Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

This is the story of the last duel of the medieval period in France (1386) that took place between 2 noblemen from Normandy (in France): Matt Damon as Sir Jean de Carrouges and Adam Driver as Jacques Le Gris. At the start, the 2 men are friends who take part in various battles of the Hundred Years' War between England and France on the side of the French king. However, over time, they fall out and become enemies: Jean de Carrouges feels that Jacques Le Gris has been unduly rewarded (with land holdings and an official position) at his expense. The last straw is when Jean de Carrouges' wife, Jodie Comer as Marguerite de Carrouges, accuses Le Gris of having raped her. Le Gris denies it. De Carrouges challenges him to a judicial duel. The duel is sanctioned by the king and actually happened (the whole story is true): it is very well documented. The idea was that, whoever survived the fight to the death would have told the truth before God, hence the other one was a liar, was guilty and deserved to die.

The film is very good mostly, in my opinion, on 2 levels. First of all, it re-creates the atmosphere, culture, hierarchies and mores of the Middle Ages in a way that seems quite accurate and realistic to me. This is quite rare for a big-budget movie like this. Second, the acting is extremely good - more particularly that of Matt Damon, as the humiliated husband who wants revenge, and Jodie Comer, as the wife who wants justice. (Incidentally, her part is far from minor in the film, and neither is her point of view with regard to the whole story, contrary to what some reviewers have written.) On this basis, the film could easily have been outstanding.

Unfortunately, there are several flaws in the way that the story is presented. The main one, as pointed out by other contributors on this site, is that the story is presented in 4 parts: the story as told from the husband's point of view; as told from the defendant's point of view; and as told from the wife's point of view; with, finally, the fight between Le Gris and his accuser (which is part of Chapter 3). This makes the story repetitive and, almost, over time, tedious. It feels laborious and contrived. It is a huge and incomprehensible mistake that Ridley Scott made, because it slows down the film in a terrible way and kills the pace of the story to a large extent. The other thing it does is make the film longer than it needs to be, at 2 1/2 hours. Finally, the story takes place in France but the characters speak with a mixture of English and American accents, which does feel weird at times!

Still, the initial presentation of the story and of the characters, at the beginning, and the last 45 mins or so, including the breathtaking duel at the end, are exceptionally good. Of the 3 versions of the story, that presented by the wife is, in fact, overall, the most interesting, credible and moving. So, on balance, I do recommend the film, but one can only regret the format chosen by the director. Without this bizarre choice, the movie could have been a masterpiece.

If you want to read up on the true story, do so after watching the film. Here, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Carrouges

The film takes place in the early 1940s, in the British colony of Kenya. The focus is on a community of privileged and decadent British aristocrats, who live in the area known as Happy Valley. Sir Henry "Jock" Delves Broughton, 11th Baronet, a businessman in his late fifties who has invested in a large farm in the region, joins his fellow British settlers, accompanied by his stunningly beautiful young wife, Diana (played by Greta Scacchi). The story develops from there.

It is a captivating and interesting film, which succeeds in reconstituting extremely well the toxic and claustrophobic colonial atmosphere prevailing at the time in East Africa: it is Kenya during WWII but it could be anywhere in British-ruled Africa c.1880. The tensions and dramas that characterize the movie are purely internal to the European community: the Africans are relegated to the role of servants, chauffeurs, and so on - an accurate depiction of conditions at the time.

Greta Scacchi was at the height of her amazing beauty when the film was made and her acting is also excellent: she is at the centre of the film and carries the whole story through. Diana - the character she plays - comes from outside and her presence in Happy Valley triggers what can only be described as an emotional, psychological, sexual and social earthquake in the close-knit British community. So, the story is, ultimately, about her and the impact she has on people around her - more particularly on the white men who have fallen for her.

This is a very good film, almost melodramatic in some respects, and yet, it is based on a completely true story which you can read about on Wikipedia after watching the movie. (The film is generally faithful to the historical events as they are known, so, you should not read about them before watching the film.)

