollywood studio executive. His job is to sift through hundreds of scripts of films that he receives (presented as 'pitches'): his company only produces a dozen feature films per year. Many scripts, inevitably, are rejected. In the process, G Mill has made many enemies. G Mill has been receiving death threats, scribbled on postcards addressed to him; he assumes they are being sent by a disgruntled and bitter screenwriter whose "pitch" he will have rejected. Added to this, there is an element of corporate intrigue (within the film studio he works for) and an encounter with a female artist (Greta Scacchi as June Gudmundsdottir). The story develops from here, while G Mill is trying to establish who the person sending him the poison-pen postcards (and faxes) is.

The film is good, but it not the masterpiece we could have expected from R Altman, in my view. I found that it has a range of flaws that prevent it from quite having the impact you would have hoped for. First of all, the film is self-indulgent, self-aware and narcissistic, inevitably, to a certain extent: it is a film about making movies and, despite the element of satire, you can tell all the people featured in the film (in the film and in real life!) are quite pleased with themselves and with their positions in an exciting industry. The movie probably features the longest list of cameos involving film stars ever put together, as Hollywood celebrities agreed to pop in as extras at R Altman's request, as he knew everybody in Hollywood - among them Cher, sporting a striking red dress. Second, there is something a bit superficial about the story and its development; in a way, the funny moments deflate the tension and tend to break the pace of the story: they make it more difficult to take certain incidents seriously, as it were. Third, in my view, the character played by G Scacchi, who is an excellent actress, is a blank page: we hardly know anything about her, beyond the fact she is a good-looking artist from outside the USA. This weakens the plot. Fourth, I found the ending a bit of an anti-climax, but I cannot say anymore than that, obviously.

In conclusion, it is a good film and I enjoyed watching it; I would recommend it. But it is not as good as it could have been, or as most reviewers claim: it is a bit shallow, somehow, but, perhaps, this is something R Altman wanted to show, precisely, i.e. that this is what the film industry ultimately is. Compare it to "Once upon a time in Hollywood" (2019), which is, in my opinion, far superior.

In 1956 Chicago, Leonard Burling (a remarkable Mark Rylance) is an English tailor (he insists on being called a 'cutter') who runs a bespoke tailor shop in a neighbourhood of the city that is under the control of a local Irish Mob boss, Roy Boyle. Roy's son is also his second-in-command, Richie, and is assisted by Francis, a henchman. The gang uses the tailor shop as a drop point where, all day, brown envelopes containing dirty money and instructions as well as secret communications are left in a locked box by gang members. L Burling turns a blind eye, as he finds himself under the gang's protection and its members, who enjoy wearing well-cut suits, are among his best customers.

Without going into details that would spoil the story for readers of this review, it can only be said that, shortly after the start of the movie, a string of events take place, which mean that matters soon become very complicated and this cosy setup collapses, dragging the tailor into the gang's concerns beyond anything he wanted. In the process, we learn more about him and his enigmatic past.

The film is very well put together. It is an intense psychological thriller, almost structured in the manner of a play, in fact. At the centre of it is Mark Rylance as Leonard Burling, the quiet and meticulous tailor, whose exceptionally good performance carries the film through. There may be some rather implausible twists and turns in the story but, overall, the movie works very well. What is noticeable, apart from the elegant and intelligent way that it is made, is the fact the plot never quite goes in the direction you expected: there are surprises at every turn.

A very good film, in my opinion.

This is the story of Tae-yul, the best swordsman in the Korean Kingdom of Joseon, who serves King Gwanghaegun as his bodyguard. He refuses to join a rebellion to remove the king from power and ends up in self-imposed exile. Years later, he lives in a house on a wooded mountain side with his daughter, who is, by then, a teenager. The story develops from there.

The Kingdom of Joseon lasted for 500 years, from 1392 AD. The story takes place in the 1620s/1640s, when the Kingdom of Joseon had become, in effect, a vassal state of China, i.e. retained a measure of independence but answered (and paid tribute) to the Qing dynasty of China. (The Qing dynasty seized control of Beijing in 1644.) In the film, Joseon suffers at the hands of Gurutai, a ruthless and cruel relative of the Qing emperor. Gurutai has become rich thanks to the slave trade; he started enslaving and selling captives during the recent Qing invasion of Joseon. Gurutai works with the feared Hwangdang slave traders. The authorities of Joseon are afraid to take them on and they, in effect, terrorize the local population. [The Qing dynasty was of Manchu origin, i.e. from Manchuria, and, in the film, reference is also made to the Ming dynasty: this was the purely Han Chinese dynasty that preceded the Qing dynasty. In the movie, the elite of the Kingdom of Joseon is divided between its historical allegiance to the Ming, and submission to the newly arrived Qing, as well as its desire to assert the independence of Joseon.]

The film is well-made in my opinion. Beyond the historical context, which can be confusing if you are not familiar with Korean history, the plot is actually quite simple (I don't want to spoilt it by discussing it), going from period film to action movie, as it were. The fight scenes are excellent and, at times, breath-taking, with that combination of swordsmanship and martial arts that is typical of the Far East. One large-scale fight is clearly implausible in the way that it develops, but the film is enjoyable overall. As far as that kind of movie is concerned and within the parameters of the genre, it is a good film.

The film is a classic of the genre, in the sense that it is conventionally and scrupulously made: it is a war film about intelligence work, focused on WWII, and does not try to innovate in any way. In that sense, it could be criticized for its lack of ambition but, given the story it intends to tell, which is extraordinary in and of itself, and as it manages to tell that story well and faithfully, I think the movie works, and works well.

Operation Mincemeat was put in place by British intelligence in tandem with the military in order to deceive the Germans: the aim was to make the Nazis believe, in 1943, that the Allies would attempt a large-scale landing of Allied troops in Greece, so that the Germans would reinforce their defences and troop levels in Greece when, in actual fact, the Allies intended to land a large force in Sicily, with a view to liberating Italy. (Indeed, the invasion of Sicily followed.) Central to the Mincemeat hoax was a dead body that was to wash up on a Spanish beach - Spain was officially neutral during WWII but full of German and other spies. The dead body, notionally that of a Royal Marines officer, would carry - fake - confidential documents pointing to an imminent Allied invasion of Greece. The Germans were meant to find the body or, at the very least, be given the documents by the Spanish authorities. Operation Mincemeat was, in many ways, far-fetched and implausible, and yet it was rolled out quickly.

The film is very good in that it shows in detail how the fake story of the Royal Marines officer, Major William Martin, was put together, step by step, by British intelligence, and how difficult to implement on so many levels the plan was. The acting is very good, with some first-class actors such as Jason Isaacs and Colin Firth, among others. Supporting roles are very good too: the drunken Scottish racing driver, who really existed, is excellent, for instance. The atmosphere of war-time London is reconstituted very well and feels real.

The film works very well but is not, however, a masterpiece. At times, it plods along a little bit, although it is never boring, in my view. Also, some secondary sub-plots have been inserted into the main narrative in order to spice it up, such as the part played by Jean Leslie, and this distracts from the main storyline, but it also enhances it in other ways. Overall, I would recommend the film and feel it is a very good movie. I want to see 'The Man Who Never Was', now, the 1956 film that 'Mincemeat' is a remake of, which I have never seen. I feel it might be as good as 'Mincemeat', and perhaps better, in fact.