Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

'Rebellion' (in French: 'L'Ordre et la Morale') is a 2011 French historical film and political drama directed by Mathieu Kassovitz, who also stars in the lead role. It is based on true events that took place in the French overseas territory of New Caledonia, in the Pacific, in 1988 (it was filmed in Tahiti, in French Polynesia). The movie presents a dramatized version of the hostage taking that took place at the Ouvéa cave: 4 policemen (gendarmes) were murdered by Kanak separatists and 30 more were taken hostage. The Kanaks are the indigenous, Melanesian population of New Caledonia, and there has been discontent with French rule for many years among them. In the face of this major crisis in the territory, the French government sent out the élite police unit known as GIGN, made up of highly trained gendarmes, to go and deal with the situation. The GIGN unit flies in from France, headed by Captain Philippe Legorjus (Mathieu Kassovitz): he wants to negotiate with the group's leader, Alphonse Dianou, and only use force to free the hostages as a last resort. In parallel, the French authorities deploy 300 French troops, who are ready to intervene and crush the attempted separatist uprising.

The film is quite subtle in that it shows the interplay between military leaders and the gendarmerie officers, whose approach is different and less brutal; also, it puts in perspective the role of officials and politicians, and how the military and police personnel on the ground find themselves under pressure to get results quickly. The Kanaks, meanwhile, unwittingly risk becoming pawns in a game that is bigger than they are. It should be pointed out that what happened in 1988 has never been clarified fully and remains controversial in France and New Caledonia. It would appear that the movie has taken on board the interpretation of events put forward by Captain P Legorjus once the drama had come to its conclusion: this interpretation is disputed in many quarters in mainland France, but also in New Caledonia, it would appear.

Having said all this, it is an excellent film, in the great French tradition of political thrillers with plots and sub-plots, when all is not what it seems. There is no gratuitous and glorified violence in the film: it feels realistic and very real. It is no surprise it caused great controversy in France, when it came out: as denunciations of colonialism and neo-colonialism go, this is hard-hitting, explicit and graphic.

Johan Westlund (or JW) is a business-school student in Stockholm who moves about in upper-class circles. He comes from the north of the country and a fairly ordinary middle-class family, but he likes to pretend he has money and pays a lot of attention to his appearance (particularly the way that he dresses). He enjoys the upmarket parties and weekends away that he gets invited to. But he needs money, and his part-time job as a taxi driver is not enough. When Abdelkarim, an Arab man who runs the taxi firm JW works part-time for, offers him a well-paid one-off job, JW agrees. This leads him into dangerous territory, involving organized crime - Middle Eastern drug traffickers who are in league with Albanian and Latin American crime syndicates. The situation is further complicated due to the fact an ultra-violent, local Serbian gang wants its cut of the flow of illegal drugs and is prepared to do anything to get it.

This could be yet another thriller but it is much more than that. It does have all the ingredients of the Scandinavian thriller genre: tension, suspense, violence, manipulation, misgivings, calculations and surprises. But it also has strong, complex and interesting characters: the men featured in the story all have their dreams, and dream of getting out of a life of crime. They feel real and are portrayed in an intelligent way. What is also very interesting is the depiction of Swedish society: it clearly is a class society (not dissimilar to England, in fact), with 'old money' and a traditional Swedish upper-class at the top, not devoid of arrogance and a sense of entitlement, the lower orders of society further down and, finally, ethnic minorities - from the Middle East or the Balkans - at the margins. At the centre of this stratified, pyramidal structure is JW: all the social contradictions and conflicting dreams that form the background to the movie are concentrated in this smart, cynical young Swede, who dreams of money, success, recognition and dating beautiful upper-class girls. To get all of this quickly, he is prepared to do anything, and yet, he clings on to a sense of decency that gets repeatedly challenged by the circumstances. But there is no 'easy money' to be had, and there is a price to pay when you take short-cuts.

Overall, this is an excellent, fast-paced film, within the parameters of the 'noir' genre, but it goes beyond the obvious and presents a dark story that has depth, which I found captivating.

In November 1984, Marko Ramius (Sean Connery), an officer in the Soviet navy, is given command of a new ballistic missile submarine called 'Red October'. It is equipped with a 'caterpillar drive', making it undetectable to existing sonar systems. Ostensibly, Ramius leaves port to conduct exercises with other elements of the Soviet navy in the North Atlantic, but the submarine soon goes rogue. No one knows for sure what Ramius's intentions are. Has he gone insane and does he intend to attack the USA? Or does he intend to defect to the US side? Both the Americans and the Soviets are frantically looking for the super-advanced submarine.

This Cold War story may have felt rather dated only a few years ago but it must be recognised that, in 2023 (as I am writing this), it feels more topical than ever, with Russia being pitted against NATO over the future of the Ukraine... This is the kind of submarine cat-and-mouse game that we have seen before, but with various twists along the way. The lead actors are good, including Alec Baldwin as a CIA intelligence analyst, and there is plenty of suspense right through the movie. The film is generally good and entertaining. However, I have seen other such films that are far superior. 'Das Boot', for instance, is in a different category altogether.

Overall, I found 'The Hunt for Red October' ultimately too implausible for the story to genuinely grab me. (There is also the issue of language, with Russian and English alternating among the Soviet naval personnel to lend credibility to the story without having to use subtitling, and it only half-works: Captain Ramius is supposed to be Lithuanian and speaks English with, well, a strong Scottish accent.) So, it is a good film, but not an essential one.

This is a somewhat strange and enigmatic film. I think it is partly due to the cultural factor: it is a South Korean film, with subtitles. There is quite a bit of humour here and there, even though the film mostly is a kind of romantic thriller, or a Korean neo-noir, if you like. But the humour appears based on puns and language-related confusions, at times, and the sub-titles are clearly struggling to render the plays on words. This is a significant aspect of the story, as the lead female character (the femme fatale) is Chinese-born, and claims to have problems expressing herself in Korean.

Having said all this, it is a good and interesting film, even though I do not feel it is the masterpiece some have claimed, and I have seen other South Korean romantic thrillers of this kind that were far more compelling. The storyline is centred on the married police detective: while investigating the Chinese-born woman, who is suspected of having murdered her husband, he falls in love with her and becomes obsessed with her. The rest follows. His fascination is partly personal (he is besotted with her), and partly professional (he wants to establish whether she is guilty or not) - the two presenting a difficult contradiction he has to manage.

Ostensibly, the film is about the relationship between the 2 of them, and about her. However, I found it is mostly about him and his situation, and his obsession with her. She remains a little bit of a blank page. Her motivations, more particularly, for doing what she does or is accused of having done, are never really clear. I also found the chemistry between the 2 of them unconvincing. More particularly, despite being supposed to be your average tough cop, he does not look charismatic at all to me; on the contrary, he is a bit dull in many ways. So, there is that unconvincing core at the centre of the story, and I found it difficult to truly feel involved, but this may also be due to the cultural differences I have referred to, above.

I still recommend the film: it is an intelligent and interesting film, albeit overlong.

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.