During the Napoleonic Wars, in the early 19th century, Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe) of HMS Surprise is under orders to intercept the frigate, Acheron, a French privateer. Acheron is a heavier ship than HMS Surprise. The game of cat and mouse between the 2 ships takes place over a period of many weeks, around South America, from the coast of Brazil to the Galapagos Islands.

The film is excellent in every respect, in my opinion. The acting is uniformly good and convincing, and the story line is structured well and convincingly. I am not a specialist of the period and naval warfare in the early part of the 19th century, but my impression is that the reconstitution of conditions on board naval ships at the time, and the way that naval battles were fought, is remarkably detailed, accurate and realistic. When watching the film, you really feel that you are on that warship c. 1805. The movie also re-creates the iron hierarchy that exists on a ship very well, showing us very clearly the huge gap between ordinary seamen and officers. The battle scenes are breathtaking and spectacular. None of it ever feels contrived or fake.

Overall, I would say this is a fascinating film if you like this kind of movie. It seems to me that it is a tour de force, if one is going to use a French phrase. You will not be disappointed.

The film tells the true story of a British businessman, Greville Wynne, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, who helped MI6 gather information on the Soviet nuclear programme during the Cold War, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) and the run-up to it. B Cumberbatch is the central character and is truly excellent in the part of the seemingly clueless salesman who tries to do his best, and do what is right, come what may.

Overall, the film is very good and comes across as very realistic. The way that the story is told is restrained and there are no (or very few) 'fireworks'. But it works, given the nature of the story and G Wynne's demeanour and background. In the last analysis, the movie is about the friendship that develops gradually between G Wynne and his Soviet contact, against all the odds.

This is not a spectacular film, in the sense that mainstream spy movies (starting with the James Bond films) may be. There is a certain dramatic tension that is, somehow, lacking, which is odd, given the nature of the story; this, somehow, prevents the film from being truly great. It is almost too restrained. However, I would certainly recommend it. What is fascinating is, of course, how G Wynne, the ultimate Mr Average, copes with the situation he finds himself dragged into.

In the early 1980s, Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage), the eldest son of a family of refugees from the Ukraine, is a drifter without much hope of a better future, in Brighton Beach, a grim suburb of New York. Then, he decides to try his luck, with the assistance of his brother, as an arms dealer. He soon realises that the big money is to be made overseas, more particularly in Africa. There is a seemingly unlimited supply of weapons coming out the former USSR, after its collapse in the early 1990s.

The film shows the career progression of Y Orlov, who comes across all manner of shady and/or sadistic individuals in the process, and is basically unfazed by it all. In the process, he picks up a glamorous wife. He is successful. What grips you is the depiction of the central characters, and Nicolas Cage is excellent in the way he plays the part of the merchant of death, devoid of any scruples.

The movie is not a thriller in the conventional sense at all, but it is still full of suspense and riveting. It deconstructs the way that the arms trade works in an insightful manner, without ever being boring or demonstrative. There are also many funny moments: not because the film tries to be funny (and there are also many tragic incidents), but because the entire plot is surreal, and yet entirely plausible.

This is an excellent film that would deserve to be better known and more widely appreciated. In some ways, it is a classic, or should be.

This is a good thriller starring Harrison Ford as a prosecutor ('Rusty' Sabich) in a big American city (which I took to be on the East Coast, but I don't think it is made clear where). When a colleague, Carolyn Polhemus (played by a stunning Greta Scacchi), is found dead in her flat - she has been raped and killed - Rusty Sabich is put in charge of the investigation. We soon learn that he had a torrid affair with Carolyn Polhemus at one stage. The story develops from that point onwards, in the manner of a classic thriller, as Rusty Sabich becomes the focus of the investigation into his colleague's murder.

