Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

This is a historical film that gives an excellent and fascinating insight into life in the USSR under Communism and, more particularly, in the days of J Stalin, just after the Second World War. It is also a love story and a romantic drama: the fate of one couple, specifically, is at the heart of the story. Their travails become emblematic of all that is wrong and tragic about the Stalinist system. (Incidentally, the action does not take place in Russia but in the Ukraine.)

In 1946, Stalin calls on all White Russian émigrés who had escaped to the West after the (Bolshevik) Russian Revolution of October 1917 to return to the USSR. It is presented to them as their duty and a great opportunity: they can help rebuild the devastated motherland in the wake of the Second World War. They are told they will be given Soviet citizenship, accommodation and jobs. Many Russians established outside the USSR decide to go back. Among this group is the émigré Doctor Alexei Golovin (Menshikov), with his French wife, Marie (Bonnaire), and their young son. When they arrive in the USSR, the Soviet, Communist dream soon turns sour...

The film is very good on many levels. The acting and the plot are very convincing and ring true. The reconstitution of life in the USSR at the time is excellent. We are gripped by the fate of the Franco-Russian couple at the heart of the story. As their predicament deepens, the movie somehow becomes a thriller, full of tension, suspense and surprises. Even if you are not particularly interested in the history of the USSR and Soviet Communism, you will find the story fascinating and moving. I strongly recommend this film.

In the 1980s, Rory O'Hara (Jude Law), who is English, and his American wife, Allison (Carrie Coon), live a very comfortable middle-class life in New York City with their children, Ben and Sam. But Rory is ambitious and restless. He feels the next step in his career must take him back to London, where he can work in the City again. (In the past, he was a very successful trader in London.) So, the entire family moves to a splendid mansion in Surrey. But things do not go entirely according to plan...

Jude Law is a good actor but it is Carrie Coon whose acting and personality steal the show. The story is narrated in realistic mode. It is not a thriller. It is not even, really, a sentimental drama. It is a 'social drama', you could stay, about ambition and greed (Rory's) and what it can do to a man and to his immediate family. The story line is remarkably simple and rather predictable. Mostly, there is no tension. It is all a bit flat. You are always waiting for something memorable and big to happen, and, every time, somehow, it is a bit of a damp squib. I am not too sure what is wrong with the film - overall, it works - but one thing is, in my view, absolutely clear: the characters lack depth (except perhaps Allison) and are not really interesting; the story lacks texture and relevance and is not really interesting; so, to conclude, it is not a bad film, but it is not a very interesting movie either. Somehow, it is not necessary.

The film has been hyped up way beyond what it actually means or does. Not that much actually happens in the first 60 mins (and it is about 1 hr 45 mins long!). In my personal opinion, it is not half as interesting as many commentators have claimed. I was disappointed: I expected much better - something more riveting and more complex. If you think about a film such as 'The Wolf of Wall Street', for instance, you realize that 'The Nest' is not in the same category: It is in Economy as opposed to Business class. Give it a miss.

In 1982, an Englishwoman, Anne (Julie Christie), starts an investigation into the life of her great-aunt, Olivia (Greta Scacchi), whose diary and letters she has inherited. Anne’s research into the life of Olivia takes her to India, where Olivia's life is told in flashbacks. In 1923, during the British Raj, Olivia has come to join her husband in Satipur, in central India. She has recently married Douglas Rivers (Christopher Cazenove), a civil servant in the district's colonial administration. So, the film moves in parallel on 2 levels: on the one hand, in the world of today (at the time of the release of the film, i.e. 1983), and, on the other, in the world of yesterday - the colonial society of 1920s India. The destinies of the 2 women, predictably, will come to mirror each other.

The movie explores what India means to Anne and what it meant to Olivia, through their interactions with the local people. The 2 stories and the 2 periods are, therefore, interspersed. What the movie is very good at is re-creating the atmosphere of the British Raj, and what it meant to be British in India at the time: we realize how the relations between the Europeans and the 'natives' were, inevitably, codified in the extreme.

Olivia, for her part, does not respect those rules and expectations: she is a transgressor. That is what makes her interesting, and Greta Scacchi is radiantly beautiful, playing in a subtle way the part of this seemingly shy and reserved very young Englishwoman, who, in fact, is nothing of the sort. The 2nd story, however, is far less interesting. It comes across as rather banal, somehow, as compared to the 1920s narrative. The contrast between the 2 plots makes this obvious: the story set in the 1980s has the tone and style of a TV drama rather than an insightful feature film; it is fairly predictable and lacking in depth or passion, in my view.

If Merchant Ivory had focused purely on Olivia's story, it could have been a great film. But the combination of the 2 stories (as per the novel that the film is based upon) does not really work, and the movie feels slow and overlong at times, mostly on account of the story of Anne. As a result, the movie is worth watching and very interesting in places, but, fundamentally, it is a bit disappointing. One could give it 2 stars instead of 3, if it were not for the very good acting on the part of Greta Scacchi and a few others. ['White Mischief' is a masterpiece, as compared to this movie: it is set in 1940s Kenya and far more compelling.]

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.