The well-constructed plot is interesting and the ending unexpected. The acting is good or very good, while the atmosphere is suitably tense and suspenseful. Overall, it certainly is a good film, but it is not a masterpiece, probably because it is a bit too formulaic. There is also something slightly implausible about various aspects of the ending, in my view: some details are not entirely logical or consistent in my opinion, but I will not discuss them here, so as not to spoil the story. Inevitably, court proceedings represent an important part of the film, in that great American tradition: this is fine and it works well, but it felt a bit like Jury Service, as I happen to have been called for Jury Service twice in my life, and most recently over the summer, in Greater London where I live (i.e. 3 months ago)!

In conclusion, I recommend the film, more particularly if you like thrillers. You will not be disappointed.

In 1938, Geoffrey Firmin (Albert Finney) is a former British consul to Mexico, who lives in a small town in the country. His wife, Yvonne (a radiantly beautiful Jacqueline Bisset), has deserted him for a year and he is depressed. He spends all his time drinking to drown his sorrows and his feeling of failure: he seems to be on a perpetual bar crawl across town. The story line develops from there.

It is a good film in many ways, which re-creates the atmosphere of 1930s provincial Mexico very well, although it feels a bit like a tourist brochure at times. Much of the acting is very good - Albert Finney is at the centre of the film and is a convincing drunkard. The last 20 mins of the film are memorable. But there is something unsatisfactory and annoying about the movie. For a start, G Firmin is a repellent character in many ways: he feels sorry for himself and is egotistical in the extreme, pretending to lead a tragic existence when he is merely pathetic. Some of the dialogues feel contrived, with vaguely pseudo-romantic views of the world, but this does fit in with the historical period, in some ways. Mostly, not that much actually happens until the climax, i.e. the last 20 to 30 mins.

The film is about 2 hours long and quite slow: we mostly watch G Firmin, the central character, drinking, getting drunk, eating, talking, pontificating, drinking some more, and walking about. In some respects, I felt I was watching a play rather than a film, or a play that had been filmed rather than a novel that had been adapted to the silver screen. This has probably to do with the theatrical way that G Firmin, the lead character, expresses himself, which is largely deliberate in terms of the story. G Firmin, his misfortunes and the story around him felt more typical of the 19th century than of the 20th, to me: this is Mexico before 1940 but it could be Spain c.1830.

An interesting film based on an interesting novel, but not a masterpiece, in my view, but still worth seeing, if only for the last 30 mins. It takes a certain stamina to get there, however.

The film is about the 1902 court martial of 3 officers under British command in the Second Anglo-Boer War: lieutenants Harry Morant, Peter Handcock and George Witton. The 3 officers are accused of war crimes; they are Australians serving in the British Army. Morant, Handcock, and Witton stand accused of murdering captured Boer fighters and a German missionary in the Northern Transvaal. The facts of the case are presented in flashbacks. As a result, such scenes alternate with developments in the court martial, which follows, itself, the classical format of a court case.

A wide range of issues are touched upon in the movie. What is a war crime? What if officers were merely following orders? Could they avoid doing what they did? This may all sound dry and even academic, but the movie is constructed in such a way that it never feels that way at all. There are many striking battle scenes inserted in the narrative too.

Overall, this is a remarkably good film, which grips the viewer from beginning to end. It reconstitutes the context - Britain's imperial expansion across Southern Africa in the early 20th century - extremely well, and the characters feel very real and, in fact, very modern. I recommend this historical drama, which dwells on a dark page of British colonial history that is well-known in Australia, but not in Britain.

[I had problems with the DVD. I have informed Cinema Paradiso. It may have to do with the way it was recorded.]

As most J Bond films, this is good entertainment, but the plot is both implausible and predictable, and the story a bit shallow. D Craig is an ageing Bond brought out of semi-retirement in order to save the world. There are plenty of action scenes and pyrotechnics, and that is about it.

J Bond is a faithful lover who does not even think of sleeping around: even Ana de Armas is unable to lead him astray (and, in fact, shows little interest in him)! J Bond's romantic focus is Lea Seydoux, who has a tendency to look as if she has been sucking on bitter lemons for the past few days and is not enjoying any of it. When J Bond is brought out of retirement, he realizes that a new '007' has been appointed: Nomi (black British actress Lashana Lynch). So, we have a bit of virtue signalling thrown in for good measure: the ageing, straight white man is due to be replaced by a robust and super-fit black woman. (There is no indication, sadly, of her sexual preferences, however.)

This is a James Bond for the politically correct 21st century, without too many surprises, except one, towards the end, that one will not reveal. If you like Bond films, you will enjoy this one too. It is not bad, but it is not outstanding either, somehow.

This film, which has become a controversial classic in France, gives a unique insight into what things were like in wartime France, while the country was occupied by the Nazis. Lucien Lacombe, in the movie, is a teenager of peasant stock, who comes from a small village. He hesitates between joining the Resistance movement, close to the Communists, or collaborationist circles, and the paramilitary police that works closely with the German authorities, including the Gestapo.

What the film shows, and which shocked people in France so much at the time (and even since), is that some people joined one side or the other out of ideological convictions, but many may have done so due to circumstance and out of opportunism more than anything else. In the movie, things are not clear-cut: there are many grey areas and guilt is not black and white. Having said that, many of the individuals who worked for the so-called French Gestapo (la Carlingue) were indeed gangsters and criminals, who saw the Occupation of France as a golden opportunity to do business. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlingue)

The way that collaborationist circles are portrayed is unforgiving and very realistic: to say that the director was trying to defend Vichy France, as some commentators have done, is clearly absurd and unjustified.

The film is very good. It works from start to finish, with excellent acting, among other things. It has not aged at all, by which I mean the style of the narrative still feels fresh and immediate. Even if you are not particularly interested in period films and in history as such, I strongly recommend this disturbing historical drama.

This is a very good western. The story is of the kind we have come to expect: a desire for revenge on the part of the main character, following the murder of a family member. What is unusual, in terms of the typical Wild West storyline, is that the heroine is a girl, and a very young girl at that: a young teenager (age, 15, played by Hailee Steinfeld, remarkable), who decides, with steely determination, to avenge her father. In order to hunt down her father's killer, she needs help. Enter an unlikely duo: a Texas Ranger, who is a bit of a fool in some ways (Matt Damon), and a local marshal (Jeff Bridges), who is a one-eyed, ageing drunkard.

There are many funny moments but it does not detract, in my view, from the interest of the film, and does not undermine the narrative; it feels more realistic for it, giving a certain texture and authenticity to the story. The dialogues are quick-witted and amusing. However, that is also where there is a major problem: Jeff Bridges is very difficult to understand, as pointed out by several reviewers. I watched the film without the subtitles, but there is no doubt that I missed a lot of the repartees. This is a pity.

Overall, I recommend this film to anyone who has any interest in the genre of the western. It is memorable and enjoyable.

Successful but lonely investment banker Nicholas Van Orton (Michael Douglas), who is based in San Francisco, is about to turn 48. For Nicholas's 48th birthday, Conrad, his brother (Sean Penn), presents him with a gift: a voucher allowing Nicholas to take part in a game offered by a company going by the name of Consumer Recreation Services (CRS). Hesitant at first, Nicholas decides to play the game; he is told it will change his life.

What follows is a thriller-like storyline that is full of unexpected twists and turns. Although implausible in many respects, the story is still utterly fascinating, as you wonder where the game is going to take Nicholas next. And the game in question plays on raw emotions in a way that can be rather cruel at times. What is the game about? What (and who) is part of it, and what (and who) isn't? What is the aim of the game? When will it end?

Without ever indulging in philosophizing, the movie asks deeper questions, if only indirectly. Is life itself a game? Who is acting, and who isn't? Who is reliable in that game? What are the rules, if any? Where does the game end and 'reality' begin? Isn't the reality of the game as real as life itself? The film will keep you guessing to the end. In this respect, it is highly successful and highly unusual. It is not predictable. It will surprise you and confuse you, just like the game that Nicholas Van Orton is playing.

Centred primarily on the character played by Michael Douglas, this is a truly excellent film. Michael Douglas' outstanding acting makes all of it highly believable while you are watching the movie: just like him, you are caught up in the game. Within the parameters that it sets itself, this film is a masterpiece.

During a heatwave in Florida, a local lawyer, Ned Racine (William Hurt), meets Matty Walker (Kathleen Turner). The lawyer is not very good at his job and is an unrepentant womanizer. He is struck by the beauty of Matty Walker - a rich, mysterious and seemingly lonely woman, who lives in a mansion by the coast. N Racine becomes obsessed with her.

The film has been described as neo-noir in that it is in the style of the noir thrillers of the 1940s: in the movie, which launched her career at the time, K Turner is stunningly attractive, oozing sex appeal, and her classy beauty is in the style of Lauren Bacall. The way she dresses is elegant and her hairstyle is that of L Bacall in the iconic photos you can find on the internet of the actress.

The film was made in 1981, but it almost feels like the 1950s. At the same time, the story is not dated at all: the plot works every step of the way, without implausible complications or unnecessary twists, and with remarkable precision; the atmosphere is tense and heady - tension which is, to a large extent, of a sexual nature, between the 2 lead characters; the music is engrossing and poignant; the acting and the dialogues are excellent - everything in the film works, and works to perfection.

Within the parameters of the genre, to me, this is a masterpiece. I am surprised the movie is not mentioned in anthologies more often and has not attained cult status. You will enjoy it. [The only regret one may have is that the title is not good: it does not do justice to the movie, which is intelligently constructed from start to finish and well-acted.]

This is a film about the battle of Stalingrad, during WWII, between the Germans and Axis armed forces, and the Soviet army, which resulted, as we know, in a humiliating defeat for the Nazis - a turning point in the war paving the way for the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany. The film is good and interesting, although it starts a bit slowly. All of it is seen through the eyes of a unit of German soldiers transferred from the (quiet) Italian front to the (apocalyptic) Russian front. The movie shows what they go through, and how they respond to events.

The film is not a masterpiece, and it is made in the classical - perhaps even predictable, up to a point - format of a WWII war film. But it is a good film. The biggest drawback, pointed out by other reviewers, is the atrocious dubbing, which makes the film sound like a shoddy TV drama at times: the (German) actors speak with a (pseudo-) Teutonic accent in English which truly grates and partly ruins the movie. We should be provided with a German copy with subtitles, and it is a great shame that it is not the case.

The film shows repeated atrocities perpetrated by German soldiers (burning down villages, executing civilians, etc.). On the other hand, it implies that most ordinary soldiers, also on the Eastern front, were not particularly anti-Russian or pro-Nazi; they may have been patriotic and won over by Nazi propaganda, but, at heart, they were just ordinary German soldiers dragged into the horrors of war. In other words, apart from a few characters who are clearly rabid and militant Nazis (one in particular), the other, regular troops are not ideologically motivated and even feel rather sorry, at times, for the fate meted out to Russian civilians. I must say I believe this is self-serving and not entirely honest or accurate historically - a rather German way of exonerating the regular troops. In other words, everyone was a victim of Nazism, including ordinary Germans, including ordinary German soldiers, who got forced to commit atrocities under Nazi command against their better judgment.

To set the record straight, we now know from many studies, books, etc. that this was not the case. The Wehrmacht (in particular the officers, but not only) were aware of what was going on, including the systematic atrocities committed on the Eastern front, against Slavs and Jews. In many cases, the regular army provided support to specialist units tasked with carrying out mass murder against Jewish communities, for instance (more particularly: see role of the Einsatzgruppen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen).

There is no doubt that the regular army was involved in war crimes on the Eastern front, and that the hatred for Slavs in general, and the Russians in particular, was deep-seated. As a result, it does not seem realistic to suggest that a majority of soldiers in the German army would have been shocked to see Russian civilians being treated like animals to be slaughtered by German forces across the board. It simply does not add up. I believe that many German soldiers, also from the regular army, would have been only too willing - eager even - to take part in the atrocities in question, as opposed to being forced to perform them by ideologically driven Nazi officers. To start with, the support for the Nazi party in 1930s Germany was massive. But of course, after Stalingrad, many Germans realised the writing was on the wall, and the entire satanical project would, sooner or later, collapse, as, thankfully, it did eventually. Only the convinced Nazis supported the regime to the bitter end; but the German armed forces carried on fighting - and fighting very hard on every front - to the very end, all the same.

I still recommend the film. The tank battle in the snow is especially memorable, even though it is also horrific.

This is a film like no other - or, rather, very few films I have seen are in any way comparable. It made me think of 'Eyes Wide Shut' by Stanley Kubrick. The movie is about a milliner, a young woman called Irisz Leiter, who arrives in Budapest from Trieste: she wants to work for the upmarket hat shop originally set up by her late parents. The shop is still named after them: Leiter. Irisz learns that she may have a brother and starts looking for him. In so doing, she uncovers various dark secrets that she is not meant to discover.

Irisz is an odd character: her face is blank and hardly expresses any emotions, but is weirdly intense and focused, almost as if she were a ghost from the past who has returned to the scene of crime in order to haunt the living. She is single-minded to the point of being stubborn. She will not take 'no' for an answer. Every time she is told not to do something or not to go somewhere, she does exactly what she has been advised not to do. She is driven by her purpose in a near-obsessive way. Mostly, all that matters to her, it seems, is to establish the truth - the truth of what goes on in the hat shop, the truth of the existence of her brother (or not), the truth of her past, etc. Nothing will deflect her from her quest, as she puts herself in great danger along the way.

Everything in the film is seen through her eyes and the camera moves about as she moves about Budapest - a large, dusty and chaotic city. We follow her in her quest. The film is often puzzling, but that is because the reality she is up against is confused and unclear. To a large extent, that is due to the fact the people she comes across are trying to hide things from her: dark and guilty secrets, shameful actions and practices, and so on. Mystery is at the heart of the film: her quest for the truth is constantly thwarted by men and women who are trying, for various reasons that are not always clear or obvious, to preserve the mystery at the heart of the story (or the mysteries, which are mixed with foreboding, guilt, shame and danger).

This creates a weird and, at times, almost dream-like atmosphere, reinforced by the frequently blurred and sepia images. The story of Irisz is set against the dying days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, right before the outbreak of World War One that was to finish it off. There is a sense of tension in the air, all the time, and a sense of a decadent society that is doomed. In her quest for the truth, Irisz plunges into the sinister underbelly of Hungarian society, pre-WWI, and of Budapest - a world of crime, sexual deviancy, lust and violence. There are gangs that also seem to have an anarchist and/or Hungarian nationalist (anti-Austrian) agenda. The confusion gives way to extreme violence in striking scenes that are filmed in a way that I have never seen before, I think: the way the film is shot, we feel the fear and the dread of those who are victimized, including Irisz. We almost feel it physically: it hits us and feels very real, unlike the average Hollywood action movie.

The film, in some ways, is probably a bit too long, and a bit too slow in places, and too opaque (although that is quite deliberate), with implausible aspects too. Having said all this, it is utterly fascinating even though, ultimately, the plot is not that complex. After you have seen the movie, you will think about it and try to make sense of it all. It is intriguing and captivating. So, a great film, and perhaps, in its own way, a masterpiece, in my view. Mostly, what is unforgettable, here, is the atmosphere the director succeeds in creating - something totally unique.